Is Public Radio Growing Out Of Touch With The Public?
This blog rarely focuses on programming content. I generally leave that to the experts -- producers, writers, and hosts. I've also refrained from mentioning the now-Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers' stellar year, but restraint is no longer possible. Stick with me. There is a public radio programming payoff at the end.
On Only A Game, Bill Littlefield and Paul Attner from the Sporting News decided that people were having a hard time getting excited about this game because the "wrong teams" made the Super Bowl. On Weekend Edition, Chicago Sun Time's columnist Ron Rapoport said "we're going in to this game kind of disappointed" because it lacked star power.
How could they be so wrong?
Nielsen ratings show this Super Bowl had the highest ratings since 1996, the last time the Steelers played in the Super Bowl. That's more viewers than the years when New England and New York were in the game.
The nation was interested in this game. The people who were disappointed in the match-up were the sports writers and commentators covering the game. It seems as if they all hung out together and came to the conclusion that if they weren't excited by it, no one was excited by it.
I suspect this happens all too frequently among many NPR commentators, not just those who cover sports. Most of us don't question their expertise. They're on NPR after all.
But this was an easy catch, especially for a Steelers fan. Two separate NPR programs missed the pulse of the nation on the Super Bowl. If it can happen with the nation's biggest media event, on what other issues might it be happening and going unnoticed?
On Only A Game, Bill Littlefield and Paul Attner from the Sporting News decided that people were having a hard time getting excited about this game because the "wrong teams" made the Super Bowl. On Weekend Edition, Chicago Sun Time's columnist Ron Rapoport said "we're going in to this game kind of disappointed" because it lacked star power.
How could they be so wrong?
Nielsen ratings show this Super Bowl had the highest ratings since 1996, the last time the Steelers played in the Super Bowl. That's more viewers than the years when New England and New York were in the game.
The nation was interested in this game. The people who were disappointed in the match-up were the sports writers and commentators covering the game. It seems as if they all hung out together and came to the conclusion that if they weren't excited by it, no one was excited by it.
I suspect this happens all too frequently among many NPR commentators, not just those who cover sports. Most of us don't question their expertise. They're on NPR after all.
But this was an easy catch, especially for a Steelers fan. Two separate NPR programs missed the pulse of the nation on the Super Bowl. If it can happen with the nation's biggest media event, on what other issues might it be happening and going unnoticed?
posted by RadioSutton at 5:06 PM
4 Comments:
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Aaron. You raise valid points but they stray a bit from my original position. YOu're talking about quality of the games, I'm talking about the public's interest in the Super Bowl leading up to the game. Public radio's sports experts were donwplaying the public's interest in the game. Despite the poor officiating and the poor play, this Super Bowl had more viewers than those very exciting last-minute wins by the Patriots. Our experts called this as poorly as the NFL officials called the Super Bowl. I'm just asking if it is because they don't get out enough.
The superbowl may only be the tip of the iceburg. Have you ever watched somebody who doesn't normally listen to public radio listen to public radio? It can be a painful experience because it makes you realize just how elitist the programming can sound. For example, those fundraising pitches where a host points out that the car guys aren't just mechanics, they also have PhD's from MIT (we wouldn't want to talk to some greasy tech-school educated mechanic, now, would we?)... or the animal challenges where hosts read notes from listeners who claim they have the "smartest dog ever" because Rover is forced to listen to Morning Edition in his kennel every morning. In a world where the only mechanics worth talking to have post-graduate degrees and the dogs are incredibly smart, it's no surprise that they wouldn't have a clue about what "real people" think about sports now would it?
Hey, I agree the pitches about the mechanics having degrees are unnecessary. After all, Car Talk is about the personalities, and spending time with these two guys on air... not so much about the car problems.
But what's wrong with giving folks the idea that public radio may make them better citizens? More informed? Or, for lack of a better word, smarter?
Being smart is still something to aspire to, right?
John brings up an excellent point here. It hasn't been raised before probably because no real sports fan in their right mind - even if they are the most reliable NPR listener - EVER takes sports seriously on the network. My first experience with how clueless NPR can be came when Frank DeFord showed just how out of touch someone can be with his commentary almost a decade ago about how college football is that big of a deal, or, I guess more appropriately that it shouldn't be that big of a deal. There are very, very, very few times NPR's sports reporting matches what the rest of the network does - it is embarrassing to be a sports fan AND work in this business. Junk it or do it better. Get Debbie Elliott to tell you how it's done !
Post a Comment
<< Home