Re: [Swprograms] NYTimes.com Article: NPR Stations Had PushedforChange

["Mike Wolfson" <mwolfson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>From the tone of the article, I got the impression that they were throwing
the baby out with the bathwater.  One point of interest was that the change
was being made by the producer of the program...the guy who Edwards started
the program with 25 years ago.  The fact that his "partner" made the
unilateral decision to change anchors seems interesting.  If I'm wrong here
and misunderstand who made the decision to change things, please let me
know.

No one seemed to ask Bob Edwards etal whether they were willing to undertake
a revamp of the program.  If he or the "team" had been asked and declined,
then it might make sense to make wholesale changes.  To have 64% growth
seems to indicate that they were doing a lot of things right and that some
less drastic changes may be all that was needed.

This story seems very similar to me to the way Allistair Cooke was retired
by the BBC recently.  In both cases, long, loyal exceptional service was
rewarded with a very badly handled termination.

Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Cuff" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Shortwave programming discussion" <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] NYTimes.com Article: NPR Stations Had
PushedforChange


> But one of those nagging gray areas is, "When do you know something is
broke
> or not?"  For example, is 64% growth over 5 years good enough?  Could it
> have been 84% with different actions taken?"
>
> I am playing devil's advocate in this -- I was one of the 17,000 messages
> who stated that the timing was highly insensitive with Edwards' 25th
> Anniversary coming up.
>
> There is a delicate line that needs to be straddled in this quandary of
> "going live" with breaking news. I, for one, don't want to see NPR (or the
> BBC) become a CNN clone in emphasizing immediacy over impact and analysis.
>
> Perhaps we can draw a parallel to the BBCWS in this -- while I don't
> specifically recall how the events on 9/11/2001 unfolded on the BBCWS, I'd
> wager they "went live" a lot quicker than NPR.
>
> Maybe the lesson here is that you must purposefully rotate hosts if you
want
> the "NPR" brand to be more important than the "Bob Edwards" brand, and to
> avoid facing this no-win situation.
>
> Take our friends at the BBCWS -- neither Newshour nor The World Today are
as
> personality-driven as NPR's Morning Edition or ATC.  I suspect this helps
> keep Newshour from becoming the Julian Marshall show or the Robin Lustig
> show.
>
> Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:33 AM
> Subject: [Swprograms] NYTimes.com Article: NPR Stations Had Pushed
forChange
>
>
> The article below from NYTimes.com
> has been sent to you by jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Very good article on a dilemma facing NPR and most public service
> broadcasters.  Two comments come to mind: (1) If it ain't broke, don't fix
> it; (2) Even if you're on the right track, if you're moving too slowly,
> you'll get run over. (with apologies to Richard Armitage)...  Both are
> true--choose your poison!  :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
shown above.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.