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.
Leave a comment