Ira Glass Clarifies That Public Radio Is Ready for the GOOD Kind of Capitalism

[Disir]

“My hope is that we can move away from a model of asking listeners for money and join the free market,” host of public radio’s This American Life Ira Glass declared last month (Ad Age, 4/30/15):

I think we’re ready for capitalism which made this country so great. Public radio is ready for capitalism.

The context was “Hearing Is Believing,” an event sponsored by NPR and member stations WNYC and WBEZ to pitch public radio (and its podcasts) as an advertising vehicle (American Community Radio, 5/12/15).

Last week, Glass wrote a column in the public broadcasting trade paper Current (5/13/15) to “clarify” his comments: He was not suggesting that programmers “chase ratings and destroy everything that makes public radio special.” Instead, he meant he wanted “companies [to] come on our shows and pay lots of money,” and then public radio should use that money for good things–not bad things, as you might have assumed that he meant.
Ira Glass Clarifies That Public Radio Is Ready for the GOOD Kind of Capitalism FAIR

NPR has a history of whitewashing and at this point it really doesn't matter. As mentioned when they are underwriting shows that pretty much is the same. WBEZ has pretty much gotten rid of everything that I found useful and can bite it. The last hold out is the Barber Shop show when I catch it. They dropped their radio drama which I think came from the LA Theater Works. They did do a pretty good program on Dante Alighieri via CBC last week.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't think NPR should go to a normal commercial model. I don't have an issue with corporations donating to NPR directly in exchange for an on-air mention, but selling ad time on specific shows would lead to NPR following the footsteps of "The Learning Channel".

Im happily a longtime supporter (I have the tote bags to prove it) and consumer of NPR. I like it fine the way it is.

 

[MisterBeale]

I listen to both NPR in the morning, and conservative talk shows in the afternoon. I like to get a broad spectrum of propaganda. lol

In the morning, I find the commercial stations so damn irritating. Every station has more commercials than they do show. If it weren't for NPR, I would probably just listen to programed music, but I like talk and news. I don't know how I would stay abreast of current affairs, or at least the propagandist slant of the affairs. How would I know what to research? lol

Anyone who believes anything coming out of either cable, the talk radio, the broadcast stations, or NPR needs their head examined though.

I remember hearing one article about how door to door canvassers could change folks minds on issues, and then a scientific journal debunked the study. Well, the NPR program did a whole hour on the piece how canvassers could change peoples minds and it was junk science? Maybe it was a half-hour piece on this study. But then their retraction and apology that the whole thing was a hoax lasted for, oh, about thirty seconds. What a crock. Nothing like lying to further the gay rights agenda.

 

[Disir]

I think a lot of it depends on location and the programs they run. I have WBEZ. I listen to it a lot when I'm on the road up until I can pick up NPR somewhere else. They spent a good moment on air stating how they were not affiliated with NPR after O'Keefe edited the video tape. NPR has noticeably changed after that. WBEZ pretends to go in depth but somehow never really goes that in depth. With the commercialization of it, then I think it will change even more so.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

WNYC and KQED have always done just fine for me. Haven't listened to that many other member stations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I listen to both NPR in the morning, and conservative talk shows in the afternoon. I like to get a broad spectrum of propaganda. lol

In the morning, I find the commercial stations so damn irritating. Every station has more commercials than they do show. If it weren't for NPR, I would probably just listen to programed music, but I like talk and news. I don't know how I would stay abreast of current affairs, or at least the propagandist slant of the affairs. How would I know what to research? lol

Anyone who believes anything coming out of either cable, the talk radio, the broadcast stations, or NPR needs their head examined though.

I remember hearing one article about how door to door canvassers could change folks minds on issues, and then a scientific journal debunked the study. Well, the NPR program did a whole hour on the piece how canvassers could change peoples minds and it was junk science? Maybe it was a half-hour piece on this study. But then their retraction and apology that the whole thing was a hoax lasted for, oh, about thirty seconds. What a crock. Nothing like lying to further the gay rights agenda.

As for reports on the effectiveness of door to door canvassing, there's a significant amount of scholarly research that offer somewhat contradictory results. The consensus is that persuasion is difficult but not impossible, but face to face conversations are significantly more effective than tv ads or phone calls for increasing turnout.

 

[MisterBeale]

Guess you missed the follow up. The whole study turned out to be bunk.

 

[MisterBeale]

Author Says Researcher Faked Gay Marriage Opinon Study
Author Says Researcher Faked Gay Marriage Opinon Study NPR

A much-publicized study suggesting door-to-door canvassing could change opinions about same-sex marriage has been discredited. The co-author of the study has asked Science to retract its article.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Guess you missed the follow up. The whole study turned out to be bunk.

I actually don't know what "study" you're speaking of specifically, but I'm familiar with the scholarly work on the subject.

*Oh, ok. Did a little Googling, and I see the study that you're referring to. Suffice it to say, it's not the only study on the subject.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Author Says Researcher Faked Gay Marriage Opinon Study
Author Says Researcher Faked Gay Marriage Opinon Study NPR

A much-publicized study suggesting door-to-door canvassing could change opinions about same-sex marriage has been discredited. The co-author of the study has asked Science to retract its article.

I would suggest reading some other articles by Dr. Donald P. Green (the co-author of the study who asked for it to be retracted after he discovered his graduate student was faking the results), if you're really interested in the subject.

 

[Disir]

I didn't like the Moth when it first started but over time I have kind of grown to like it.

We don't have any more, that I know of, of the dramas--which ticks me off.

Their news though, irritates me.