[Rebecca] Thinking outside the box.
I see it all the time, in the workplace and on those reality shows where people compete for a top prize: a person is told to "think outside the box," and after doing so the reaction is, "Hey, what are you doing? Get back in your box!"
So that's what I'm thinking about for this next round, where we get to interview (nearly) any person we'd like. Who do I choose? My focus is usually on science and skepticism -- do I go with that angle, or do I veer off into something else entirely just to mix it up? There are lots of things that interest me, like music and books and art, and I'm sure that I could do a fun and competent interview in a number of fields. I'm sure my Talent Quest cohorts are feeling about the same. So, readers, what are your feelings on the box, and where in relation to it we should do our thinking?
delicious
diggThrowing some "raw meat" on the grill here...
As NPR launches new shows it’s interesting to note that the new shows tend to be lead/managed by someone from network television news. The second in command is someone “native” to public radio.
Hosts are coming out of network television as well. The new program (The Bryant Park Project – Bryant Park is in New York City and NPR’s new studios there are close to the park) has two hosts. One is a former MTV/MSNBC reporter, with a good amount of cross-media experience and the other host is a "young" NPR reporter. The new "Tell Me More" program is hosted and lead by former reporter and a former producer from ABC News. For each show, the second in command is a long time public radio producer. The staffs are predominately public radio folks. Weekend America just hired a woman from print to host along side Bill Radke. She had been doing commentaries for WDET in Detroit and was coached by a long-time public radio (now NPR) reporter.
“And the walls came tumbling down…”
Doug
"Try stuff
See what Works
See what doesn't
Learn, Rinse, Repeat."
-Tom Peters
I've been trying to read as much of the blog postings as possible. I love this conversation in particular. Edgy? Safe? Middle-of-the-road? Other, newer labels?
Keep it going..
Doug Mitchell
"Try stuff
See what works
See what doesn't
Learn, Rinse, Repeat."
-Tom Peters
Ya just know it when you hear it.
(made you look. That actually wasn't very risky of me)
But see, that's thing that makes the TQ such a juicy challenge: we've got a HUGE diversity of ideas about what risk is.
Some of us want new voices from hosts. Some can live with the standard technique, as long as the subject matter is surprising. I'm seeing a huge appetite for something over on Chuck's page-- political risk? outrage?.
My own self--I want to fool around with the concept of story. Turn peoples' heads in directions they didn't think they wanted to go.
I hate to say it, but... when are we going to get some more feedback from the judges? Idol's nothing without Simon, right?
I believe there is freedom amid restriction. Define the box. Understand it. Then play with it.
As I'm sure you're aware, two box obliterators who still manage to communicate effectively and entertainingly are Radio Lab's Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad. Maybe it's just style and tone with them, maybe it's writing. But if anything these folks are defining at least one facet of the box. Check out how far they are able to go with it, then use this as inspiration.
Look forward to hearing what you do!
John Tynan
http://johntynan.com
Check out my round one entry at:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/201
Of the elements that go into constructing a solid interview, it seems to me that subject/content is the most subjective. So...go with what you are passionate about, choose something you might like to hear; do what you want, what you could genuinely have fun with.
As far as the person you interview is concerned, think it should be someone you are simply going to have a good time talking to; someone who is going to truly engage in warm, human dialogue.
And now for the short answer: Go with your instincts; they've been pretty, damn good so far.
I've been trying to figure out who to interview and keep finding myself being drawn to one or two characters who might be a little risky (in that they could well go off on rants, or be hostile, or high, or just not even show up). I have a few safe bets -- smart, well-spoken people who are doing interesting things, but I fear that going with such people would be so predictable, would be so likely to result in a typical, sober, i-see-where-this-is-going interview. The risky people I'm considering do have fascinating stories, but as a total novice interviewer, I wonder if it's unwise to try to ride the wildest bull on my first day at the rodeo.
playing it "safe" is already to be expected with NPR, and it is being expected of the finalists...taking a risk is well "risky" but the outcome will be outstanding and result is being very interesting. and will most certainly be noticable and seperate you from the pack. using Rebeca as an example...we already expect a scientific subject, and at the same time we already have a certain amount of trust and confidence in her ability to know all about it and have exceptional knowlege in that feild...if she goes in an oppisite direction and pulls it off, it will be a very welcomed surprise, and show her strenth as a multi- lateral host versus one who can just maintain one level of subject matter and thats it. NPR already takes the "safe" approach as stated by one of the judges
and staying with the safe wont neccesarily hurt you, but I think "us" the general population is waiting for something different for a change, something daring and risky, you dont have to get out of control with it...but I for one would love something oppisite than what I already expect from a finalist..another example is Glynn..the great "story teller" but is he limited to that?? I would love to find out, and see what he can do outside that realm as well...it would be a welcomed surpise.
but be sure to have a certain amount of cofidence and comfort in a subject before you just run out there and jump on it because it's different. all this talk is making me very hungry to hear what you all will present this round!!
