Round 4 Entry for April Baer

Jacquie Jones:
April really excels at the interview. Her subject seems so completely relaxed with her, that it indeed feels like the elusive “conversation.” The behind-the-headlines approach also promises much in terms of filling the gaps of what we currently have on the air, in my opinion. And she shows her willingness to really go somewhere we don’t normally go, both literally and figuratively. Still, I can’t help feeling that we are breaking no ground here. The word that keeps coming to mind is competent.

Maxie Jackson:
A natural, perhaps too coy at times but smart and I like the playfulness and explorative essence of a news program.

Doug Mitchell:
This really resonated with me because I think many programs on public radio really don’t invite you in if you’re not already a “club member.” There are many assumptions made by the reporters, producer, editors and managers. Like Al, she looked for something that isn’t already there. Also, I liked the semi co-host too. I read the comments and I think it’s ok to have fun on the radio. The last line wasn’t needed but that’s fine. Website is up already? April is to me has the most “hostiness” and would be an easy selection.

Jake Shapiro:
Very smooth, well produced and almost overly tight. But intro feels stilted, and it’s a bit smarmy throughout. I think the co-host's voice/approach is too similar to April's.

Julie Shapiro:
April sounds completely comfortable behind the microphone, and she's easy to listen to. Not sold on the sketch comedy element, and don't think the show needs it if her demeanor stays light but informative. Could do with less 'hilarity' at the edges but overall - the interview choice was compelling (and a voice you don't hear so often in the media) and it was an interesting angle from which to consider a current news event - though don't feel that I learned more about the news, through hearing this.

Asking the audience for questions might be risky, but can imagine answering ONE audience question per show could work. Production quality was strong across the board. April feels safe, in terms of the quest.

Julie Drizin:
April is so bright and hosty, charming and comfortable behind a mic, smart and spontaneous. I know that if she were on my radio, I'd stay tuned. And, I might even talk back to her. Interesting idea to introduce a lifer in the closet in light of the Larry Craig story. I'd like to hear what a full hour of Start Making Sense might sound like.

Izzi Smith:
Risky making fun of the audience. Initially, sounds like April is performing rather than talking to me. Compelling tape – very intimate. Banter between April and Courtney is forced Interesting show premise – not sure that the sketch comedy fits in. Overall – kinda flat.

Jay Allison:
Lively open. On the edge of flippancy and cuteness. Be careful of too much self-reference to the production itself. Just tell the story. Vocal quality of interview compelling. Audience may not be quite as confused as presumed.

John Barth:
April is hosty — hosty in the existing public radio sense. She fits, she works, as good as some of the best. And perhaps because I got familiar with her thru TQ, I trust her range and judgment. So while this program concept can be a bit manufactured she gets one of the biggest problems with public radio news: it can be very hard to enter this club. And if you don’t get it the first time around, tough rocks. Her concept gets those failings and pledges, on a big scale, to address it. She and co-host had good intimate chemistry, so their pairing runs the risk of them being the show . . . and the listeners trying to find a way in. And The contest was really about April, not someone suddenly new. Still, I woud want to hear how this show could develop with a good producer and April at the hosting tiller.

Overall, just another interview show based on current events & news. Why not just put Good Morning, America on the radio? You've got a funny, laid-back approach(not to mention the confusing intoduction skit) with an original interview and even a cute ferret reference.

But of course, the most troubling tone is the "getting the news to make sense" part. Who should we believe on the Iran situation? Oh, do tell because everyone else I've heard on the subject is clearly biased! The last thing we need as a country is yet another ideological approach to current events ala Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh - except from the left (Or mid-left.. however you like to think of yourself).

The emphasis shouldn't be on the ideas.. but on the method by which we validate our ideas. Perhaps that's what you meant.. but then using a self-ordained stamp of approval is a serious turn-off. So close.. yet so very far away.

Iraq and hedge funds are confusing. The Larry Craig scandal, on the other hand, seems pretty simple. I loved your guest and your conversation with him - he has a great voice and manner, a compelling story - but I got the feeling you found him first and then had to squeeze him into this idea you have for your show. If your concept was "Let's take big national news stories and find everyday people who will help us explore some more personal and tangentially related topic," I'd be on board. But it sounds like your concept is "Let's take big, complex national news stories and devote enough time and thought and research to really explaining them," in which case your interview seemed kind of weird.

