[grc] NPR Speak dissed in NY Times

Tue Nov 3 11:15:09 PST 2015

So, Tom, what ideas on the future of radio did the audience cheer for the
most?

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Tom Worster <tom at spinitron.com> wrote:

> On Oct 27th Larry Miller mentioned "NPR Voice" while introducing Anya
> Grundman in the The Future of Radio panel at the Future of Music Policy
> Summit in DC. I think he referred to Teddy Wayne's article.
>
> It was a really swell session. The enthusiasm of the audience,
> interrupting with many bursts of applause and support, was unlike any
> other panel. I sure got the sense of enthusiasm for broadcasting that
> connects with the audience as humans (as opposed to algorithms like
> pandora and spotify) with programming relevant to their lives.
>
> Frieda, to your question about what has changed in the last 30 years, I
> think the way to understand NPR is to follow the money (now heavily
> corporate[1]) and remember Pournelle's Iron Law[2]. I agree with you about
> what Wayne gets wrong in that catty column in NYT's, and let's be clear,
> Fashion & Style section. I like the irony of this exercise in NYT smarm
> calling out NPR and others on smarm. But I can't take Wayne seriously if
> his idea of "radical" is the difference between Ira Glass and Walter
> Cronkite.
>
> I think successful community broadcasters will be those concerned with
> matters of greater significance than "NPR Voice".
>
> [1] http://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
> [2]
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 11/2/15, 8:40 PM, "Frieda Werden" <grc-bounces at maillist.peak.org
> <javascript:;> on
> behalf of wings at wings.org <javascript:;>> 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-air
> >waves.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 <javascript:;>
> >http://maillist.peak.org/mailman/listinfo/grc
>
>
>

-- 
Frieda Werden, Series Producer
WINGS: Women's International News Gathering Service www.wings.org