Glorifying the Inglorious

As one of my primary sources for understanding the pulse of the nation and what is going on in the world I listen to National Public Radio (NPR).  As a counterpoint I also, of course, listen very carefully to my Church leaders (who are highly informed regarding social issues and cultural trends) and the Holy Spirit with which I am gifted; I also subscribe to a national newspaper as well as my local county newspaper.  And I also do a lot of general reading.

In listening to NPR for nearly a decade I have strongly mixed feelings about its programming.  On the one hand I appreciate their news clips and the breadth of the many interesting topics its programs explore. But on the other hand I find the content of many of its shows featuring interviewed—and interviewing—personalities, topics, and treatment of social issues and behavior to be highly slanted with liberal bias, and demonstrative of a tacit support for the iconoclastic. 

Notwithstanding the high-sounding principles of fairness and impartiality they claim in their NPR Ethics Handbook (which I have carefully read), the pro-liberal agenda in their programming is strongly evident.  Traditional values, especially Christian values, are given little treatment; indeed, they are dismissed, disregarded and disparaged.  For a social institution that is partially funded by public tax-payer money (currently 4.6% of their operating revenue) I find this unacceptable.

Here is the problem:  I am genuinely concerned with the direction this country is heading with regard to the collapse of our moral foundation—especially family values.  National media, such as NPR contributes to that.  NPR interviews, for example, especially in programs such as On Point with host Tom Ashbrook, and Fresh Air with Terri Gross, seem very sympathetic with the many guests they choose to interview whose lifestyles are far from the norm or depart radically from the traditional cultural ideal. Their focus is frequently on people such as these who represent lifestyles or viewpoints that are at variance with the principles that made this a once-great (and good) nation. It is evident that the NPR producers do this deliberately.  The problem is that the naïve and susceptible, such as our youth and young adults, are vulnerable to this approach to social engineering. And it is this population that is particularly suffering. 

It is a rare interview or subject explored that I see, from their mission statement, programming “[providing] content that meet the highest standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression.” To the contrary, I do see (also from their Handbook) that they “make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in our stories.” Is it any wonder why convicted felons, drug addicts, sexual deviants, people with failed lives and social iconoclasts might get, from a more conservative public,  “criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions” when they have brought these woes upon themselves?  “We minimize undue harm and take special care with those who are vulnerable or suffering,” they say.  Harm to whom?  To the real victims, to a struggling public, to impressionable young people who may be listening in? No. But NPR certainly doesn’t want to offend the poor sexual predators, addicts, thieves, non-contributors and deviants.  “ We strive to report and produce stories that transcend our biases and treat all views fairly.”  Oh?  Hardly.  I invite a more careful look. 

In my doctoral studies I used a statistical social-science instrument called ‘content analysis.’  Simplified it simply means to classify ‘categories-treated’ and count the number of times terms or concepts that meet the criteria pertaining to that which is being studied is addressed.  In short, what is being emphasized? 

For example, say a radio program is interviewing a book author.  Do a content analysis on the interview by counting up the number of times the interviewer or interviewee brings up or elaborates on anti-social or counter-culture or off-center criteria such as protecting criminal’s ‘rights,’ or justifying deviant sexual behavior, or pro-abortion, or promotion of illegal substances, or sympathizing with the self-created dysfunctional individual, etc.  And then contrast that with discussion that focus’ on positive concepts or exemplary people such as that encouraged by the Christian ideal expressed by the apostle Paul:

“Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” (Philippians 4:8)

This, I would like to see much more of. 

But to glorify the inglorious, to promote the prurient?  Yes, I do have a problem with that.  And so does a culture that embraces it. 

When you tune in to NPR for news, be prepared for what you are going to get in far too much of their other programming.