Customer Reviews

NPR: The Trials and Triumphs of National Public Radio

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I'll confess that NPR (the book, not the radio network) was not quite what I expected. I anticipated a semi-lightweight book that combined weighty historical events with a deft, humorous hand, sort of like NPR itself. Opening it up, I looked forward to reading misty-eyed reminisces with Scott Simon and Terri Gross, or Bob Edwards and Susan Stamberg relating their experiences during the early days of NPR.

Nope. This book may be a relatively quick read (130 pages, not counting the extensive end-notes), but it is a dense, meticulously researched, and quite serious history of the genesis and evolution of NPR. Particular attention is paid to the political processes that spawned it, as well as to the funding and leadership crises and challenges that it has experienced.

In short, while this isn't the fun stuff, it is the "brass tacks" important stuff.

While on-air personalities are not ignored, they get no more text allotted to them than NPR producers, news directors, and human resource managers. Thus, NPR (the book) is a non-profit corporate history. As someone with a high tolerance for the minutiae, I liked it. And others may as well, provided they know what they are getting into.

First, the good: McCauley's research is admirable, and if what you're looking for is a history of NPR as a network/institution, this book excels in that respect.

However, I take issue with McCauley's general approach. From its first pages, it is clear that he is a cheerleader for NPR. Which is fine - a lot of people love NPR, and I'm not of the belief that scholars should mask their passions. However, McCauley's love of the network produces a rather biased narrative.

There is an overwhelming lack of critical views in the book. While McCauley occasionally raises criticisms that circulate about NPR, he quickly dismisses them with little reasoning or support. This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the book. I'm not asking for McCauley to advocate such criticisms, but I at least expect a project such as this to address them thoroughly, even if to construct a well reasoned counterclaim. In this respect, McCauley inadequately addresses NPR's alleged catering to elite, upper middle class audiences, acceptance of corporate underwriting and address/inclusion of minority audiences and programming. (In the book's final chapter, McCauley essentially argues for the ghettoization of minority audiences by creating entirely new NPR networks, which he concedes is financially unreasonable.) There is also no address over the highly controversial position NPR took against the LPFM license beginning in 1999.

Thus, the book paints a rather rosy picture of NPR without really investigating the issues. But as I said, it does provide a concise institutional history, and that is the source of this book's value.

No scholar or writer knows more about the history of National Public Radio than Michael McCauley, and his book is packed with fascinating tidbits and shrewd insights about an institution many of us are addicted to. Very little of substance has been written about NPR, and this book, which contains fragments from scores of interviews the author conducted with NPR insiders, is the place to begin. The footnotes also make good reading. --Scott Sherman

McCauley's book started off strong with a detailed documentation of NPR's first 25-30 years. Without focusing too much on the personalities behind the stories, he does a very good job discussing the network's ups and downs - the portion on "Project Independence" is the best I've ever seen on the topic. The book is a relatively easy read as the other commenter mentioned (130 pages with about 45 pages of bibliographic information), plus McCauley's writing style is neither too "academic" or pedestrian.

That said, the final chapter ("A civilized voice") seemed out of place. For me, it was a rambling clunker compared to chapters 1-4, which were written neatly and cleanly. McCauley offers some suggestions for NPR to survive in the next several decades, but goes from one point to another while not really providing any depth or detail in his suggestions.

The particular bone I have to pick is with HD Radio technology. McCauley pays it very little lip service earlier in the book and then never brings it up again. Why? Why not use HD's multiple channels to help put diverse messages and content out there for NPR to possibly gather larger audiences? While I am not a huge advocate of HD Radio technology (I think it has some very exclusionary features), anyone who denies its existence and eventual prominence isn't paying attention.

