Podcast
Features
Comments
August 3rd, 2001
A planning discussion for the Public Radio Program Directors’ Conference
More
Donate Button
The Sidebar- image
A planning discussion for the Public Radio Program Directors’ Conference
This topic is for producers and programmers and listeners to talk together about ways public radio can extend itself onto the Internet.
This discussion will not exist in a vacuum; we’ll incorporate it into a session we’re holding at the Public Radio Program Directors’ conference in Baltimore in September. The moderator is Mikel Ellcessor, the PD at WNYC, and he’ll be dropping by soon. Others involved in the intersection of the two media will also be invited to pitch in.
So… what should public radio be doing on the Internet? Extending mission… how? Extending marketing… how? What can the Internet do that radio can’t, and vice versa? Should we replicate, diverge, compliment? What’s a truly useful and sustainable course, consistent with the purposes of public media?
Obviously, we at Transom.org think a lot about these questions and this site is, in a way, our answer. But what could we, or stations, or consortia, or NPR/PRI, or anyone do better or more?
We’ll incorporate this discussion into our conference session and will report back here when we’re done. Thanks for helping.
When Jay proposed taking this conversation to Transom, I thought it was a great idea. I’d like to use this forum to accomplish three things:
* get a sense of what people are thinking as we prep for the session
* shape the finer points of the session so it can be more useful for the participants
* establish some momentum so the session hits the ground running
Of course, not everyone will make the session and not everyone in the session will participate in this forum. We’ll fold the two conversations together and that way your input will come back around to you. We’re going to work with PRPD to broadly disseminate the content of the session.
To get thing started, I thought we could take a stab at one of the questions: What can the Internet do that radio can’t, and vice versa?
If we’re looking at incubating programming on the Internet, what are the unique Internet properties that support that activity?
Let’s go.
For one thing, you don’t need a spell-checker on the radio.
(I took the liberty of over-riding our agressively creative Spell Checker on Mikel’s posting, which rendered "prep" as "pep," "PRPD" as "PROD," and "Internet" and "Interned.")
Raising my hand from the back of the class, I’d say that that among the most advantageous of Internet properties is the simple fact that it’s here when you want it. Content lingers. What was ephemera on the radio becomes a library on the Internet.
This is obviously useful for the average user/llstener, but it also has intriguing ramifications for in-system distribution. A local station will longer need to adhere satellite schedules, inadvertently missing good stuff, but instead can program a la carte from the web. Producers can post work on the web and let reviews and word of mouth build. When a station decides it wants it, it’s there.
The Web has those oh-so-wonderful archives (including bonus tracks (TAL)), Bulletin Boards which allow those of us who didn’t get through to a call-in show to have our say, the ability to spell hard to understand words/names (without it Snigdha Prakash becomes Snik Paprikash), fewer/no mandated time constraints, alternate forms of funding (links from content to Amazon/Barnes&Noble merchandise), distance (Chicago people can listen to WBEZ while on vacation in Germany) and, perhaps, increased audience focus.
Radio has accessibility, portability (wireless web has a long way to go), affordability, typically higher quality audio, local content/spin, and requires less planning/effort on the part of the listener.
Gozilla has atomic fire breath, pointy spine/tail, and bad public relations.
Jad here, WNYC. I agree with Jay that the most profound thing the web offers radio is permanence. Especially nowadays, no one ever actually listens the first time around! Here at The Next Big Thing, we do a monthly listener interactive experiment we call "five sounds in search of an author." Essentially, we ask listeners to caption five disparate sounds played consequetively (without context). The sounds are then posted online. A judge picks the most creative entry, the author then gets to read that entry over the radio for the next program. It’s by far the most successful thing we do, and I think one of the primary reasons is that the web allows the contest to take its natural form. Listeners get to visit and revisit the contest sounds at their own pace. That means they’re staying with us between shows.
And by the way, props to transom.org! It’s an amazing example of how the web can be more than the bastard step child of the primary media (wether that’s radio or tv).
Last point: Mikel et all, as you prepare for this session, I suggest speaking to someone from PBS. Over the last year, I’ve been very impressed with how they use the web to augment programing.
