Round 3 Entry for Rebecca Watson

I agree with some of the judges comments, but is it really valid to say that there was no "description of his style," etc? It was a short piece from a longer interview, and it seems that at least one of the judges forgot that when judging (and don't forget - that judge was left curious enough to actually go to the website). You'd think they'd at least remember the guidelines and judge accordingly.

And, as much as I like the SGU, I have to admit I agree with the comments about her being "excitedly insider-y" and cliche at times. I groaned when she said "I believe in science," and the story about going to the little bagel shop early in the morning was very cliche.

* All too often public radio interviews are quirky explorations of uninteresting people who are supposedly "intelligent/smart". I wasn't impressed with interview quality or questions. Too much a fan and not critical enough or even exploratory enough regarding the artists' background and why he feels there is an attraction to his work. When interviewed not very interesting.

* This is a tough one. I really like Rebecca’s enthusiasm and intelligence. And she clearly knows how to put her subject at ease and is well-prepared. But this sounds not only like something that’s already on public radio but like something that is held up as an example of what needs to change about public radio. This unfortunately, in my opinion, applies to both the interview she conducts and the one in which she’s interviewed. Seems so excitedly insider-y and kind of smug about it.

* Interview: Great choice of guest - surprising, obscure, expressive enough . . . She definitely knew his material and gave great examples of his work, but I did miss a description of his style, which I was surprised by after going to the website. The conversation begins to flow more over the course, and is quite comfortable and smooth by the end.

* The introduction to this guest was downright boring and somewhat confusing, but lo and behold, I did find myself engaged in the conversation. Rebecca’s a little awkward, and “inside nerd-ball” to steal a sports cliché, but she is natural and real. She really pulled off a fresh, lively and unusual chat worth listening to. As guest: “I believe in science” was a such a predictable response that I considered for a moment that she actually heard me say it aloud myself only to repeat it. Besides the fault of beating the same drum, Rebecca has a lovely command of language and is, in fact, a good storyteller. Her understated smarty-pants charm is growing on me.

* Very conversational. Just odd enough that I want to know what comes next. I don't know about the guy she's interviewing, but she makes me curious. She'd be soooo much more fun to listen to than Ira Flatow. Gets to be a bit much after a while. Like that Rebecca gets very specific about his work, and then steps back to comics on the web in general.

* Good personal answer about belief. Answer about Brookline filled with images and smells - nice struggle - personal and real, not self-important. Want to spend time with her.

Hooray for Rebecca - representing skepchicks everywhere. I think people are wrong when they say you're just like every other NPR person. You're not afraid to talk about what you (don't) believe in, and that takes a whole lot of courage, especially in this day and age.

I can't figure out why everyone likes Rebecca's segments. Sure, she's friendly and genuine, but it's all too conversational. Plus, I couldn't care less about the things she or her interviewee talked about. If this was on my public radio station, I'd change the channel to find something a little more interesting/important/useful.

Rebecca,
You continue to impress. Nice job with the interview. And on the flip side, you managed to carry the interview you weren't in charge of, too. Way to make that sound smooth when the interviewer was obviously not prepared.
Five stars all around. You being in round four will ensure that I'll be back to vote again.
Theresa

You are the only one that sounded completely natural and relaxed, like you were being yourself. That's what I want to hear on the radio. Both interviews held my interest and I didn't feel like clicking away. I hope I get to hear more from you.

Rebecca, you rock. I was engaged from the first sentence, and I'm completely captivated by the subject and your interview.

You engaged in genuine dialogue; a warm and human conversation. You did it confidently and with joy. Thank you for this.

I just hope when you get the job you'll still do The Skeptics Guide To The Universe(http://www.theskepticsguide.org/). It's the best podcast out there and you would be sorely missed.

You sound far older and more sophisticated than your actual years. You have the NPR sound. I think you will be the winner!
Rhode Island Boy here!

Way to go, Rebecca. I am happy for you, and I really think you should win. Keep up the good work.

And when you get your show on NPR, NPR will be no different than it is today. You are personable, intellegent, with a great radio voice, and safe as milk. NPR's corporate sponsors can rest easy.

Awesome stuff! I hope you win!

Rebecca has the personality and ability to make a terrific host. She's indefatigable, has that indefinable essence that's the sign of having an ineluctable destiny to make an indelible mark on the world, and is laughing as she reads this spate of sesquipedalian praise.

Keep up the good work! They have to choose you!

If there's anyone who can revitalize NPR's content, it's Rebecca. She's hip, plugged-in, wireless, and indefatigable. And she laughs when people use words like that.

- Table 9

And I like that you aren't -already- working full-time in Public Radio. I'm still uncomfortable with the inclusion of people who are already working in the field in this contest. Hardly seems fair. But what do I know? Just that I like what you're doing and wish you luck.

Bla bla bla,

JJWM

Very relaxing and conversational. I also enjoyed the combination of pop culture and science (which, of course, is your specialty).

This next comment doesn't necessarily relate explicitly to your piece, but I felt like writing it.

Just being the hardcore politico that I am, I would love to encourage you to look at both the positive ramifications of science as well as the negative. It seems to me that sometimes science is portrayed by the newsmedia as a universal good (benefitting capitalism and the state...) or as neutral.

As someone with a BS in ecology, but then also an MA in history, I find those tendencies a little problematic. That is, sometimes science is more often portrayed as being amusing or as positive, no matter what the actual outcome of the application of the science is.

that last comment was not so much about you but more a suggestion (request?) as to where you might go in the future.

My entry at Public Radio Quest:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/7572

My College Radio Myspace (feel free to friend me!):
http://www.myspace.com/girlsongprimerradio

You've been my top pick since I stopped being my top pick... though I think some others are great too - but you have great + not already a radio pro, which feels to me more in the spirit of the competition.

Deborah

Listen away at: http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/703

I listened to this interview 3 times because I really enjoyed it!! It was clear that you made the guest feel at home, and you generally had a fondness for his work, and thus he opened up. My favorite part of the entry was when we heard about you, who you are, and what matters to you. Extremely strong entry. Congrats!

I look forward to hearing you on a much larger stage someday soon!

NPR would be greatly increased by your presence!

Robert
Leominster, MA

Once again a great job. One bit of criticism: You should have mentioned the address of the web comic (XKCD.com) a few more times. If this was on the radio, I suspect that almost no one would have caught it from only one mention.