Does Kim Kardashian belong on NPR?

A recent interview with Kim Kardashian on National Public Radio's "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" outraged some listeners.

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Kim Kardashian signs copies of her book 'Selfish' at Barnes & Noble in New York.

A recent National Public Radio interview with reality superstar Kim Kardashian has provoked outrage and indignation among loyal NPR listeners, and prompted the question: Who belongs in the NPR sphere? 

"Had I heard your Saturday show before I made my gift, I wouldn't have donated," Kerry Castano, of Burlington, Vt., wrote to the NPR ombudsman. "The Kardashians represent much of what is wrong with America today – and I listen to NPR to get AWAY from Kardashian-like garbage." 

The eleven-minute interview, in which Ms. Kardashian discussed potential baby names, recently renting out the Staples Center for her husband Kanye West's birthday, and her new book Selfish – a 448 page book filled with photos of herself – was featured on the weekly NPR humor show Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! 

"Of course we tried to book her, because she's huge. She is a favorite in our lives," Michael Danforth, the executive producer of WWDTM, told NPR ombudsman Elizabeth Jensen. 

Mr. Danforth said Kardashian was "a totally normal booking. We always try to book people who are culturally relevant." He admitted that the production team "did not anticipate" the strong protests from listeners. 

WWDTM guest host Mike Pesca, who interviewed Kardashian, addressed the backlash in a podcast for Slate. 

"There is a type of NPR listener – and it’s a type of media consumer, it goes way beyond NPR – that defines themselves by what they are not," Mr. Pesca wrote. "To some extent, we all do this. The bands we like, the foods we don’t eat. But with them, it’s a much huger deal. They’re closed-minded, they use affiliation with NPR or Fox or Christian Broadcasting not to experience a larger outside world but to congratulate themselves on the purity of their own world. Insularity does not wind up being an unfortunate by-product of striving for equality – it is the point of the choice in the first place." 

Pesca's podcast drew strongly-worded comments from Slate readers, many of whom claimed that they didn't have a problem with Kardashian herself but felt that NPR, which they consider "one of the few places listeners can turn to for in-depth ideas" rather than "gossip, bling, and booty," was not the appropriate forum for discussing "celebrity nothingness." 

"My objection to having Kim Kardashian on NPR has nothing to do with snobbery. I follow quite a lot of celebrity gossip and don't mind saying so," writes Slate commenter J. Sarayda Shapiro. "But if I opened my latest copy of Consumer Reports and found a story on Kim Kardashian instead of new product ratings, I would be quite upset."

Other listeners believe it is possible for the two cultural worlds to co-exist in public radio. Emmanuel Hapsis, a producer with NPR affiliate KQED, blogged this week that he went to grad school and read Ulysses in its entirety – and also keeps up with the Kardashians. 

"Learning that information didn’t cancel out my degrees or any of my brain cells," he writes. "Neither did listening to this radio segment. Kim Kardashian is a part of our culture, whether we like it or not. She doesn’t have the power to destroy you or your favorite public radio show. But she could probably school some of us on how to lighten up."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.