Announcement: The Round Four Semifinalists!
From 1452 to 10, from 10 to 7, and now from 7 to 5. Both the public and the judges' votes made this a really close call.
The five new semifinalists, proceeding to Round Four, are (in alphabetical order):
All of us are sad to see Anne and Chuck go, but given how hosty they've proven themselves to be, we're sure everyone will get to hear their voices loud and strong on the airwaves. (Heck, Chuck's already there.) In addition to the $1,000 award, both of the departing contestants will get free PRX Pro Producer accounts to help them distribute their work to public stations and beyond. The winner of the popular vote was again Rebecca Watson, whose fan base is as large as it is dedicated. (Although for the record, her Round Three entry also really won over the judges.)
Congratulations to the winners, and a big thank you to the listeners and former contestants who have stayed involved. Your votes and constructive criticism have made this contest work!
Stay tuned for the details of Round 4, the final challenge round before we pick our three winners, each of whom gets $10,000 to produce a pilot show with the help of a professional producer.
delicious
diggof the Round 4 challenge? Or is this the "Stealth Round"?
Gentle persons,
The cream rises to the top. Good job, and an interesting online experience.
I remember years ago... decades ago when WAMU did an on-air search for a talk show host. Derrick I think his name was won the job. Plenty of people were muy outraged. But he was around for a long time. And he was a great Washington, D.C. radio talk show host... coached to his personal best by the wonderful Diane Rehm.
While trying to understnad the judges' decisions on which contestants to retain and who to send packing, it may be helpful to remember the backstory on PRTQ. This contest is the result of another contest- between PRX and launch.com, each of whom is developing three pilot programs to pitch to CPB. The judges' considerations at this stage will be heavily influenced by the desire to win that contest. They win by having a successful pitch. The last thing they want is to develop and pitch a show that is rejected- then they lose. The fine print says winning the PRTQ does not guarantee you a show on NPR, only a pitch to CPB. Viewed through that filter, the judges' decision on This Is Hell becomes easier to understand. You may still not agree with it, but it is easier to understand.
Chuck brings many things to the table: Years of experience with a show that's already up and running successfully; a clear voice and strong personality; acknowledged skill at interviewing notable personalities; a wildly dedicated fan base; and a dedication to live radio and his show in particular that only someone who has done years of unpaid community radio can fully appreciate.
On the surface, that makes a strong case. Now, let's look at some of the other things he brings or doesn't bring, keeping in mind that end pitch to CPB to fund the show.
The show has a definite AM radio sound and an unabashedly far-left lean. I'm not saying either of those is necessarily a bad thing, just that both make it a tougher sell. Chuck never demonstrated a commitment to this contest either by active participation or by using the challenges as an opportunity to stretch and grow. He also made it clear (in a response to Chad on another post) that what he intended to have pitched was essentially the show he does now, including the time slot. Those conditions also make it a tougher sell.
And finally, there's the matter of the vocal fan base. It's good to have fans, but much of Chuck's "PR team" (with the principled exception of McKinley) seem to be unable to post a comment without making some petty swipe at this contest, other contestants, NPR, Chicago Public Radio, public radio listeners, corporate America, the neighbor's mangy dog, etc. I know this was noticed by the judges. At least one of them publicly expressed his concern. http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/2476#comment-28662
The judges probably had nightmares about these guys showing up to help with the pitch to CPB.
I'm sure they looked at everything hard, decided they would probably end up with a no-sale, and opted out.