Gregg in California here — let me also add the point that Web Radio can be a cultural lifeline for communities underserved or altogether shut out of mainstream media. My work with AIROS has shown this to be the case. Listeners will walk over broken techno-glass to get to a service they really want to be part of their daily lives.
One caution though, we need to be careful to work with open and accessable streaming standards — some are certainly more equal than others.
Gregg McVicar
http://www.radiocamp.com
http://www.airos.org
http://www.earthsongs.net
Thanks for this site, Transom-ites. Besides being a great resource it’s soooooo pretty!
The Internet has completely changed my radio consumption too. As a listener, I’ve become more programmer and less captive audience member. Sure, I still stumble across pieces that I wasn’t looking for and listen to them. But it’s the program, the topic, or the written promo blurb that convinces me to wait a ½ minute to boot up Real Audio.
But the most exciting aspect of the Internet for this radio & Web producer is this: having the Internet as a platform has encouraged producers to make those innovative but otherwise homeless pieces. We make pieces so others can hear them. An increasing number of cool pieces
i would not even exist
if we didn’t have the Internet as a platform. Am I right Jake Warga?
And that’s been true in my work creating the series Along for the Ride which airs on NPR’s Weekend All Things Considered and on the Web. I’ve taken the time to mix interviews conducted all in Spanish because they were relevant and had a home on the ‘net. Same with pieces that would be hard to intro into on the radio or that are considered too off-beat or tangential to air on a news magazine.
Sue here at Picture Projects. Don’t forget the ability to combine audio with images, text, video, animation, etc. And the chance to play with non-linearity even within a story. Melissa you alluded to that in thinking about programming but stories themselves can be edited in different ways. We’ve been working on the web for some time creating online documentaries and we recently hooked up with independent producer Joe Richman to coordinate our projects. We did field work together and launched our site: 360degrees.org in conjunction with his Prison Diaries series. While he edited one person’s story for a 30-min. feature, we broke down the interviews into 2-3 minute pieces and included interviews with the people around the main diarist (family members, victims of crime, wardens, police, judges, etc). These interviews are accompanied by 360degree panoramic images of their spaces. Visitors to the site have a lot of control, choosing which stories and personalities appeal to them before hearing their stories. The flip side, of course, is the lack of narrative control on the part of the producer. But this is an interesting arena to explore. We have also been experimenting with ways in which audiences can tell collective stories through their contributions. In one project (about the Vietnam War) visitors could call a 1-800 number and leave 2 minute voice mail messages that became a part of the searchable archives. Archiving radio for eternal and perpetual access is pretty great but it’s also really exciting to think about maximizing the potential of the medium. Not that every radio producer can go out there with a digital video camera, nor should they, but I think we’ll see a lot more interesting partnerships between producers, photographers, filmmakers to create in totally new formats.
I’m impressed by the ways producers have been cross-polinating their broadcast pieces with the web. A lot of great initiatives here. Many more than I knew about. Seems as if the medium of the internet is reaching some sort of critical mass where new ideas, new applications will start to spark and fly. I’m confident the web will keep evolving as a broadcast/distribution medium with or without lots of institutional support from stations and the networks and frankly I’m happy that it’s happening right now in an atmosphere relatively uncluttered by big initiatives and unclouded by the expectation of big money fast (if ever).
I wonder, though: Should the shows that do have a strong web presence be plugging it more on the air? I don’t hear much about it that way. Web streaming of shows and web features and contests seem to be promoted as "extras" rather than as exciting, community building opportunities for listeners.
Am I wrong? Or do I just not get to hear the right programs in Boston?
Just really to follow on and amplify Sue Johnson’s comment – Picture Projects work, especially the 360degrees.org site, seems to me to point towards the tremendous potential to add contextual material to sound works on the web. Photographs are one obvious way to do this, but much of the research material collected in the process of making a radio piece (or of being inspired to go out and make a radio piece, or in the aftermath of making a radio piece) can be processed for presentation on the Web. These materials can include articles, correspondence, and transcripts, bibliography, pictures, and printed ephemera, additional recordings, field notes, etc. I have in mind a kind of grandma’s attic of material that truly interested listeners can access from many angles. One way to think about this is that you would be presenting the collateral, the working papers, in effect, of the sound project. Of course these characterizations belie the effort required for such digitization and publication projects. I wouldn’t want to do that, and even after the material is digitized and made web-friendly, organizing large collections of various types of data is an enormous challenge. Still, I’m convinced that giving listeners access to the creative process, and contextualizing the ‘finished piece’ with a kind of documentary trail of its history and production would in many cases be worth the effort.