The other problem I have with chapter 5 is McCauley's seemingly "oh well" attitude toward using public radio as a tool for diversity. Rather than challenge the status quo of NPR programming and operations, McCauley concludes with Bruce Hornsby wrap up ("that's just the way it is"). After all, since the majority of NPR's listeners (and the ones who donate the most) are college educated, why even try to reach those who are not? I guess this hit a sore spot with me since I have a strong tendency to argue that radio has the potential to be the most democratic form of mass media in the world - especially more so than the internet. The problem is that NPR (and PRI for that matter) squelch the democratic potential of radio by sticking with only one or two specific audiences and then saying, "someone else will play that format". Call me naive, but that just doesn't wash for me, especially in the public radio environment. Bring back the checkerboard!

At the end of the day, McCauley did an excellent job of bringing NPR's history to life, without gazing so much at the "stars". To his credit as well, McCauley doesn't spend too much time staring at his belly button in this book, pontificating via the stereotypical academic tome-style of writing. This is still a very good book for the documented history alone, and should be read by anyone who is interested in NPR and/or conducting hard-core public radio research.

Excise the last 35 pp., which are footnotes and sources, and what remains is a rather compressed study of a major network and its history. Regular listeners of NPR will resonate with McCauley's references to specific programs and announcers (including photos) throughout the years as well as be reminded of the controversies, obstacles, challenges, political attacks that have dogged a public network whose goal of being "a civilized voice in a civilized community"--a clear alternative to the commercial media--will strike many as a resounding success. Others may find such a stated goal as overly modest, especially for a network that also acts as an impartial, unbiased "window" unto the world at large and at home--offering information and entertainment that is far more diverse and universal that what the word "civilized" has (unfortunately) come to signify in modern "populist" America. And, of course, some on the fringes will be determined to see the book as more "leftist propaganda" from a liberal voice among the insidious forces that presumably control the media (fortunately, the absurdity of that last statement is recognized by most thoughtful Americans for what it is).

I may be more than a little Pollyannaish with that statement. During their respective post-election press conferences on Nov. 3, our contrite President said he planned to work for consensus, assuring the American people: "I do believe there is hope for civility; I also believe there is hope for progress." The vindictive Senate minority leader, on the other hand, said: "The American people have made their wishes clear. Our top priority for the next two years should be to deny President Obama a 2nd term. The people we elected tried to dismantle the free market. We will stop the liberal onslaught." While the President indicated he would "sit down with the Congressional leaders" to address problems like the deficit, jobs and taxes on the middle class, the Senate minority leader said flatly said they would work harder to ensure taxes are be raised on nobody and that if the administration wants cooperation, "it will have to move in our direction." Going up against that kind of righteousness, power of manipulation (for example, selling the 9/11 and Iraq connection as "truth"), and unlimited corporate coffers, it would be difficult for some of us as readers to be as civil and well-mannered in our reportage as the author. In fact, in today's political climate it might seem difficult to understate the threats to the survival of NPR.

In brief, readers should not expect a conclusive argument on behalf of NPR or a blueprint for public radio's future. The book is meant to inform, not provoke. McCauley measures his language carefully and makes certain that any reportage of events and facts as well as personal claims are fully supportable. Still, like some other reviewers, I would welcome more specifics about NPR's precise connection with its sponsors and benefactors, if only to refute the old and lingering allegations of "liberal bias" or, for that matter, to suggest ways of divorcing the network from such vested interests, be they commercial or political.

Still, the book provides exactly what the title promises, which should be sufficient to satisfy the majority of curious readers. If McCauley seems too cautious for some, too hesitant to come out with opinions--ranging from indictments to a list of proposed changes--that extra measure of care--of "civility," if you will--might be seen as a reflection of how NPR has gone about its business since the beginning--whether during the friendliest, most prosperous of times or during years that might be characterized as economically hard and politically fractious. The book provides a calm and rational, civilized and somewhat circumspect history and overview while still casting an undeniably positive light on NPR, its history, its dynamic role in the present, and its potential to be an ever stronger, more vital servant of an expanding national and international community. While keeping the listener abreast of the times, NPR still manages to remain a reliable "media bulwark," standing for abiding truths and values in a digitalized "mediascape" that can change faster than some of us can (or care to) follow.