I think you have a great voice. I agree with some others that the skit and the humor didn't really work, but I was still interested and enjoyed listening.

Any tweaks that I would make are just that, tweaks.
(Use your imagination people!)
The concept is brilliant and unique. A winning combo.
The possibilities are endless. . . And dare I say it, it makes sense!

The gimmicks aren't working. Self-referential stuff is such a trap on the radio. Use sparingly, like Zapf Dingbats.

But you don't have to reinvent the radio.

Pinkslip the skitboys. Then: follow your nose(s), have fun, goof up, ask those fresh questions.

And talk with each other — the two of you sound absolutely terrific together in conversation.

Did I mention?

The two of you sound absolutely terrific together in conversation.

You're also natural and real in the interview.

Talent found.

After all is said, I want to follow April's career more than the rest of the excellent aplicants. For me it has come down to, who do I trust most to bring me great radio in the future? I chose April.

-Art Saves Lives-

april has touched on a very important gap in radio- explanations and news that is on the level of everyday people. the news has stopped making sense. the idea to get to the topics that often make people change the channel because they feel confused and therefore left out of the conversation is important.

i love the "two aprils" and believe that is a strong point of her talent.

tons of luck april, you deserve to be a winner in this competition and to be on the air!

damali ayo

April, your Round 4 entry was great as were your others and I think you will make the finals (Rebecca and Al are my other picks/guesses for the finals). I have mentioned in other posts that this entire contest has been very difficult for this voter to judge. I mean, how do you rate the entrants? Do you rate them by voice alone, as in someone you could listen too? Do you rate them by content? Or, editing and production (or would this be more the producer)? I think it has to be a combination of all these things. If you can’t speak well, the show would be boring regardless of content. If your content is boring, people will turn the channel as well. I think you had the perfect blend of voice and content. Your voice is the strongest of my three final picks – voice being that which I place the highest importance. If I do not like a person’s voice, than I am not going to listen to the show, segment, or clip.

Let me come back to voice in minute... A real quick comparison of my final three picks: I thought Rebecca’s content in this round was the best (I’m a sucker for “quirky”) and I liked Al’s editing and the power in his overall package. April’s voice and packaging impressed me the most (just a bit more than Al’s) and based on what I heard, it is the show I would listen to. It is THE voice and allow me to elaborate on this.

In one of the rounds, someone commented that it sounded like you were “winking into the microphone” as if that was a negative thing. When I listen to talk radio (or music for that matter), it is typically while I am performing another activity such as, driving, working, exercising, or laundry. Since another activity is being performed, not all the content is absorbed. However, when a voice grabs you with the right mix of irony, wit, sarcasm, and intelligence you take notice. I believe April has such a voice and personality. It sounds like she could catch you off guard at any moment, and that is what draws me into a voice.

Let me draw a strange comparison here of another radio personality with a similar delivery. Ever heard of Dave Ross out of 710 KIRO in Seattle? Dave Ross is syndicated on CBS radio (oh no, I’ve just been discredited with this crowd). His 2-3 minute commentaries are aired on the local news station in my area (which is Detroit if you must know). I listen to the station while driving, typically only pulling out the traffic or quirky stories, but general news passes right by as I pay full attention to the road. Now, when Ross’s commentaries come on, I listen. I divert more of my attention. He too has that winking in the microphone voice. His commentaries can be funny and they can bite you with dry wit or sarcasm at any moment. They are sometimes silly and sometimes they make you think. But, no matter whether they are good or bad, his little 2-3 minute clips always grab your attention and it is all because of his voice. April has these same qualities in her voice. Now, I’m not suggesting that she’s the female equivalent of a Dave Ross (okay, maybe I am). All I am trying to get across in this now very long-winded post is that she has a great voice, one that would grab my attention, and one that I would listen to.

April, hopefully you aren’t offended by this comparison to Mr. Ross. Good Luck in the future and keep on talkin’! I’ll be listing.

Postscript: if you don’t know who Dave Ross is, bring up iTunes and search the Podcasts for his 2 minutes clips or Google “710 KIRO” (which links to his full 3-hour shows in Seattle). You should hear what I am taking about in relation to April’s voice.