Maybe I can offer some advice from my dating life. Invite two interviewees, and if the risky one ends up sucking, kick him out and bring in the safe bet. Ha!
In all seriousness, that is a tough quandary. I'm thinking the best answer is to find someone "edgy" but not hostile, so if they're a little loopy at least they're on your side and won't sabotage the show.
I hate using those terms because you don't know what is expected. The easiest way I can say is get soundbites from everyone that you want. That's the easy part. The hard part will be which soundbites should be used. From an earlier post when they posted the challenge, I've said this challenge is a puzzle of what you're trying to fit in. The pieces are given, but you have to put the best story out there. The best stories might be safe, some might be unusual, some are unexpected. I can tell you the judges don't care if it's a safe or a risk. They care from the soundbites you got, that you tell the entire story with your resources.
I'd say stick to your general POV and subject matter, both of which I think are truly excellent choices for this contest (and apparently the judges agree). That will help ensure your comfort level, which is always critical in a competition.
In order to stand out, concentrate on prepping all the executional elements: Find a lively and smart interviewee with a compelling subject, think through your approach and your questions extra-thoroughly, listen carefully and follow-up like a pro, etc.
In most fields (creativity, sports, announcing, etc.) the people who stand out are characterized either by remarkable uniqueness (say, Stravinsky, Einstein, and Apple) or by taking what's already been done and just executing it excitingly and consistently (say, Haydn, Sony, and Robert Ludlum). My belief is that in this context - considering the sponsor, the goal, your experience level, and all such - your best shot at winning is the second approach. You can strive for evolving a bold uniqueness after you're up and running with a show.
I suppose some will criticize this advice for being conservative. But - I have many years experience with hundreds of creative competitions, on both sides of the judges' table. So, this is an informed position, not just a top-of-head notion.
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
Keep 'em coming, please!
I like the idea of an interview about "thinking outside the box." I'll admit I always shudder a little when I hear the phrase, actually, because it's become such a cliche. A bit ironic, or alanic, or something...
Why don't you interview someone about thinking outside the box. I am sure not everyone knows where the phrase comes from, and its many uses and abuses.
If you know the subject has been told, try to update it and see if there are any new facts or opinions. Google or Wikipedia it and see what it was previously said.
outside your expertice in science and show to everyone that you are not limited
to one particular area. that you can expand to different areas and still do a great job....you never know in the future when you may have to do an "outside" project, or fill in for another host who hosts a completely different type of show. it would be great for you to show that you are not limited to just one area!
When I was a kid, a box was my favorite toy (well okay, that and a stick were my only ones). With my imagination as a playmate, that box could be anything I wanted.
Today's boxes seem to be the exact opposite. Did anyone else get one of those "Freedom Boxes" from Homeland Security? I got one a while back. Big enough for one (two if you want to be cosy). Printed on the inside of the box it said,
Freedom from:
danger
risk
terrorist actions
government intrusion
the burden of individual thought and action
In small letters on the outside of the box it said,
Freedom to:
There was no list. The implication was that, outside the box, you have the freedom to decide for yourself what goes on the list.
I don't mind people think outside the box, but you have to be 100% committed on going outside the box. If you don't feel comfortable, then stick to your strengths.
From your blog, there are many topics you can tackle or combine. Just remember, feel comfortable what you are doing and also think about the public radio audience of why this subject is interesting.
I could give more, but it's a contest and don't want to play favoritism.
I could give more, but it's a contest and don't want to play favoritism.
Don't worry about seeming to play favorites, Tracy. We can all read these posts and can learn from the advice doled out here, even if it isn't specifically addressed to us. I, for one, want to hear every last bit of sage advice that you care to share.
Recent comments
1 week 6 days ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
12 weeks 3 days ago
13 weeks 5 days ago
13 weeks 6 days ago