The ‘new formats’ Sue alludes to in her closing paragraph are really the exciting things to think about here. Databases, indexed sound, and increased attention to usability on the web will all bring innovation to what we call ‘electronically mediated documentary work’ radio producers are already pioneers in this area, and this forum is another example of how it will move forward.
We tried to do this a bit with the Lost & Found Sound website which, indeed, was derived from Grandma’s attic.
Radio is the lure bouncing on the surface, available for free to anyone, hooking someone deeper into the Internet. At our radio stations, we have developed a wonderful project (unfunded as yet) to use this relationship to draw people into local oral history. We want to template it for stations around the country. In fact, we’re already trolling the lure by airing little fragments of local life all day long, but we need funding for the deep Internet part. Radio is a way to make archives intriguing. The Internet is the way to make them accessible. Without the partnership with radio, the archives molder from disuse.
Im really enjoying this discussion, and this website by the way.
I thought id tell you a story of just one, but probably my most amazing experience of how the web can expand the audience and open new lines of communication.
You may remember that in August 1999 there was for the first time a free election in East Timor. For 25 years it had been isolated and now it was under the spotlight, swarming with the UN, international observers and media. The people voted to end their military occupation and in turn the departing military commenced a program of destruction. This sent the UN and most media fleeing the country, while a hardline contingent (from both occupations) sheltered in the main UN compound refusing to be evacuated, in solidarity with the Timorese enduring the windstorm of violence around them.
So once again the country was plunged into darkness as the only media left were confined to the UN compound and reduced to filing cell phone reports of the destruction they could see from behind the barbed wire fence.
However, as all the media lights were progressively extinguished, unknown to most, a novel line of communication was opened up through the web with the invaluable archived programs of Democracy Now! on Pacifica Radio. Their correspondent Alan Nairn, in a courageous and stupid move had remained as the last journalist on the streets in Timor. He continued to report the violence and his discovery of military documents which had planned it. He even filed reports after finally being arrested and detained (as Amy Goodman said to him "giving new meaning to the words ‘cell phone’")
I live in Australia and at the time there was hysteria over the East Timor situation. And while the whole of the media (and thus the people) were left in the dark about it, it was a thrilling experience to hear ground breaking cell phone reports from a journalist only a few hundred kilometres away, relayed through a US website.
Of course none of this was reported in the mainstream media, making the webcasts even more valuable.
Dmae here….great discusion here….Jad, I love your "five sounds in search of an author" idea. Why not six? Great idea and I’m glad that people are participating. I imagine it’s on the WNYC site to listen to? Sue, good idea about breaking up longer pieces into smaller clips. And about the phone callers with their thoughts. Do most people find it easier to download short clips rather than longer pieces? I still have a phone connection and it takes forever sometimes. Also, do most people find that having audience participation in audio-streaming sites or any sites really help get more return audiences?
Thanks for the ideas, Dmae
Mikel your intermittent moderator here.
The contributions have been astounding. I love the way everyone has articulated the Web vs. Radio question. Your input will make a big difference as we frame the conversation in the PRPD session.
We’ve used the air to drive traffic to the sites and we’ve established a base of experience with Web-only content and Web-specific features. At this point, I’d like to shift the conversation and hear your experiences as you’ve carried content across media and seen it grow and evolve along the way. One of the mandates for the PRPD session is to examine the Web’s process.
At WNYC, we’re using wnyc.org as a deep-resource center to expand and deepen the listeners’ experience with our election coverage. We have briefing papers for the issues and candidates, a message board where people bat ideas back and forth, straw polls, tune-in messages to drive listeners to the next major piece of coverage and gobs of links. Our hosts use the message boards for show prep. I used listener feedback to help craft the messaging around the programming when designing the on-air branding language (we call our election coverage The Political Season). We’re getting stronger-than-anticipated response to our coverage. IMHO, it’s because we’re doing a better job getting our listeners ready for the broadcast component by moving them between the two media. Pubradio listeners are information junkies. The deep web materials give them a uniquely rich experience that, in turn, deepens their on-air listening experience. They return to the site for more and the cycle repeats. That’s my theory.
