In a culture that is increasingly colonized by commercial dynamics, it is important to observe how pervasive commercialization has become, particularly with respect to institutions intended to eschew such effects. This study is a longitudinal content analysis of National Public Radio (NPR) news stories over the last decade that examines the content of the stories on its flagship programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered to assess whether the network has changed, presenting a more commercial rationality. Research has demonstrated that a more market-driven quest for revenue has impacted programming, rendering it more formatted and homogeneous. Amid a decline in government funding, NPR has further embraced a programming model reflecting a more commercial tone in its news content. The data from the content analysis reveal mixed and tempered results, indicating some movement toward more commercially driven content in certain areas, particularly with a decrease in the amount of stories featuring diversity content and an increase in the frequency of promotional content on All Things Considered in 2010. The implications of these findings speak to the larger issue advanced by Critical Theory concerning the preservation of the marketplace of ideas in the United States.
AllanKenneth. 2013. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2.
BarsamianDavid. 2001. The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
3.
BuechlerSeven M. (2000). Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
BurnsG.1997. “Narrow Your Station’s Appeal? Why Not?” PRPD Newsletter, August, pp. 1–8.
5.
Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. 1967. Public Television: A Program for Action. New York: Bantam.
6.
CollinsMary. 1993. National Public Radio: The Cast of Characters. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.
7.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2002. “Public Broadcasting Revenue Fiscal Year 2000.” Final Report. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
8.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2006. “Public Broadcasting Revenue Fiscal Year 2005.” Final Report. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
9.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2011. “Public Broadcasting Revenue Fiscal Year 2010.” Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
10.
CroteauDavidHoynesWilliam. 2006. The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
11.
Current: The Public Telecommunications Newspaper. 1997. “Stations Take the PRPD Pledge: To Boost Core Audience 4% a Year.” November3, p. 2.
EnglemanRalph. 1996. Public Radio and Television in America: A Political History. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14.
Garcia-AlvarezErciliaKatz-GerroTallyLopez-SintasJordi. 2007. “Deconstructing Cultural Omnivorousness 1981-2002: Heterology in Americans’ Musical Taste Preferences.” Social Forces86(2):417–43.
15.
GiddensAnthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
HabermasJurgen. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
19.
HabermasJurgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
HorkheimerM.AdornoT.1969. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum.
21.
HoynesWilliam. 1993. Public Television for Sale: Media, Market, and the Public Sphere. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
22.
HoynesWilliam. 1999. Democracy, Privatization, and Public Television. Peace Review11:33–39.
23.
KaidLynda LeeWadsworthAnne Johnston. 1989. Content Analysis in Measurement of Communication Behavior197–217, edited by LemertPhilipBarkerLarry. New York: Longman.
24.
KellnerDouglas. 1990. Television and the Crisis of Democracy. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.
25.
KrippendorfKlaus. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26.
LaceyStephenRiffeDaniel. 1996. “Sampling Error and Selecting Intercoder Reliability Samples for Nominal Content Categories.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly73:963–73.
27.
LandisJ. RichardKochGary G.1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics33(1):159–74.
28.
LedbetterJ.1997. Made Possible By . . . : The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States. New York: Verso.
29.
LookerThomas. 1995. The Sound and the Story: NPR and the Art of Radio. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
McArthyJohn D.ZaldMayer N.1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology82:1212–41.
31.
MillsC. Wright. 1956. Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
SkorniaHarry J.1967. Review of Public Television: A Program for Action. A Report of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television by James R. Killian. Communication Review15(3):304–307.
39.
StavitskyAlan G.1995. “Guys in Suits with Charts: Audience Research in U.S. Public Radio.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media39:177–89.
40.
StemlerSteven E.TsaiJessica. 2008. “Best Practices in Interrater Reliability: Three Common Approaches.” in Best Practices in Content Analysis29–49, edited by OsborneJason W.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
StoreyJohn. 2006. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. 4th ed.Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
42.
The Economist. 2011. “Radio Interference: National Public Radio.” U.S. Edition, April9. 33–33.
43.
TinsleyHoward A.WeissDavid J.1975. “Interrater Reliability and Agreement of Subjective Judgments.” Journal of Counseling Psychology4:358–76.
44.
van EijckKoenLievensJohn. 2008. “Cultural Omnivorousness as a Combination of Highbrow, Pop, and Folk Elements: The Relations between Taste Patterns and Attitudes Concerning Social Integration.” Poetics36(2):217–42.
