[grc] NPR Speak dissed in NY Times

[Tom Worster]

Hi Frieda,

I'd say top was the response to Marika Partidge talking about Takoma Radio
WOWD-LP, launching next year. She spoke about the community in their
signal area, which has some notable ethnic groups, how the DC area has
lacked a community radio station for a while, and the specific values of
community service she plans to bring to the station, which, I'm sad to
say, I didn't write down. Asked how they raised the money for the project
she said that they sold T-shirts! Her passion really resonated with the
crowd.

Bianca Soler, outgoing GM of WGTB, got big cheers, perhaps because
that's college radio at Georgetown U where the conference took place. She
mentioned the difficulties college radio has been facing, none of which
were unfamiliar but seemed sincere in the belief that it has a role in the
future, albeit not quite the same role as in the past.

[To editorialize a little, I think she's right. Specifically, the college
rock music format is no longer helpful. You can't be young, edgy and play
college rock (or whatever is its contemporary closest approximation). It's
not alternative and therefore gives no reason to listen the radio over
something else.]

David Freedman from WWOZ was poetic and inspiring. He talked about how
deeply engaged his station is in the cultural, mostly the musical, life of
the city. He said, in effect, the idea of radio as "lean-back listening"
is fatuous. It can be that but can also be engaging, challenging,
stimulating, educating and encourage people to do things.

The overall message I got was that community radio has an exciting and
challenging future. Some stations, like WWOZ, have their relationship to
their community figured out and know where they are going. Others have
work to do. Some, like WOWD-LP literally don't have those plans figured
out yet. Recently launched stations have to find their feet and build
trust in their community. Other stations may suffer from programming that
needs to change. All will have plenty of management work to do, but
there's no point doing it except to serve good programming, right?

Tom



On 11/3/15, 2:15 PM, "Frieda Werden" <frieda.werden at gmail.com on behalf of
wings at wings.org> wrote:

>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-ai
>>r
>>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
>><http://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
><http://www.wings.org>