‘NPR Voice’ Has Taken Over the Airwaves | Hacker News Reader

‘NPR Voice’ Has Taken Over the Airwaves

nytimes.com

36 pointsdanboarder40 comments

I wish it would go away. When they interview they show emotion and drive emotion as well as lead the speaker interviewee.

Please stop. I want to infer my own emotions, not yours NPR. I prefer even speech, one which does not add judgement into the story.

Irksome is when they interview a pathetic subject and start with an apology. Like I'm very sorry for the things I think are awful you're going through, but let's have you explain the awful things in a sympathetic way.

Of course NPR isn't the only one. But they have mastered this technique.

There must be some acceptable middle ground. Have you ever listened to BBC news radio? It's dry as chalk.

The BBC news I listen to (the News Hour they play on my local NPR station every morning) is much more emotional than NPR. This is especially true in the interviews, where they hit hard and are not afraid to ask uncomfortable questions, whereas NPR interviewers tend to be very accommodating and mostly exist to set up the interviewee to say what they want to say.

try BBC world service, it's dehydrated.

I love the World Service. I just want to hear the news without gimmicks.

My #1 source. It's the antithesis of local news. Owen Bennett Jones is a _legend_. He's Kronkite/Brokaw/Jennings all into one. My father is in his late sixties and remembers listening to Jones with HIS father during the peak of the cold war half way across the world. Lyse Doucet does some amazing international on-the-ground coverage. I'll take dehydrated any day over 24-news-hour "let's spend 4 days over-analyzing the same 16 second presidential campaign snafu 16 months away from the primaries" alternative.

I love the schoolboy-ish urgent excitement of BBC reporters.

I think in the context of all of the media available to us, it's an acceptable style. I appreciate the human touch sometimes. If every news organization adopts that style then it's a problem.

A result is the suggestion of spontaneous speech and unadulterated emotion. The irony is that such presentations are highly rehearsed, with each caesura calculated and every syllable stressed in advance.

This is actually a major problem with the entire TV and radio age. People who seem awkward or fake in front of a camera are actually normal people. It is simply not natural to talk directly to a camera lens as if it is a person, it is not natural to speak in a folksy way to a generic audience that you cannot see. People who seem natural in front of a camera, are actually slick, well-practiced professionals. Thus in the modern era, all politicians and most public figures end up being essentially actors.

It occurs to me that a decent segment of the public figure that politicians and public figures have acting skills.

Can you expand on why acting authentic, and the authentic seeming the opposite, in front of the camera is "a major problem with the entire TV and radio age"?

The problem is not that the genuinely authentic seems unauthentic, it's often just boring and/or clumsy. I've heard some actual impromptu audio from radio hosts and at times they come off as nervous, bumbling idiots (i.e. normal people).

To me, the NPR voice is more like the way I sound in my head, before I open my mouth and begin babbling incoherently.

I have found this to be true for myself as well -- NPR Voice in my head, babbling idiot in front of the camera. I should try to improve that.

If you really want to hear about it, this isn't the first time a unique voice was used to convey authenticity. It might have involved his informal rambling and all, and how his crazy life was falling apart, and all that kind of stuff, but I don't feel like going into it if you want to know the truth.

Because it's not authentic, it's "acting authentic".

There's a 1987 movie called Broadcast News which touches on the issues of how reporters portray the news and what can happen, and why it might be considered unethical to add touches and flourishes that add authenticity to inauthentic events.

NPR Voice is attractive, I enjoy listening to it, but what else can they sell me while they use that voice?

If NPR Voice is not spontaneous but heavily practiced, rehearsed and edited, how is it different from propaganda?

How do you suggest a newscaster speak the news if not in a practised manner?

Granted that an "authentic-sounding voice of authority" can put credence behind inauthentic events, but can not the opposite also be true? By this token, I'm going to have a hard time believing something authentic when I hear it on a typical AM radio broadcast. Doesn't there need to be an amount of consideration of the listener in either situation despite or because of the type of voice being used? "Surely Ira Glass can't be telling me the moon is actually purple right now." "This babbling talking head is really telling me JFK just got shot? Is he serious?"

I appreciate the tip on "Broadcast News"; by coincidence, I'm going to be catching "Truth" at the theater later today, a film about the CBS//Rather fiasco based off the book.

I was recently impressed when I watched Nightly Business Report, which is now produced by CNBC. A wide range of their staff appear to effortlessly change their delivery for the different audience.

I actually like the more casual, conversational storytelling that NPR is known for. I find the NPR style of delivery to be innovative and calling this "NPR Voice" might just be a negative dig from media traditionalists.

Ira Glass is one of the most recognizable NPR reporters and explains it like this, from the linked article:

“Back when we were kids, authority came from enunciation, precision,” Mr. Glass said. “But a whole generation of people feel like that character is obviously a phony — like the newscaster on ‘The Simpsons’ — with a deep voice and gravitas.”

For his more intimate storytelling, Mr. Glass “went in the other direction,” he said. “Any story hits you harder if the person delivering it doesn’t sound like a news robot but, in fact, sounds like a real person having the reactions a real person would.”

