The implicit "both-sides-ism" trolling in the "viewpoint diversity" argument for relevancy is just self-serving and somewhat laughable. There is indeed a market - a very tiny but quite wealthy and therefore lucractive market - for professional scriveners and opinion-piece pushers. Reason magazine is a fine example of this. The relative audience size of Reason vs. NPR is alone sufficient argument - prima face - that this is an entirely hollow critique. NPR's editorial standards - in not pursuing obvious push-stories like the Hunter Biden story - are a very large part of what keep it relevant and important. Not all opinions are of equal quality, as social media amply demonstrates.

I am a long time public radio listener and I am a Millennial/borderline Gen Z generation. I mainly consume public radio through the podcast versions on my iPhone podcast app. I started off in agreement with the resolution that Public Radio is still relevant because many of my young friends are listeners and the content generally remains informative and diverse. But Kmele put his finger on something I have gradually noticed over the course of the last 6 years. An increasing focus on DEI stories and a lack of focus on presenting complex problems with strong opposing arguments for ALL viewers to consider. With the election of Donald Trump there was a perceivable decline in the objectivity of political stories and there was a doubling down of left leaning content being produced. I am a left leaning moderate but the way I find trust in media is when I feel like both sides of an issue are aired so I have the chance to figure out which side of the coin I am really on. Every point Kmele made hit the nail on the head for me as a long time, politically moderate, public radio fan. The public radio industry would do well to heed his warning of an increasing echo chamber setup for public radio media. Public radio is still relevant to me but it is less relevant than it was 6 years ago. I would listen longer and more often if I didn't feel like NPR had a clear left-leaning agenda and instead presented more opposing arguments to every story. Thank you IQ2 for coming up with such a great motion, finding two strong debaters, and promoting civil discourse on public radio across the United States.

I am so pleased that you had this debate. I have been a strong supporter and listener of public radio for almost 40 years. In the past several years I realized that both my local station and the national chain has failed to deliver a lot of news/views that don’t fit or support the most liberal (progressive) agenda. I count myself as a liberal but I feel betrayed that the station that I loved (past tense) so much has failed me. They are so obviously caught up with being woke that they spend a lot of energy navel gazing instead of doing their job - providing listeners with a good diversity of news (even when it may reflect badly on progressive ideas or politics) and views. I guess they don’t trust their listeners to make the “right” choice. I have found new and much more diverse sources of news. I have cancelled my monthly donation to my local station. I can barely listen to public radio anymore because I no longer feel I can trust public radio. Kmele Foster did public radio a huge favor by telling the honest truth. Maybe in time I will come back around if some real change happens.

I felt the condescension exhibited by the Against side in their initial statement was off-putting. Calling DEI metrics "adorable" felt outside the norm of what I expected from a civil debate on IQ2.