Like how this week they interviewed a black man who when asked if his young daughter's nascent understanding of the history of racial relations in this country might alienate some of their white acquaintances and he replied "I don't really care about the emotions of the white man in this country; perhaps they should spend some time thinking about things they enjoy that no one else in this nation can."

That's not daring to present a viewpoint at which the show's white bread audience might bristle? What about the show that was generously interpreted as positing that perhaps certain individuals were on disability insurance because they had been left behind by the economy and this isn't a judgment of them but rather of our lack of any other option for those individuals? The not-generous interpretation was that it was shining a light on disability fraud, essentially punching down. I guess that wasn't a challenging issue for the listeners, either.

Or the whole debacle with Daisey. Yeah, they just glossed right over that.

>That's not daring to present a viewpoint at which the show's white bread audience might bristle?

Did you bristle at it?

>What about the show that was generously interpreted as positing that perhaps certain individuals were on disability insurance because they had been left behind by the economy and this isn't a judgment of them but rather of our lack of any other option for those individuals? I guess that wasn't a challenging issue for the listeners, either.

Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy?

> Did you bristle at it?

Point taken.

> Was it a challenging issue for you? I.e., prior to the episode, you believed that everyone on disability insurance was lazy?

No, but I did generally assume they had something so debilitating they were incapable of working. The show basically pointed out that some doctors in areas of high unemployment were signing off on disabilities for people who basically just had outdated skill sets. My impression was that in lieu of any real progressive safety net (basic income, etc.) citizens have started leaning heavily on disability insurance.

I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do some Googling to see the other side of the argument about that episode.

Also, why is this being discussed at all? This (and shows like it) are basically Chicken Soup for the Soul in podcast form. They're emotional filler but I've fallen for discussing them like they should be some sort of hard-hitting journalism or policy discussions. In a discussion of media responsibility, does Ira really deserve to be the first head on the chopping block?

> "I don't really care about the emotions of the white man in this country; perhaps they should spend some time thinking about things they enjoy that no one else in this nation can."

Thats exactly the sort of thing that I imagine NPR listeners would like to hear, so they can nod their heads and feel progressive

This American Life is not an NPR show.

Do you listen to TAL much? I ask because if you find it bland when you do, I can't imagine you listening to it much, and if you don't listen to it much, I'm not sure I trust your appraisal to be accurate. Not every episode is interesting to me, so I skip some, but others I find extremely interesting (Radiolab, Planet Money and Freakonomics are my bread and butter NPR shows). To me that just indicates that have a fairly wide set of topics.

Generally I find they try to go fairly deep on both sides of topic where they can, or at least put disclaimers in that there may other explanations for what they are reporting. The recent multi-part set on police is a good example, they spent a fair amount of time talking about the police perspective on some recent events, and how and why it diverges from public opinion. To me, assuming it's pandering to a "middlebrow" audience would have me believing in a much more informed public than I think actually exists.

>if you find it bland when you do, I can't imagine you listening to it much, and if you don't listen to it much, I'm not sure I trust your appraisal to be accurate

I've heard enough of it to form a decent impression. I don't agree with that kind of argument, otherwise no one would ever be able to criticize any piece of media for any reason.

I tried to make it clear that my statement was predicated on whether or not you've listened to it much. Not because it's impossible to be correct in your appraisal of something with little exposure, but the weight I give your opinion is a function of both your exposure to the topic, and the variation the topic exhibits. I think TAL has quite a bit of variation in message, topic and to a lesser degree quality. I don't think limited exposure will, in the average case, produce very accurate opinions about it. Of course, I don't truly know how much exposure you've had (which I also tried to allude to by using "I can't imagine," which is meant to be left open for correction).

>Radiolab, Planet Money and Freakonomics are my bread and butter NPR shows

It's interesting that you list those three (excellent) shows as examples. Only Planet Money is actually produced or distributed by NPR themselves. Radiolab and Freakonomics are both productions of WNYC.

I imagine it's not quite as simple as that. I imagine NPR member stations that broadcast those programs kick back some portion of their donations/underwriting to help fund them, and that gets passed along to WNYC/Radiolab/Freakonomics. I know there are some programs that bill themselves as joint ventures of the local station and NPR, PRI, or APB.