Friday, January 28, 2005
(6:04 PM) | Brad:
I Know Not What I Do ... Or Do I?
This may have something to do with my increasingly antagonistic spirit toward life in general, my sense of being 'oppressed' (as one friend described it), but I really am coming to hate National Public Radio. Fair enough, you say. Indeed, there are a couple of common reactions to this: (a) You're right, they're liberal bastards; or (b) You're right, they're not liberal enough bastards. Or, I suppose there is also (c) You're right, where's Avril and Usher? Now, I'll disregard (c) for now, but should probably explain why I think its equally valid to dismiss (a) and (b).My problem is that, no matter what they like to think of themselves or what its diehard listeners want to believe, NPR is absolutely vacuous. It is, I think, perhaps even worse than Fox News -- because at least there the vacuity is so readily apparent. (It's as though Brit Hume is telling the viewer, 'Don't believe any of this. We're only doing this for the money.' NPR, however, hides itself behind the façade of being 'commercial free'.) There may be no paid advertisements as such, but to think it outside of commercial interest is overwhelmingly naïve. Case in point: like most commodities, what you 'paid for' (metaphorically speaking in this case) is not what you actually receive. When most of us listen to NPR, we're 'paying for' a more robust presentation of world and culture than what is offered on our Clear Corp.-dominated airwaves. What we receive, though, is an ephemeral hint of the world and culture, normally of cultures and worlds not our own -- somewhere out there to be appreciated, to be incorporated into our spectrum of what can be considered entertaining (Iranian cinema, Icelandic pop, etc.). Most importantly, though, we receive the temporary satisfaction of being a responsible, discerning consumer -- 'It's certainly better than Fox News and CNN, right?!'
My problem is not that these things are offered. I prefer a band like, say, Sigur Rós to Kelly Clarkson, and am happy there is a radio station will occasionally play such music. I prefer longish news pieces, wherein details and nuance can be fleshed out, over CNN soundbites and news tickers that give the latest tragedy the look of the latest market tip. No, my problem is, in essence, that what NPR is really offering is the equivalent of kissing your sister in a Josie Maran disguise. She's still your sister, you incestuous bastard.
For instance, earlier this week I was listening to my local classical music station, which is also a NPR affiliate, and they played a quick promo for an upcoming five-part series from 'All Things Considered' on different people's opinions about Social Security reform. You know, because different perspectives on social issues is good. It's healthy. It helps us understand one another better, so that we might all stay anesthetized .... I mean, get along nicely. My thought was: what about a five-part series in which numbers are crunched, philosophical arguments presented, and debate facilitated (rather than just suggested or hinted at) about Social Security reform. Do we really need more anecdotalizing of major social issues? Do we really need to be even more 'meta-' about our political discourse -- i.e., how does issue X play to constituent Y? Does this really help? Is tolerance really so helpful when we don't even understand or own the terms in which it is even possible?
Moreover, the reactions I cited above, (a) and (b), are not really as distinct as they might appear. I suspect that those who don't think NPR is liberal enough object to the presence of any conservative perspective at all ... or at least that the nuances of the liberal agenda are not made explicit enough ... that what it gains in ideological balance, it loses in actual substance. The twist, of course, is that the liberal wants NPR to respond to what they perceive as conservative hegemony in media. Most do not simply want the dialectical opposite of Fox; indeed, they'll say they want 'truth' to be presented; but, in the end, this is because the liberal perspective is in fact true and/or more reasonable. I think that while there is something to be said for this criticism, it misses a greater point that actually brings it closer to its conservative counterpart. Namely, that insofar as NPR presents itself as, in effect, above the liberal/conservative fray, to being more intelligent and 'fresh' and 'outside the box', by pretending to be it -- i.e., unfettered news and culture, at its noncommercial freest, NPR effectly conflates the cause and the object of the liberal's desire. She desires NPR both for and because of its false promise of, what else to call it, surplus-value; making it, as such, the ultimate fetish-commodity.
Which is, by extension, is another explanation why, despite my growing antagonism to it, I continue to listen nevertheless.