What are your experiences taking web-based or web-originated content back to the air? What have you done to incubate programming on the Internet that later feeds the air? What properties, or qualities, are unique to the Internet and help to sprout new ideas, new voices, new approaches and <how do we get that good work to the larger broadcast audience>?
….. or maybe you haven’t don’t this yet – and have some ideas that you’d like to try. Let’s hear those, as well, and maybe we can springboard an innovative idea into reality from this forum!
Hey Everyone:
My first foray into this forum so excuse me if I cover old ground.
For the past eight years, I have been working as a mentor to young journalists of color thru NPR. Two years ago at the UNITY 99 conference, we were able to put our audio content online. Ironically, Chris Mandra at NPR was our first "Webmaster." He experienced first hand what we were trying to accomplish by being in the room with us and building pages and figuring out this thing called "streaming." Now, he’s acting VP for Online and has continued to provide us with strong support. What goes around comes around eh?
We have our own webmaster, a pool of technical people to oversee each project and a vast team of mentors from in and out of public radio who are committed to finding, training and keeping the next generation. And we have moved into video online. We did this at the PRC this year. Since May, I’ve been shooting "B-Roll" at our projects around the country for an online promotional video we’ll edit and put on our site…uh…um…uh….soon
I’ve skipped a lot of details (really) , but the "Next Generation Radio Project From NPR News" webpages have two purposes. One is to "incubate" (I prefer that word more than "training") individuals on the ‘net. We spend a week teaching and doing and then webcasting their ideas and their talent. Programs and pieces are produced with a multi-media mindset.
We have overcome many of the obstacles thrown in our way when it came to finding and training young people, especially those who are minorities. The Internet opened up a vast space that we can easily fill…..now.
The second piece is about getting a job and creating a pool of trained, employable young journalists. I no longer want to hear managers say "we can’t find anyone." Go to our pages and you’ll find plenty..and these are individuals who WE have worked with. Not brainwashing them with "our way," but bringing out their voices and ideas while providing a guiding hand. And we do have fun.
Jay et al…….thanks for the venue and the vision. Likeminded people will always find each other.
Doug Mitchell
Next Generation Radio
NPR
The internet and radio is a a good marriage of a kind.
How does it work and how can it be used for the dissemeination of information
ben
Doug, good to see you here! And good to see your project gathering steam. I hope you’ll be at the PRPD and the Third Coast Festival. Let’s think of ways that Transom.org and your site might collaborate.
Indeed, I hope we can find ways that all our sympathetic sites might work together and link up. I don’t see a downside to that, does anyone else?
I don’t want to dowse the fire of good ideas here, but I think it’s relevant to note a section of NPR’s new "Agreement" that they are currently mailing to outside contributors insisting it be signed by September 15:
>"B. The work, or any related work produced by you,
shall not be previously broadcast by any other
electronic medium."
For one thing, this would destroy the whole premise of Transom.org and, in a larger sense, render the Internet useless as an incubator.
I don’t want to invest our time in this discussion here on Transom, but we have formed a new mailing list to discuss this latest rights grab by NPR. The CPAG – Content Producers Advisory Group. You can join by emailing me and identifying yourself in that category. It’s just a few days old and has about 350 members.
Commenting off of what Ben said in post # 16: It seems to me that after almost every radio piece or story on the air, there is mention of the website "for more information." You see the same thing happening on television. The internet provides a wonderful space for further research, more in-depth discussion of the issue or topic and links to other sites.
Take call-in talk shows for example, callers have the chance to discuss topics and ask experts questions, but after the show is over, it’s over. The internet is a great place to provide further information and content-orientated discussions. We connect with the radio because we hear voices, one problem with the internet is that it’s our computer. It lacks a human-element radio innately has.
I think there is great potential here in this discussion to brainstorm and cite internet/radio "marriages" that work and don’t work, and why. For example, I like that WBUR out of Boston has a front page that is content/news centered. It’s not just a glorified table of contents.