Vetting and Why I Listen to Public Radio

A Matter of Core Values

So often I offer critiques of public radio. That's because I worked in public radio for over three decades. How about some long overdue praise? The other day I was listening to a short report about vetting immigrants and it became clear why I listen.

Some background

I started listening in 1978. I was looking for something different...something with depth...something stimulating. I was driving through Michigan on my way home from visiting a friend. I was scanning the radio dial when I happened on NPR's All Things Considered which was being broadcast by the station in Ann Arbor (Now Michigan Radio). The reports were like nothing else I had heard on the radio. The depth and variety of viewpoints engaged me. That half-hour flew by. So did the next the next 20 minutes until I drove out of range. The station was airing a documentary about the Pullman workers in the Jim Crow era. I wanted more.

I sought out public radio. What I found was a mix of content. Some of it great...some of it not so great. The moments of greatness far outweighed the disappointments. The in-depth news and music programming were a perfect match for lifestyle and values.What really struck me was the emphasis on civil discourse and fairness.

Later that year I started volunteering at WUWM and a few months later started working as their music director.

Many Years Later

Despite the fact that I no longer work full time in public radio...it is still a trusted source for news and information. It's the place I go to when I want to know more about complex issues. I use other sources. I check on-line news aggregators. I read newspapers in print and on-line. I stay away from cable news.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, and after the reaction of the Governors and Republican presidential candidates to essentially shut down our borders to Syrian refugees, I wanted to find out more about the vetting process. The Republicans and some Democrats wanted to make sure our government was fully vetting refugees before admitting them to the United States. The implication was the process was loose. The scenario of thousands of radicals streaming across our southern border was being shouted by politicians and pundits on cable news. There seemed to be nothing civil or fair about their coverage.

I've gotten to the point I can't stay with cable news very long. I'm not the only one who noticed the shrill nature of coverage on the cable networks with all sorts of fear mongering and punditry posing as news coverage.

Trust

I went to a sources I've found I can reliably trust to give me the full story in fair manner. I went to NPR, Public Radio and the BBC. Here's an example...

4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

I found that the refugees were already being vetted. The process for admission for a refugee can take two years. The refugees aren't just being dropped off in communities. There are nine groups helping with resettlement. According to the NPR report, "Six of them are faith-based. They help refugees find homes, furniture, school supplies and jobs." Finally, some officials worry there may be gaps in the system.

That's a far cry from this...

Islamophobic Media Coverage Is Out Of Control

I come to public radio because I want to be informed. I want information that can help me connect the dots. I want coverage that I can trust. 

How Much is Too Much?

The audience described in this blog isn't really the target for public radio and public media. Tweens and teens only hear NPR in passing if their parents listen. Perhaps in the car? Their media consumption habits may be the leading edge...the shape of things to come. In the very near future public media will be facing challenges for eyes and ears that will require a major shift in thinking way beyond the challenges that face us today.

Is there too much content?

Too Much TV

CBS is reporting that some experts believe there is too much TV available right now. 

Can the large number of programs sustain itself? The focus of the report is on sustainability. If the audience is being sliced and diced into thinner and thinner slices, are the numbers going to become so small that the weight of cost for traditional broadcast media will not be able to support the content.

Are we becoming addicted to the contact not the content?

A recent report from suggests that young people are spending nine hours a day looking at screens. The Office of National Statistics in Great Britain reports that children are spending three hours a day of social media. That amount of time may be harmful. Social interactions and the ability to communicate may be impaired as a result. The emphasis is on the number of clicks, likes and shares, These are all surface values. There is no depth.

The Telegraph reports...

Screen time - including watching television, spending time on the computer and playing video games - has been associated in previous research with higher levels of emotional distress, anxiety and depression. 

The report found there was a “clear association” between longer time spent on social websites and the incidence of mental health problems.

Couple this with the report on CNN about how teens are spending upwards of nine hours a day on their devices and you can see a problem emerging. The problem is much broader than finding ways to support public radio and public media. James Steyer, chief executive officer and founder of Common Sense Media, in an interview with CNN...

The implications of this digital transformation are huge for tweens and teens, educators, policymakers and parents. For one, living and communicating via mobile devices gets in the way of empathy, said Steyer. Texting is so much less empathetic than having a conversation in person and looking somebody in the eye and having physical or at least a verbal presence with them, he said. Add in the issues of digital addiction and the attention and distraction implications that come with mobile devices, and "empathy is really, really under siege," he said.

The strength  of our content is the ability to tell engaging stories. How do we engage when the audience isn't even listening?