May 2008
The Takeaway
Categories:
The Takeaway is a new morning news program that debuted on WNYC about three weeks ago. I've been holding back my opinion to give the show a chance to get into its groove; unfortunately the show has not lived up to my expectations, and I've switched my radio alarm to CBS FM for now (fun music but the DJ and commercials are supremely annoying). I guess it doesn't help either that it's spring fundraising time for public radio and they've seriously damaged my confidence in them.
The reason why I listen to NPR is that the news is presented in a calm, measured and thoughtful manner. In interview segments, the interviewer gives the interviewee plenty of time to state his or her case. Most of the time the line of questioning makes logical sense and the interview feels like it has a beginning, middle and end. The interviewer isn't doing most of the talking, the interviewee is. To me, this is the hallmark of NPR's style and why I choose to listen to WNYC and not talk radio in the morning. NPR also has a knack for bringing stories to the radio (both local and national) that don't necessarily make it onto most people's radar, and I very much appreciate that as well.
The Takeaway seems like the exact opposite to these qualities. The segments are ultra short, so short that the hosts are perpetually cutting off the interviewees in mid-sentence. It feels rather rude and amateurish. I don't really get a sense of the issue they're discussing either way, because it seems like the hosts are just trying to create quick, quotable sound bites that sound cool but don't actually mean anything. They aren't facilitating any kind of discussion in a serious way, they just seem to be following a script and ask the question, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with the response. When they do go off-script, it's pretty obvious because the questions are so awkward that the interviewee doesn't even know how to respond to it. And asking the audience such inane questions as "What's on your personal endangered list?" seems so patronizing.
The reason why I listen to NPR is that the news is presented in a calm, measured and thoughtful manner. In interview segments, the interviewer gives the interviewee plenty of time to state his or her case. Most of the time the line of questioning makes logical sense and the interview feels like it has a beginning, middle and end. The interviewer isn't doing most of the talking, the interviewee is. To me, this is the hallmark of NPR's style and why I choose to listen to WNYC and not talk radio in the morning. NPR also has a knack for bringing stories to the radio (both local and national) that don't necessarily make it onto most people's radar, and I very much appreciate that as well.
The Takeaway seems like the exact opposite to these qualities. The segments are ultra short, so short that the hosts are perpetually cutting off the interviewees in mid-sentence. It feels rather rude and amateurish. I don't really get a sense of the issue they're discussing either way, because it seems like the hosts are just trying to create quick, quotable sound bites that sound cool but don't actually mean anything. They aren't facilitating any kind of discussion in a serious way, they just seem to be following a script and ask the question, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with the response. When they do go off-script, it's pretty obvious because the questions are so awkward that the interviewee doesn't even know how to respond to it. And asking the audience such inane questions as "What's on your personal endangered list?" seems so patronizing.
One example that stood out was a discussion about Grand Theft Auto. Both hosts had only contempt for the game, you can hear it in their voices and the questions that they ask. Have either of them even played GTA? I personally have not, but I expect a more evenhanded approach to it. All I got from the segment is that Grand Theft Auto is "evil" and "violent", a typical knee jerk reaction. Contrast this with the the discussion of GTA on "On the Media", where Brooke Gladstone is "playing" the game. It was such a different approach, it wasn't about buzzwords, it was about discussing research on games like GTA and if it had any measurable effect on children, and creating a historical context for violence in popular culture. The segment was careful in not taking one side or another in promoting or condemning the game, which to me is one of NPR's strengths.
The only thing that I can give them kudos for are having a decent website, and trying to incorporate that more into the radio show. Why not facilitate an actual, real-life discussion instead of just spewing sound bites? Judging by the 200-plus comments on this post, many people feel the same way I do, perhaps with some more vitriol. Let me give some suggestions instead of just bitching about it.
The only thing that I can give them kudos for are having a decent website, and trying to incorporate that more into the radio show. Why not facilitate an actual, real-life discussion instead of just spewing sound bites? Judging by the 200-plus comments on this post, many people feel the same way I do, perhaps with some more vitriol. Let me give some suggestions instead of just bitching about it.
- Make the segments longer. You don't need to fit in every topic under the sun. I'm not saying just focus on one topic per hour like Brian Lehrer or Leonard Lopate, but maybe pick 4 and really delve into them. You're on every morning of the week, so why are you in such a hurry?
- Get more than one person with a different point of view on the issue. It seems like they bring in one person who is an "expert" and end up chatting with him or her for about two and a half minutes before cutting them off.
- The music is really irritating. You totally ripped off a Depeche Mode song from the Ultra album. I love me some Depeche Mode but not at 6 in the morning.
- Try listening to the people you're interviewing. Instead of talking over them, really listen and respond to what they're saying. This is key in facilitating discourse.
- Why not do some more research into talking about topics that aren't on the front page of the NY Times?
- One more thing: put the comments on the same page as your post. Separating the comments out onto another page just gives more of an impression that you are not facilitating a dialogue and just relegating people's comments to the wayside.
