Difficult choice

I deeply regret that I only learned of this contest today. I doubly regret that I did not arrive at this site soon enough to cast a vote for Stephanie Harper, whose radio spot satisfied my two-tier criteria for a “Radio Host.”

I only ask two things of a radio host and neither is outrageous. I want the Host to (1) grab my attention with a little “Pizzazz” and (2) give me authentic, impeccably crafted “Content” that compels me to listen with both ears.

Unfortunately, radio audiences are often subjected to “Talking Heads” that may have great content but they are deadly dull. I resent having to listen to someone who makes me nod off after three minutes of polite listening. At the other end of the spectrum is the “Flash in the Pan” – the person who is all glitz and glimmer but hasn’t a clue about what he’s talking about. This person can often whip an audience into an emotional frenzy … but leaves us high and dry because of the abysmal absence of substance. After all the hoopla, the audience feels robbed because the host has taken our precious time and given us nothing in return.

Stephanie Harper’s radio spot delivered “Content!” and “Pizzazz!” Her voice quality and delivery were very engaging and her message was insightful. Hers is a rare authentic voice that we don’t hear enough of on NPR and we rarely hear it in the rest of Radio Land. I think NPR allowed a “Gem” to slip through its airwaves. What a disappointment! What a loss! What a pity!

I just listened to and rated all ten and have to say that the line-up wasn't impressive. No one got above an "Okay" and I felt generous in some of the ratings. Some might think I was being overly critical, but while listening, I put myself into the position of hearing this person on the radio every day or every week. Given the performances I heard, I'm afraid I would find myself turning off NPR and putting on a CD or pulling down an MP3 off the web. Perhaps people like Neil Conan, Bob Mondello, Terry Gross, Ken Turan, and Ira Flatow and others have set a standard that is nearly impossible for mere mortals to attain.

On the other hand, tests are difficult. They're difficult to create and they're difficult to take. April Baer hosted shows in Cleveland before moving to Portland and she was very good, as I recall. Her performance on these tests didn't reflect that though. This may well be the case for the other candidates. But that's impossible to know.

There's two improvements I would suggest. First, give all contestants the same word or phrase for the "word association" segment. Some of these are obviously more difficult to grab onto and run with than others and that doesn't make for a fair test. Secondly, the raters (people in my position here at the end of the keyboard) should have the copy on the same screen as the audio link so we can read along with the contestant.

My sympathies to the judges,
ken 0,
cleveland

Maybe it'll seem different after all five. I was very suprised by the variability and though only a few were anywhere near the quality I would have expected in round two. I think the range of talent that got through to round two - from very good to not - provides a very strong argument for having many more people get to round two and simpliifying the time/energy needed on the PRX side for the second round next time - e.g. have 100 people progress, have each one call in to an automated system to get a random impromptu word and create an automatic 2 min recording, ditto with a shorter read, ditto with a shorter read, plus let each person upload the billboard.

I just read the live read text again too and was struck by how difficult it is to say "..long before written language much less recorded history." Even after drilling it several times, my mouth just wants to say "language mush lesh". Yes, hats off to those who can do a perfect cold read!