NPR versus the Washington Post

Am I better informed when I drive to work, and listen to NPR "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered"? Or when I read the Washington Post on the Metro? Both have their benefits.

In support of the paper, I can get much more in-depth through 24 paragraphs of a story, whereas on the radio it would be more limited, more like three or four paragraphs. And I definately get more "local" news, local being Alexandria, VA, and Fairfax County, VA, not just general happenings of Washington, DC, which gets more play in the national media, but has less relevence for me. Plus, the comics, Get Fuzzy and others, and the crossword puzzle on the way home. It's a race to see if I can finish the puzzle before the train reaches my station.

On the other hand, NPR covers a lot more news items, so I have information about a lot of different issues and news of the day, but not as deep a knowledge. This can give you a broader view of how everything fits together.

Also, when in the car listening to NPR, I listen to stories I might not read about in the paper. I'm not perfect, and I know I only have a limited time to read, and I won't finish the paper, so I pick and choose stories that are interesting to me. When you're listening to the radio, you have the choice of continuing to listen, changing the station, or turning the radio off. Music radio is abominable around here, all urban or top-forty, and packed with commercials. Talk radio is even worse, either short snippits of news, commercials, and weather and traffic on the eight's, or bloviations of the pundit class. So, you keep listening to NPR, and maybe pick up some things you might not have known otherwise.

I wish I could do both. But being underground is not conducive to radio signals, so I cannot listen on the Metro. I wish I could download an MP3 of NPR's broadcast into a player and bring it with me on the train, or to the gym. (See entry below.)