The Writhings of Public Radio

This from IMPROPRIETIES ...

Over time, NPR has developed chattery, abrasive noise. This, plus it's fallen victim to the self-enclosed feedback loop of playing to the audience that fills its coffers.

and this from Firedoglake (not about public radio, but the point regarding the public's right to know) ...

Whatever happened to that quaint, old-fashioned notion of "the public's right to know"? Things sure have changed from the days of tough questions and a healthy dose of skepticism with regard to those in power, haven't they? Muckraking — are you kidding? Full steam ahead, and pass the cocktail weenies, we're sailing on the S.S. Friendship on an all access pass.

.. stimulated me to send Tom's blog post on NPR to a friend of mine who is a gifted public radio personality in Canada, who has at various times created and delivered some well-received and well-respected public radio programs.

Here (below) is our email exchange, which I found interesting.

Public radio is facing major change in the digital hyperlinked and interactive environment.  Another virtual friend of mine, Rob Paterson, has been involved in helping NPR start down the path to major change, and has an ongoing strong interest in what public radio will become.

Me: 

Interesting POV on NPR

http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2007/02/npr-news-dave-winer-elgar-etc.html#comments

Him:

Thanks for passing this along. It affirms a rant I had at the network (CBC Toronto), which resulted in The Nightwatch (an 'experiment' in phone in radio) I hosted for a brief spell in half the country. It worked too well.

The truth is the 'public broadcast' system _at the network level_ has been hijacked by urban-career types who 'know best'. No matter that they don't eat what they grow. They're akin to postal workers delivering messages - a lot of it, of late, is junk mail.

The good news: local affiliates (inclusive of the venerable CKUA) are very much attuned to the variety of a variety of listener interests. And it shows in their broadcast schedules.

That said, the blogger is playing a very old saw. Very yesterday. NPR has its moments, but its still pretty lame when compared against a bad day at the CBC.

Me:

yeah, well .. he's a Yankee.

(additional note: no disrespect whatsoever intended towards Tom.  He is very Internet savvy and in my opinion has a much more finely tuned intelligence and sensibility than I will ever possess. I just mean that most Americans probably never think to check out the CBC online radio, and don't develop that listening habit.  Much of what is on CBC will be offered in a context that is more pertinent to Canadians than Americans. Tom notes "I've listened in various parts of the country, and some are more flexible than others", but I am assuming here that more often than not people tend to listen to radio within a local geographic context.)

 They are not so aware of the CBC (radio or television), nor accustomed to anything other than eating at home, so to speak.

Him:

And they should know better. So, I've armed you with _real data_ that you can fire back into the blogosphere.

The argument for a strong 'public service' broadcaster in the United States makes itself apparent when you consider the following:

Americans have access to the finest information, the best research, the most scientifically-available metrics -- for a price. It's proprietary information.

The dirt they went to war on - the intelligence that informed the nation -- was for free.

And so I have put it out into the blogosphere.

Check out the range of CBC radio offerings some day.  Their web site underscores the point that so much of radio is still local.

It's still often pretty intelligent radio at times, although my friend Don's point about local public affiliates of the CBC is also well taken.

I'm certain that the BBC World Service and other public radio offerings also offers additional perspective.

Tags: NPR, public radio, public media, Rob Paterson, Don Hill, Improprieties

Powered by Qumana