Yes, Chuck deserves a paycheck for all his work and a national outlet for his show. The vehicle of this contest just doesn't seem like a likely way to make that happen.
there is nothing "am" about chuck. what a hilarious concept. if people like chuck were on am radio, we'd have a functioning media in this country. but your comment that the judges might not have liked any swipes at corporate america, or any critiques of what "public radio" is up to, and that the judges might actually have come into this in order to promote specific programs, are perfect!
back to the front page:
viva: this contest is now over
yet another demonstration that there is no such thing as "public radio". what it is is an entertainment channel, and an unentertaining one at that. these cowards are afraid of real journalism. mayber their sponsors wouldn't like it, or it would interfere with their stenographing, or with snoring their way through a comfy life...
when you rejected chuck, who had meaningful journalism to offer, you proved once again that "public radio" is a stale entertainment channel for the bourgeoisie, meant to put their listening population of middle/upper middle class liberals to sleep, rather than to have to face or contend with the real social, political and economic problems confronting society, and that you have little value outside of background noise while vacuuming. "public radio" has outlived its value...
for anyone who cares about media, this contest is now over.
tracy: Wow, take it easy
Some rejection won't ruin the guy's career. If you're not happy what's going on with public radio, then talk to the CPB or email suggestions to a public radio affiliate. Simple economics, supply and demand. If you want Chuck on public radio, go to your public radio affiliate and demand what shows you want to hear. By doing nothing but complaining and moaning won't do it and since he's in Chicago and there is this anger about Chicago Public Radio being corporate, gather the Chuck fans and demand Chicago Public Radio to put him on that station. Also, try to convince businesses to donate money to Chuck's show to seek support to show he can gain an audience.
Also, make a concerted effort of listening to the final 5. They still need your comments (and votes) to make their potential pilots better. Just don't take them as it is, they can change as well.
viva: sister, i do not mean this to be rude
sister, (well, i'm assuming you are a sister because of your name, but if you are a man, just take it as a compliment) i do not mean this to be rude, but you are exposing some real naivete with your suggestions about influencing "public radio".
i do think that this contest has exposed itself as a real joke at this point, in terms of the caliber of the current "winners". not to put anybody down, (i've made a point not to insult any of the contestants. why do that? - except for chuck, who i was supporting but i believe was in need of some constructive criticism) but there is only one contestant who i found interesting enough to consider giving another brief listen to. beyond that, i don't have the time, because the caliber (the skill, the ability to focus on the most important issues in a serious way, as well as the charisma -not the most important feature, in my opinion) is just not there... it has become clear that this is about cultural programming rather than about journalism. those of us who see how the lack of meaningful journalism in this country has profoundly eroded what might, might, have been a bit of a democracy, and how this is a major contributing factor in the devastation of both this society and this planet, care a lot about this, and are pretty damned pissed off. and a media charade such as this contest, just adds insult to injury, if you can even bother to take it that seriously. this is just another bad joke.
.
take care
tracy: That's fine
You have you're side and I respected that and I also respect standing by your vote. But this is an open ended contest and these people are looking for a show (or shows) that fit in public radio in any form.
Now, you consider this contest as a bad joke, but I consider this an opportunity of what public radio is trying to look for. Most of the popular public radio shows are 10 years and older and the only show that is new and getting attention is Radio Lab. I would admit this might not be perfect, but getting attention from this contest is a good start.
And on my naivety of my statement; you're right that I'm young, but understand that I use to work for NPR as an intern and know the ins and outs of the business and each one are trying their best to give you the news. Also, I was selected for a focus group and I voiced my concerns about what public radio needs to do and you know they mean business when they taped the meeting. Add to that, there is a NPR group in Facebook that has 5,000 members and some share both of our issues.
All I'm saying is it's your right to say about public radio and that's fine, but blowing it off because one guy didn't make it is no excuse. Chuck can still get in, he already has the support, all he needs is attention, and this is a good start and you know what, I'll do that.
viva: right on to your last comment
right on to your very last comment.
by the way, i'm not saying that the remaining contestants are not good people or that they have nothing to offer. there is one who i couldn't even work up the interest to listen to, however, the other four have shown some potential in terms of social/culturally oriented programming, or locally/regionally focused political programming. however the fact that the judges chose to elimitate the one contestant who has a proven track record of bringing hard hitting political journalism to the air (as well as a high entertainment value), and doing an excellent job of it, in lieu of each of these other contestants tells you all you need to know about the agenda and priorities of "public" media today. (was it cause chuck didn't choose to get into a psychotherapy session about his personal life? or was it because of the journalism he brings to the air? choose one or both and you'll see that something pretty twisted is going on).
the agenda is about entertainment, or barely touching social justice issues with a ten foot pole in order to not offend white "liberals" who just want to feel comfortable, or reporting on political/corporate abuse, etc. so far after the fact, if ever, as to be irrelevant.
as far as the necessary role of media in a functioning democracy, "public radio" has failed. this is just another example of their misguided priorities.
go get 'em, tracy.