I prefer the NHK style of presentation. Just plain matter of factly. "These are the things that happened today." not the "These are the things that happened today and they are terrible, if you are any kind of responsible human being you will feel empathetic and take action"

I mean, it's as if every human story on NPR has an implicit call to action. I don't want your propaganda (nor Fox's or MSNBC's etc.) I just want you to present news and I can maker up my mind if it's terrible good, indifferent or somewhere in between.

The suggestion of "spontaneous speech" comes from not only a "highly rehearsed" intonation but is perhaps primarily the result of extreme editing, as discussed in this revealing audio post looking at the practice by On the Media:

http://lk.tumblr.com/post/5435349794/public-radio-production

Really eye-opening to learn that the NPR anchors, reporters, and guest interview subjects are not nearly as quick-thinking and well-spoken as they are made to sound in the final product.

Amateurish and ersatz "thoughtful thinking aloud" is just the latest reason I can't stand listening to radio, and now prefer podcasts. Pause and ponder all you want, Abumrad, Krulwich, Koenig et. al. I have set my player (Podcast Addict, among others) to skip silence and play at 1.2-2.0x speed, so that gormless pauses and ponderous exposition are now scarcely noticeable.

In this similar vein, I had a religious experience when I realized YouTube had a 2x button. I'm now livid beyond belief that I can't do it on mobile.

Although I will rarely listen to more emotionally charged content (TAL, Radiolab, etc) on the multiplier, since I don't listen to those shows for their facts or to learn something.

Not entirely taken over, only on the left-wing stations. Right wing stations have an entirely different vocal style, and you can tell within seconds what sort of station you've just tuned into.

This is what my mother calls "insufferable, incredulous shouting." She's not left-wing by any stretch of the imagination, but she listens to NPR because she'd "rather get information from people who aren't so angry all the time."

While we're on the subject, stop pronouncing "billion" with a pause and explosive B, like you have to take a deep breath before saying it:

"_____bbbbbBillion"

It's not a big number any more. ;-)

I have referred to NPR, for some time now, as the Bureau of Silly Voices (in homage to Monty Python's Bureau of Silly Walks).

My favorite part of NPR interviews is when they do it out in the field ... ie walking over a bunch of fallen leaves with the soundguy putting his mic near their feet to pick up the crunch, crunch.

That happens every ... single ... time they do an interview. I mainly just listen to find out what the soundguy did to get a weird sound.

If you've never seen it, you might enjoy Blow Out, a 1981 thriller starring John Travolta as a sound engineer who, while collecting weird sounds, an actual hobby of theirs, collects the evidence of a murder.

Not to mention Silly Names. Looking at you, Sunari Glinton, Neda Ulaby, and Olfebia Quist-Arcton.

Speaking of names, why do the anchors pronounce the Egypt-based correspondent's name "Layla Fadel" while she pronounces her own name "Layla Faldin"? This irritates me no end!

>Speaking of names, why do the anchors pronounce the Egypt-based correspondent's name "Layla Fadel" while she pronounces her own name "Layla Faldin"? This irritates me no end!

It's a product of accent. Her last name is فضل‎ . The anchors are producing the Arabic letter ض as [d], whereas Leila herself is pronouncing it as the Lebanese do: [dˤ]. The pharyngealization of the voiced alveolar stop has an effect on the next letter, pulling it from the alveolar lateral approximant [l] to something closer to to the retroflex lateral approximant, [ɭ]. Because we don't have [ɭ] in English (or whatever language/s you speak), you hear what's closest to that, the alveolar nasal [n]. The same goes for the phantom [l] you hear before the d: pharyngealization changes your perception of those sounds.

So is it essentially like when an American pronounces the name, Pedro, with a rhotic R and without the alveolar trill?

You have the concept right. However, in Spanish the 'r' in "Pedro" is not a trill but a tap. In Spanish, the trill only comes after /n/, /l/, or /s/ or at the beginning of a word.

Thanks for this explanation! So I will put Ms. Fadel in the same category as Mandalit del Barco, both of whom "over-pronounce" their own names.

Yeah, that I don't get. She always signs off "Fall.Den" but they always say "Faddle". But when it comes to most others, they over-pronounce foreign names --although they always mess up the "z" as either "s" or "z" instead of the actual "th" in Spanish surnames. But incomprehensibly, except for a couple of correspondents in country, they overwhelmingly don't come close with Chinese place names or personal names.

Is that the same one that ridiculously overpronounces any vaguely foreign-sounding person or place name?

The only thing worse than NPR voice is Shakespearre voice.

Vocal fry and upspeak are pretty hard to listen to once they get in your ear.... Lists to BBC presenters...

Vocal Fry is reasonably put on, but as an Australian I'm afraid upspeak is something that's the mode of speech for large parts of our population. It's kind of hard to avoid :-)

Interesting you mentioned two vocal practices associated with young women.

Men do it too, Lots of presenters. Even some of the ones on NPR. One of them sounds like he has dry spit (phlegm) in his throat. The speaker of the house was wont to do it on occasion too, so does Obama. May be known as "croak" in some circles.

Upspeak used (say 35 or 40 years ago) to be a reliable marker for a western Pennsylvania upbringing. How it escaped to the larger population I don't remember.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com