OPEN UNIVERSITY FEBRUARY 10, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
by Eric RauchwaySomehow the combination of David's and my comments on NPR prompted Geoff to cast me in the role of Amurrica-hating Anglophile Archers-listener who prefers BHL to Garrison Keillor. That is not what I meant, at all. Hey, I ponied up for WHYY while I was living in England and listening to pledge drives through the Internets, Geoff. Partly because I liked listening to a certain show that features a certain academic linguist. And I wasn't even getting a tax break from Inland Revenue! Just a plastic mug.
And nothing made me change the channel faster than the Archers' theme music. I was trying simply to make the point that American public radio might do even better than it already does on programs like "This American Life" and "Fresh Air" by thinking a little bit like Radio 4's producers of two particular programs.
To add a little to what I said, among American public radio hosts who would be more than up to the job, I nominate Michael Krasny and Brian Lehrer.
3 comments
Gee, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Eric was an America-hating Anglophile, or that his criticisms of the absence of certain kinds of content on public radio weren't justified. If I have a disagreement with him, it concerns his claim that "I can think of reasons it's easier to do these programs in Britain... but such reasons don't make it impossible or even implausible to do them here." Whereas my view is that, present, it isn't really possible for public radio to do them here, or at least not in a way that gets wide distribution. And given the way the American system is set up, a change will require a combination of emerging new outlets (e.g., the Internet and podcasts), new funding models, and mabe new institutional arrangements. The problems aren't basically NPR's fault. Oh, and one other point: what has Eric got against "The Archers"?
- nunbergg
February 10, 2007 at 2:50pm
I've only so much patience for soap operas per se, and soap operas that center on GMO's and hoof-and-mouth, well.... I will say I was intrigued to learn recently (via Start the Week, as it happens) that the Archers began as a government-produced program to promote British agriculture.
- openu
February 10, 2007 at 3:26pm
You don't contribute to NPR because of this or that program (or programme). You contribute because of the idea. Otherwise, you're petty indeed.
It used to be that NPR and PBS only used excellence as their programming criterion. Now, thanks to the GOP philistines and others whose pockets are lined by the commercial broadcasters, public subsidies have been cut to the point where public broadcasting must pander for ratings in order to gain enough of a contributor base to support it. Which means it must air inanities like Cah Talk and buy second-hand nature shows for Nova or second-rate "literature" for Masterpiece Theater. And local stations wouldn't have to sell time to self-help hucksters.
By all rights, your contribution shouldn't be necessary, but as I said, the philistines are in charge.
- jm_rice
February 11, 2007 at 1:57am