State of the World from NPR State of the World

I’m a little confused … did you change the name of the State of Ukraine podcast to, instead, State of the World? Or was State of the World a pre-existing podcast, and you folded State of Ukraine into it?

All I know is I used to listen to State of Ukraine, and as of today (2013.10.12) it appears instead to be named State of the World. So if I continue listening to episodes chronologically, will I be hearing only State of Ukraine podcasts up until the episodes of October 2023? or will I be hearing old State of Ukraine episodes interpolated with old State of the World podcasts?

And is the implication of the name-change that Russia’s war on Ukraine is over?? Because clearly it is not. Or is the implication that war is simply the state of the world now? That would seem like an unduly pessimistic assumption on your part.

I guess I’m a little annoyed. There’s probably some bureaucratic, money-driven, “engagement and retention” rationalization for the name-change … but why not leave this podcast’s title alone? If you wanted a broader podcast of international news coverage, why not roll out that podcast while keeping this one as it is?

Just baffling. Love the journalism, but all that your bean-counters and marketing strategists do invariably results in listener annoyance.

State of Ukraine was an excellent podcast that kept listeners up to date on a variety of topics pertaining to life in Ukraine and Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine. NPR rebranded the podcast as State of the World, which provides far less information about Ukraine. World events are important, of course, but NPR has many other ways to share that information with listeners. I only listen to episodes about Ukraine, and wish there was more coverage.

This is exemplary of literally the worst kind of reporting. The reporter not just paints an event in the color of her own views but also omits most important facts. Thus deliberately trying to incite animosity. Supreme Court of India is a fairly apolitical body and for this reason regarded highly by all communities. When this court decided on giving this land to Hindu’s for the construction of temple, it looked at the hard facts and not just what a group would claim as suggested in this report. Archeological survey of India had conducted extensive excavation of the site and found ancient Hindu relics pointed to this being the site of an ancient Hindu temple built on the site where Ram( a Hindu deity) was born. In 16th century that temple was destroy by Muslim invader and a mosque was constructed on top of the rubble. most remarkable in the construction of this temple is the continuous communication and support of Muslim religious leaders. They accepted that it is was one of the holiest site of Hinduism just like Mecca is for the Muslims. besides the mosque that stood on top of it was never used for prayers. That town has several other mosques that were used for worship by the Muslim population. (Reports suggestion that Muslims will have to go far away to pray is baseless). How the two communities came together for the construction of this temple is exemplary. It’s hard to understand the true motive behind reports characterization of this temple as controversial. Regardless, this report is in bad taste if not in bad intentions.