Radio news just now, talking about "job growth" and listing medical as first in their list of where such number goes up is happening.
Now why might we be seeing more need for medical jobs in now our fifth year of pandemic?
Meanwhile, ex-administration official they bring in to talk to the issue, skips right past this; talks about growth in hospitality jobs "after" pandemic "lock-downs".
To explain job openings in 2024.
Because of course he does.
Walked away before segment ended, but 99% confident that despite opening with a gesture toward "growth" in medical jobs, the #NPR "what does this mean for inflation" news person let their guest expert's explanation by way of diversion to the bottom of the list… go unchallenged.
Because of course they would have. This is the fourth estate of #RentierSociety, after all.
Also, notably, second on the list? Oh, look, "government" jobs. Orly? What sort of "government" jobs are those?
You just had to remind me NPR has a comedy quiz show, didn't you?
Roommate was still listening to such on kitchen radio in 2022, until this canned opening was read with as much defensive sneering as could be mustered:
"The following program was taped before an audience of real live people."
Just imagine the purposeful emphasis on those last three words.
Anyway, had to ask roommate not to pollute our common space with their toxicity after that.
But yeah, Iraq Wars were ad campaigns.
@beadsland TBF, that live audience note came after a couple of years in which the show was produced in-studio / over Zoom / Skype / whatever without and audience Because Covid. Lest we forget.
And that said, I'd soured on WWDTM quite a while before that based on its general inanity.
As for NPR's news programming: I've recently begun listening to WGBH's "The World" again after a hiatus of a decade or more, and one of my realisations is that my mind handles that programme far better than it does NPR's current mainstream news magazines (e.g., Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition, etc.).
So far as I can tell, The World's magic is twofold:
What I'd long since noticed listening to a live NPR affiliate broadcast (both local and sampled from various Internet streams from around the US) is that it seems like about half the time I join a broadcast it's running a sponsorship spot, that is, the promo percentage seems to be approaching 50%, and that much of the programming is live, *which means that all the fussy shit and inconsistency which an editing process drops on the cutting room floor intrudes into the on-the-air segment.
When editing a segment, a reporter and whatever support staff assemble a finished product out of multiple segments of audio and commentary. This means that editing to length happens before an item goes on air. That speech tics get edited out. That it's not necessary to chase the guest(s) off the air in the last minute or so of a segment. And that the reporter, if they're any good at all, can take a stream-of-consciousness discussion and edit it to a consistent narrative.
(That last can be problematic if the narrative is itself constructed. In the better cases, however, a reporter is uncovering a true thread. It's still something you want to watch.)
NPR began its switch to live, and multi-location broadcast origin, following 9/11, when the network realised that its dependence on a single broadcast studio (in Washington, DC) put it at risk of being knocked off-air in a catastrophe ... or violent attack. And there was a desire to make the news magazines more responsive to late-breaking developments. There's something to be said for both points. But how the network has approached both points greatly weakens the overall product in ways that simply tire my brain. Increased reliance on corporate sponsorship puts a further degradation on the net product.
Anyhow, that's my experience, and I'd be really interested in how other people feel comparing NPR (or programming such as the BBC which in many ways has evolved similarly) vs. The World's approach.
I'm aware of some non-English programming which seems to more closely resemble pre-2001 NPR production, particularly Deutschlandfunk.
Oh, I know.
And they knew their audience knew. Hence the very pointed tone of the delivery of that line.
The emphasis was placed just so—to communicate that they were judging anyone who might be worried by those words.
And likewise, that emphasis communicated, to those in the audience who would likewise disdain anyone still taking precautions, that they and the speaker were of same mind.
The delivery of that line was a very enunciated choice.
Performatively sour intent.
Am a 70s child: grew up with banality of "was filmed in front of a live studio audience" opening TV shows of the era.
Yes, those line readings weren't following what we all have experienced and continue to experience. Nonetheless, the model for doing that line reading, to simply emulate the bromide of what came before, was right there.
They could have communicated normalcy. Which yes, myself would judge… but that would be on me, not the speaker.
They chose oratory violence.
@cy That strikes me as an ... uncharitable reading.
Particularly as the previous announcement, also recorded had been (IIRC): "This episode was recorded in front of an audience of ... no one." Indicating that it was not live, and the laughter was canned.
Again, of all things to hold against NPR, this is extraordinarily petty.
There's a reason actors practice line readings by redoing them again and again, placing emphasis differently.
Because it matters.
You discuss production values above. Again, there was a model for how to do this line reading. Production comes out of an entire history of professional praxis, of how these things have been done by all the productions that came before.
To situate that line reading only in relation to the line reading it immediately replaced… is ahistorical.
"You do you" is Eu-gen-ics.
Cy
Doc Edward Morbius ⭕