Alternative Food Systems
Categories:
It's a gorgeous day, everything just feels so bright. It was so nice to be back into the warm-weather-pattern-of-doing-things, i.e., stopping by the farmers' market at Union Square this morning to do some grocery shopping. I hadn't been going much for the winter, there's only so many potatoes and apples one can eat. I picked up some gorgeous asparagus, tatsoy, eggs, pork chops, ground turkey, fresh baby garlic, radishes, yogurt...I'm getting hungry just thinking about all this food! But seriously. Since we moved to New York, I've been thinking a lot about food systems and how one's buying habits can support one system or another. There are so many things that we don't think about when we go to the corner deli to buy lunch, or go to the supermarket to pick up a pineapple or a steak, or eat dinner at the cafe on the corner - where the food is coming from, the process through which it went through to end up in your hands, the people whose effort it took to bring it to you.
I've been trying different strategies to support the food systems I care about. In Manhattan, it seems like you can get almost anything you want, whenever you want, provided you have the money to pay for it. In Bedford-Stuyvesant, it's a little different. Bodegas make up the bulk of places to buy food in our neighborhood. They stock items like milk and eggs, but carry mostly industrially processed, prepackaged foods beyond basic dairy items. They don't have much in the way of fresh fruit or vegetables - if I do find an onion it's usually sprouted!
It seems like this issue is picking up some momentum and public exposure because of the increase in food prices across the board - people are wondering, why has the price of flour jumped 100%? Buying groceries shouldn't be a luxury. I hope that I can do my best to stick to buying and shopping at places that are concerned with where the food is coming from.
I've been trying different strategies to support the food systems I care about. In Manhattan, it seems like you can get almost anything you want, whenever you want, provided you have the money to pay for it. In Bedford-Stuyvesant, it's a little different. Bodegas make up the bulk of places to buy food in our neighborhood. They stock items like milk and eggs, but carry mostly industrially processed, prepackaged foods beyond basic dairy items. They don't have much in the way of fresh fruit or vegetables - if I do find an onion it's usually sprouted!
It seems like this issue is picking up some momentum and public exposure because of the increase in food prices across the board - people are wondering, why has the price of flour jumped 100%? Buying groceries shouldn't be a luxury. I hope that I can do my best to stick to buying and shopping at places that are concerned with where the food is coming from.
Spring is here! Your footwear is on notice.
Categories:
The weather has finally turned springlike in New York in past few weeks and I can't wait to spend more time outdoors. But as I've been roaming the streets, I've been forced to notice the horrible, horrible footwear choices of so many New Yorkers. What so many people don't understand is that what looks good on a model or what may be trendy looks completely horrible on you.
Everyone knows the UGGs example. Those boots make any girl look like the abominable snowman. I still don't understand how this trend hasn't died yet. Perhaps it's because of the hordes of tourists from other places other than New York that invade Soho, and the styles they wear are about three years behind in the rest of the country. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing middle America, but everyone knew that UGGs are horrible looking, why continue the trend? I can't wait until UGG fanatics look at photos of themselves in five years, and think, "God, what was I thinking? I looked like a total tool!" Sort of like anyone who grew up in the 80s and wore a side ponytail.
So here are my top five rules on spring footwear. Well, footwear in general.
Next fashion topic: wearing leggings without a skirt. Banned? Discuss.
Everyone knows the UGGs example. Those boots make any girl look like the abominable snowman. I still don't understand how this trend hasn't died yet. Perhaps it's because of the hordes of tourists from other places other than New York that invade Soho, and the styles they wear are about three years behind in the rest of the country. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing middle America, but everyone knew that UGGs are horrible looking, why continue the trend? I can't wait until UGG fanatics look at photos of themselves in five years, and think, "God, what was I thinking? I looked like a total tool!" Sort of like anyone who grew up in the 80s and wore a side ponytail.
So here are my top five rules on spring footwear. Well, footwear in general.
- Do not, under any circumstances, wear those flat boots without heels and tuck your jeans in to said boots. Unless you wear a size -1. Otherwise your legs will just look like tree stumps. Just because some chick in that Urban Outfitters catalog you received last week can pull it off doesn't mean you can!
- Do not wear leggings with ballet flats. Your legs will STILL look like tree stumps. And for godssakes, pick up your feet when you walk, that shuffling duck walk is so unappealing.
- Do not wear those really really flat sandals or flip flops. YOU ARE NOT AT THE BEACH. And again, did you realize you walk like a duck?
- Men: do not wear flip flops. Especially you jocks with those black Adidas sandals. What the hell? If you have ugly, uncared-for feet, I don't want to see them. If your girlfriend doesn't want to see your feet, neither do we. At least trim your toenails and get rid of that fungus if you're going to show us your toes. (addendum: if you have a nice pair of leather sandals, go for it. it's just the OP-surfer-dude-crappy sandals that I can't stand.)
- extra super pointy shoes. Don't do it. Do you really want to look like a medieval court jester? Because that's exactly what you look like.
- sorry, one more rule: don't wear Crocs. You're not Mario Batali. And what's up with the holes? Are those shoes really going to protect you when you spill a bucket of hot grease on them?
Next fashion topic: wearing leggings without a skirt. Banned? Discuss.