There are more than one finalist who's voice just does not FIT the PR format. Non of the judges are going to blurt that out, minding that they may sound to "judgemental," but it's the truth. Non of us listened to all the contestants, but collectively we all have. Ultimatly, the voice must fit the format, which is a talent that is aquired through practice. Don't hire a horn to play a string part.
I only wish I got DSL sooner.
While some contest or competition between PRX and the Launch folks would be exciting (meta-contest!), it's just not the case. Both groups are just trying to get some new voices out there.
We'll be getting judges' comments up on the entries within a few days, and I'll post to the TQ blog when they're all up -- hopefully this will clear up some of elimination/advancement mysteries. We'll welcome your feedback!
adrianne wrote;
"We'll be getting judges' comments up on the entries within a few days, and I'll post to the TQ blog when they're all up -- hopefully this will clear up some of elimination/advancement mysteries. We'll welcome your feedback!"
When should we expect to see these? Will there be any more information about the last two votes forthcoming?
The admirers of Chuck and his show are doing him and themselves no favors by griping about the judges' decision to eliminate him from the contest. The attacks on other contestants are especially unwelcome. I may be wrong, but I think that the judges may have been unhappy with Chuck using a segment of his own regular show as the round 3 entry, rather than preparing something specially for the contest.
Sure we do him favors. It's not like he has much to gain or lose at this point, so we provide much needed emotional support! I happen to like my grapes a little sour, or at least a mixture of sweet and sour, but that's just me.
If you listen to his whole show that the segment was taken from, you'll see that it was specially prepared. He concentrated on asking a few questions for the 5 minute segment, then relaxed and got on with the rest of the interview. He specifically got Patrick Cockburn for the segment. The fact that it was also part his show shouldn't matter. Christ, he puts out a four hour show every Saturday morning, with four or five different 25 minute and longer interviews.
Regarding what some other person said about Chuck's fans putting down NPR and the CPB -- I happen to like several shows on NPR or put out by the CPB. I enjoy Car Talk. I sometimes like Fresh Air. I like Science Friday. I even like Pet Talk. But news and analysis? That's a joke, and it deserves mockery from Chuck's fans.
In a blog Rebecca posted (http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=622) where she solicited suggestions for a guest to interview for Round 4.
Expatria wrote
"Noam Chomsky comes to mind, though I’m not sure you’d GET Noam Chomsky. Admittedly, he comes to mind due to his skepticism towards postmodernism and Lacanian approaches to linguistics and psychoanalysis, things that I encounter far too often in my film studies reading, so he doesn’t exactly jive with your areas of interest for the show. But he is a big name, that’s for certain, and it couldn’t hurt to try!"
Rebecca responded
"Thanks guys, some very good suggestions so far! I’ll have to veto a few: I’d rather not make this a confrontational interview, so no psychics. And I’m not sufficiently well-versed in Chomsky’s work to have a really good discussion with him, sadly."
Less than a month ago, Chuck interviewed Noam Chomsky for the Third time.
This is no slight to Rebecca, Chomsky is recognized worldwide as a leading linguist and progressive intellectual, a conversation with him would be intimidating to many and requires a well-informed, talented interviewer. What this does clearly demonstrate is the quality, experience and access to unique interesting people, that Chuck brings to the airways... and the judges choose to eliminate.
Wow. I guess my original surprise that that NPR might be looking beyond its staid format for something new and fresh was quite a bit off the mark. In your grand “public radio quest” you have fallen back to seek only what is familiar to you without challenging yourselves in a way that might actually grow a new audience. While disappointed, I really shouldn’t be surprised. You will continue to deliver the same broadcasts over and over again from shows that sound like all the other shows before them.
