[grc] NPR Speak dissed in NY Times

[David Goodman]

I think Donna is correct in that "homogenization" has been going on for a
very long time and across both commercial and public media. But this trend
- as described in the Times - represents something else. A movement towards
"narrative storytelling" in all aspects of news and public affairs
broadcasting. In fact, very few in public radio ever use the phrase "public
affairs" anymore as if that will scare away millenials from listening.
Well, it's not working because NPR's audience continues to skew towards
people my age (55+). Another trend is towards the sort of frenetic speed
editing represented by shows such as Radio Lab. A counter movement has
emerged sometimes called "slow radio," that is being promoted most
prominently by producer Jay Allison.

Cheers,
dg


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Donna Dibianco <
communityradiogoddess at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thank you Frieda. This article points out, at least in my mind, why, no
> matter where in the nation, no matter what time it is, you hear just about
> the same thing on NPR stations. The stations suffering CPB cuts will, if
> they truly work on their station's sound, will fare well within their
> communities. As for stations who contribute to NPR and are receiving these
> cuts, I believe there are other distribution sources that will serve their
> needs without impeding their content offerings.
> I see this mass homogenization of US and NPR air-time a direct result of
> using a single formula for broadcasting, a cloning of "sound", if you will.
> We, as community broadcasters should run...run far away from
> "standardized" content.
>  Donna DiBiancoStation Start-up Specialist
> 503-960-1068
> http://grc2015.net/
>
> www.linkedin.com/pub/donna-dibianco
> www.facebook.com/communityradiogoddess
>
>
>
>      On Monday, November 2, 2015 6:41 PM, Frieda Werden <wings at wings.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>  Kate Jessica Raphael called attention to this article, in KPFA's Women's
> Magazine, and went on to share it on Facebook:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/fashion/npr-voice-has-taken-over-the-airwaves.html
>
> When I moved to Canada in 2002, I found a big contrast between the
> relatively conversational and heartfelt way people spoke on CBC and what I
> heard as a very abrupt, choppy, and not very inflected way of speaking on
> NPR.  I much preferred the CBC.
>
> Now, after 10 years of Conservative pressure on CBC radio - serious budget
> cuts, consequent layoffs and reductions in new programming - CBC radio's
> role as daylong friend of the listener has been destroyed. There are
> endless repetitions, and none of the gentle winding-down to more relaxed
> material at the end of the day that used to lead you to bedtime.
> Everything is all mixed up, and people on the air have been sounding pretty
> stressed.  Possibly this will be reversed or at least improved under the
> new government.
>
> Meanwhile, I've spent a fair amount of time in the US recently and started
> to listen to NPR again, including online - mostly WAMU and WUNC.
>
> What the author of the NYT article refers to as NPR-speak is, he says, the
> trend to imitate Ira Glass.  I  have never even heard a whole episode of
> This American Life, just a few snippets; but the difference in NPR today
> doesn't sound like this author's description to me.  What I noticed was
> that  NPR news style, especially, seems more natural-sounding, a bit more
> expressive and less grumpy.
>
> The article says the shift is due to "more amateurs in broadcasting," but I
> would hazard that it's due to more professionals in broadcasting, but from
> more regions of the country.  I remember when I was at NPR in the early
> '80s, a job came open for a Midwest regional editor and someone told me
> that I wouldn't want that job because it consisted of rejecting and
> discouraging contributors from outside the major cities of the east and
> west.  Now I'm hearing deeply informative and well produced news features
> from various parts of the country - not amateur at all, in my opinion.
>
> The change may well be attributable to a few decades of a different funding
> model for NPR.  Until about a year after I worked there, NPR got its money
> directly from CPB.  In 1984, when I started covering public broadcasting
> for Current, CPB was putting a lot of pressure on NPR, and so NPR changed
> its funding model - having the CPB money go to member stations, in the form
> of grants for national programming - national programming meaning either
> programming they acquired from NPR or programming they produced themselves
> for distribution.
>
> This broadened the prospects for more producers in various parts of the
> country to be paid for production.  30 years on, that seems to have made a
> difference.
>
> I'm wondering if there is any argument to be made for community stations
> that are losing their CPB grants, if they contribute to national programs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frieda Werden, Series Producer
> WINGS: Women's International News Gathering Service www.wings.org
> _______________________________________________
> grc mailing list
> grc at maillist.peak.org
> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> grc mailing list
> grc at maillist.peak.org
> http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
>



-- 
I.B.I.S. Radio
Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA
*ibisradio.org <http://ibisradio.org>*