Hacker News Reader

Comment by domenicd | Hacker News Reader

As someone who only vaguely remembers NPR from their childhood, my primary association of NPR is with their podcasts. And those things are full of ads. So I initially found this post very confusing.

I guess in the past there might have been something called NPR which did not have ads?

View on HN

This wasn't the case as recently as a few years ago. I used to listen to the podcast version of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me exclusively, and remember musical interludes that immediately went right back to the show.

One time I was driving in the car at just the right time and heard Wait Wait Don't Tell Me on the radio for the first time (as opposed to in podcast form) and was startled that there were ads. Now of course there are a ton of ads, but I remember being surprised by how NPR seemed to be a holdout to the Mailchimp/Casper/Blue Apron-fueled ad craze.

As someone who thinks Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is the absolute worst pile of garbage NPR has ever produced, what do people see in that show? Honest question.

Found this review [1] a few years ago and was glad to find I wasn't the only one who couldn't stand that apparently much beloved show.

[1] http://www.imnotlaughing.com/index.php/radio/46-wait-waitI

Amen to that. Anodyne snark becomes cloying quite quickly.

Big thumbs up to production staff of "How I Built This". Huge thumbs down on Guy "exaggerated incredulity" Raz.

Also on the shit list: moth radio hour and ted radio hour (damn you Guy Raz!)

And a resounding meh to that most sacred of NPR institutions: car talk. Neither funny nor helpful.

WWDTM was amusing for its first few years. It had the "new kid on the block" vibe, and countered much of the too-serious-by-half general sense of NPR. Having the morning news announcer, Carl Kassel, as the announcer, in a very non-serious role, was also amusing. That held up for most of the show's first decade.

But yes, the bloom's off the rose. The show is now 21 years old, it's an institution itself, is no longer a refreshing change-up from normal programming, and comes across as increasingly crass rather than clever or irreverant. Worst was realising that several of the panelists were far better in their off-show personae than on, a fact and awareness which had failed to penetrate WWDTM's format and shtick itself.

I stopped listening years ago.

I'm a big fan of WWDTM, because I find it funny. IMHO, it's the second-best podcast I listen to. It's relatively light, doesn't take itself too seriously, doesn't pretend to be a serious quiz, and the guest panelists are good enough in the small doses that's dished out.

I wonder if the ads are put in there by the local distributor. In my area NPR radio station has no ads except when they run a campaign asking for donations.

They always say "We don't have ads, we have underwriters". I think the difference being the sponsor has copy that the announcer will read, but they can't do all the annoying audio effects that traditional advertisers use.

Personally, I don't much mind it. Gotta pay the bills somehow.

Maybe depends where you are, but NPR is big here in central Iowa (iowapublicradio.org). I think it's pretty big in Minnesota as well.

It's the double standard hypocrisy that's troubling many. You're either a publicly funded medium that doesn't run on ads or you're not. Currently, my impression is constant corporate sponsorship designed to make said corporations look good with pauses to raise more money from the public. During the pauses the sponsorship ads don't run so you feel like you are the sponsor.

That distinction has been steadily eroding. Over on their television broadcasting counterpart, the PBS NewsHour plays straight-up commercials from financial planning firms prior to each episode now.

Isn't having the talent do the add read, worse than playing in professional adverts.

or I am spoiled by the BBC.

I think the difference is they limit it to sort "Mission Statement" type blurbs, instead of "COME TO JimBob's CHevy for GREAT DEALSS!!!!"

NPR was established by an act of congress, and was meant to provide for a public radio system. It never had ads until recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR

NPR was initially funded by the government. I would much rather any media be ad supported than government supported. Given a choice between dealing with business motives and government motives, I trust government a lot less.

You should really distrust them equally. They're effectively one in the same in our current society. Who do you think is paying the government representatives to make business friendly choices that enrich their friends?

The difference is that I trust businesses whose motive is purely logical - make money - a lot more than I trust government run by people who either have “cultural interests” that are directly opposed to my views and very existence.

Business doesn’t have the power to take money, property, liberty, or my life.

...you've never read much labor history, have you?

Business has the power to do all of those things. And has _frequently_ exercised that power through out history.

The fact that it isn't right now (or is to a lesser and less obvious degree) is the result of government exercising its power to keep business in check. Those laws that government is still (half heartedly) enforcing are a hold over of a time when the people had more control of the government, and business less.

...also, while we're here... what cultural interests are opposed to your very existence? Genuinely curious. As someone of Jewish heritage, I'm well familiar with ideologies opposed to my very existence, but I'm curious what specific interests you're referring to and on what basis you believe they are opposed to your existence.

That if you are not a White Christian you don’t belong here and you are not a true American or that you are a second class citizen that shouldn’t be treated equally by the justice system. There was always the undercurrent of it - especially in the south, but in the current political environment, it’s very front and center.

Again, I am not saying that it is a majority of Americans but because of the electoral college and the allocation of 2 seats in the Senate regardless of population, that viewpoint has an outsized voice right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com