This is Hell defines the times in which we are living. Chuck sheds light on the lunacy that surrounds us but he does it in a way that can make you laugh…sometimes nervously. He can poke fun at the right, but he can also dish it out to the left. Whoever deserves it needs to hear it. And he spares no one, including himself.
We live in a ridiculous world, which is why we need people like Chuck who remind us that, while life may be a grand farce, there may still be some hope.
And your decision to not have him move forward in this contest proves that, yes, “everybody’s stupid.”
Just want to congratulate the remaining five and wish them all the best in the next round.
Would also like to compliment those who are not moving on for their outstanding efforts; I'm sure they will be heard from again.
I think, all in all, this has been one hell of an opportunity for everyone involved.
It's easy to forget how subjective something like this is. While I have not agreed with every choice, I'm certainly not going to condemn the entire process.
This is just a contest; and, by the way, a chance many of us would not have had otherwise. Think people should relax and enjoy whatever is to follow.
This has been a fun ride and an interesting road, even if I was sent on a detour. And I would never have gotten on the road had I not entered this contest. Still, it did surprise me that Chuck was cut. And it's a bummer that the judges can't or won't give feedback, so we don't know why he (or any of us) was cut. The cut lists should come with specific public feedback from the judges, so we can all know what they see in us and what the contest is aiming for. But it is fun, nonetheless.
Carrie
people still doubt the power of the 11 pointer???
The power of the 11 pointer is ZERO, unless the judges endorse it. That's why Tattoo Todd is a gone. That's why Rebecca is still with us. (See judges' positive comments elsewhere.)
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
The public vote is the public vote: whether or not the judges agree with the public vote has absolutely no bearing on that vote-winner proceeding to the next round.
In the rules for each round is a statement like this:
"Ten (10) semi-finalists will be selected at the end of Round One, nine (9) based on the rulings of the Judges, and one based on Public Voting, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE JUDGES." (emphasis mine)
Does not the last statement embrace the possibility that if the pop vote winner of a round was inappropriate in some way for public radio (for example, was clearly an AM DJ type) that the judges retain the power to "review" (and therefore possibly eliminate) that entry? If not - what does the last statement mean?
Thank you -
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
Hi Rich,
Good eye -- but this was only meant to capture a public vote winner who was so clearly unsuited that we would doubt the seriousness of the voters. (Like if Mickey Mouse were to actually win the presidential election, we'd all want an out, right?) No "review" has been necessary in this contest.
Sadly, I must also note that Mickey Mouse DID win the last election.
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
there was no proof Todd had the most votes or that the judges vetoed him as you suspected....which proves that 11 pointers can and will control the outcome of this contest regardless what the judges feel....so in other words Rebecca will continue to advance all the way to the final round-so as long as her fans keep coming back and voting. so win or lose she still gets paid at the end of the round and someone else gets cut-regardless of their talent, because, well someones head has to roll?? and before you get upset- I'm not condeming that loop hole, just bringing it up for the sake of bringing it up, for awarness purposes....if the other contestants were smart they would harbor all thier possible resources and advertise thier ass off, in efforts to possibly counter act that one open position....or else take the chance of getting cut, not because they didnt have what it takes, but because someone had to go and they didnt have a monsterous fan base.
Your advice to everyone else about the "loophole" that you have raised so much hell about for months - is that EVERYONE should exploit the "loophole?" Sheesh.
How about this instead: The contest is unfolding exactly the way it was designed to unfold. And there's no need for you to bring this up yet again for, say, the 27th time, between you and Steve. Don't like it? Enter another contest.
Also before jumping down my throat with your conclusion - why don't you wait for the answer I requested? Surely, the rule language I'm pointing to means SOMETHING.
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
Please stop by!
Actaully there's a point there (although since this is on a person's feedback site maybe all of this should be moved to a place where others can give input?).
Some questions that were raised before included: overseas voters who used US 'addresses' when entering. Are they eliminated? People who recognised that if you give your favorite a 5 star and everyone else a 1 influences votes. And people with access to many computers (like a college campus or a lab) who can just use many different log-ins and build votes, especially if they get fellow college and high school students to vote too. Someone else made a link to a blog that discussed the competition but its obvious that forum boards like this one and ones belonging to groups of supporters,Myspace and Facebook are ultimately the biggest ralliers of support online and there's clear evidence of the power of that.
Sure anyone could have done this strategy. Get your college fans, your fellow enthusiasts for a certain topic and a few computer geeks who can run multiple scripts and you're set. That it's something that has been done makes me reflect on Chuck's entry or any of the others and wonder if he as a person who has got a fanbase, got experience, has innate and professional knowledge of wide ranging and challenging subjects (and not just a hobby or 'groupie' attitude) and has been cut makes me regret not doing more for his entry as one has clearly done for theirs. 'Aw gee shucks we're all got big hopes and we're all good entries' doesn't stop their fans using what they can. It takes a move from the runners of the competition to lay down the dos and don'ts.
Have Chuck's and other's fans let them down, just by not seeing these loopholes? The spirit of competition is fine, voting for who you want is fine -- but a level playing field from the start would have been best. And this competition hasn't addressed how it deals with those issues and I look forward to seeing how it will. Because there's a lot of evidence online that shows that yes these stategies have been adapted and how this can blow up to make the competition a lot less valid and maybe even ultimately flawed with a presenter who really isn't up to the job, for everyone who supports it or promotes it if it continues this way.
very good points. at the same time, it's important to keep in mind that the judges, not the voting (which may have been tainted by cheating, or whatever) personally selected four of these five finalists, and so what the majority of these winning finalists reflect is the tastes and priorities of the judges. anyone who has questions about the relative merits of the selected finalists really has to question the tastes and priorities of these judges, as this small group of people is making most of the choices in this "public" contest.
to disagree with this theory...yet it has proven itself time and time again...and will continue to do so....
I just don't think it's worth whining about, for a bunch o' reasons:
1) The judge’s veto keeps any 11 point assault from becoming grossly unfair. Rebecca wouldn't be here if the judges didn't think she was well suited (remember Tattoo Todd? All his massive 11 point supporters didn't amount to anything, right? The judges can act, if so moved.)
2) Popular support is one valid measure of a contestant’s viability, obviously. See American Idol, On the Lot, etc. etc. etc. I am not offended. The rules we ALL signed up for here were plain enough. Are you SURPRISED that there is a winning popular contestant? I'm not. The rules provide for it! It was BOUND to happen! Don;t you think the PRTQ designers understood that?
3) ALL voting systems are inherently unfair, one way on another. (Even "majority rule" is a harsh system - it completely disenfranchises up to 49.99% of the voters!) So no matter WHAT system you choose, valid, if picky, objections could be raised to it.
4) Would you really prefer that ALL the judging be done by the professionals? I think that would give rise to even more bitching and whining than we've already seen here.
5) Do you really think that Rebecca is an unworthy competitor? That she doesn't belong here? I think she's doing quite nicely. And I am not part of her entourage.
You complain a lot but you don't suggest anything that can't be subverted just as easily, albeit with a different technique. And even if you did have an arguably better suggestion, IT'S TOO LATE!! The contest is what it is. I say chill out, support your own favorites, and stop beating up on the decent people who designed the system and undermining the spirit of PRTQ. Absolutely ANY other voting system would have problems, and be subject to corrupting influences, too. Don't believe me? See "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos. Available on Amazon.
So it's not that you're wrong about the system flaw you love to keep pounding away at. It's just that the decision has been made long ago, nothing is going to change, the rules were laid out from the get-go, nothing else would be significantly better, really -
So why keep whining?
Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038
Recent comments
1 day 4 hours ago
2 days 5 hours ago
1 week 2 days ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
3 weeks 4 days ago