Post-Postscript: I see from your blog that you had a drink with your arch-rival, Rebecca. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Is that how that saying goes? You know, your concept might actually work with Rebecca as the other speaker in your show. Now there would be some intrigue and suspense. Ever think of that judges? Why not let the winners do a show together? ...of course, all that arch-rival stuff might get in the way.

I try to figure out the concept behind each 5-min. demo and see whether it would enhance my personal public radio experience: listening while driving, running (podcast), cooking, etc. and hold my attention, given the competition w/music. This show concept would! Admittedly, it is hard to introduce new characters in a 5-min snapshot, let alone create great comedy that makes some sense out of the headlines, but good for you for trying!

Mostly, I need this show - what ARE hedge funds? You have the kind of REAL HUMAN voice to explain this to me in a way that won't make me feel stupid (or more than I already feel half the time). April, help me hold my head up proud at dinner parties -this has a huge bang for the buck. Can't wait to hear the full demo!

Oh, one more thing - I had never heard anyone talk about what it was like to be outed and older. My father came out when he was in his late 60's -I would have loved to have heard him talk about this. He too was publicly "outed" at his funeral, though friends and family had known for years. Thanks for shedding some light on what is an oddly personal topic for me.

You had been one of my two favorites from the beginning of the finalists. But this was disappointing. The cutesy factor was irritating. The comedy, or whatever that was, did not work and was strained and badly acted. Not your strong suit. I'm thoroughly bored with the Larry Craig saga, and another deep exploration of the feelings of a gay man on NPR is not fresh material (any puns in there are truly not intended). But, that wouldn't have kept me from giving it a good rating. It was really the cutesy pretension that made me cringe. You still have a great voice and presence when not flirting with bad comedy.
Erik Villesvik

and your treatment of important and topical subject matter. Not at all sure about (choice of) cohost or how the sketch comedy would fit in.

Clear and comprehensive. April is already a prefessional in this field and it shows. I really enjoy her voice - silky and easy. No hesitation, laughs easy and has a smart delivery.

Good luck

Great voice, timing, and content. Background music is just fine.

I absolutely cannot stand the fake surprise, fake laughter, and fake trying-to-remember-something pause.

I'm sorry, but those are real show-stoppers for me.

When TAL started doing it ten years ago, it was moderately interesting. Now it's a cliche, and a disservice to what was an interesting interview in this case. Co-host Courtney is also a bad idea. April is an okay talent, but back to the drawing board on the production front.

Great, timely choice for the interview, top-drawer production values. And a solid show idea: Take one current issue and make it clear and interesting.

I love the co-host idea (Krulwich/Abrumrad for the Left Coast) but did not love this co-host. Too much like another April, without being as good as April. I love the idea of sketch comics as a show accent, but did not love this execution.

5 stars. Best in show, and that's saying something, this round. See ya on the radio, A.B.

Rich Meitin
www.richmeitin.com
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1038

While all the finalists can produce a good story, I need people who are willing to try and make sense of national/world events rather than profile "crazy random" people like Glynn and Rebecca have done (though they are entertaining stories!). Al's work is solid too, though a little predictable--he doesn't tell me anything new about crime-ridden gentrified neighborhoods and is selling hope instead of analysis. I could not listen to Chris wax philosophic for more than one minute--Chris, you are a good writer but don't say "we" when you're talking about "I," and I'm not interested in you, sorry. I should add that I've never been a fan of This American Life, heresy I know.

Which leaves April, who is admittedly trying too hard in this clip to sound conversational but promises to actually discuss topical issues in her program in a lively, "real" manner. I'm not sold on the co-host, but I do think that April is smart enough to produce thought-provoking programming and compelling enough to be a good NPR host.

April and Court make me feel like I'm talking the news out with a good friend, trying to make sense of it. That is if my friend was really informed and had infinite resources of research at her disposal. Which usually they don't. If April doesn't win this it's 20 years more of public radio boredom for sure. Please, let's not curse our fair land.

There's that "trying too hard to be informal" thing again, which is my total pet peeve. I'm looking authenticity over style, and quiet confidence over bravado. And no more smirking.

More importantly though, I'm not hearing this as a show that HAS to be radio. That's what I'm looking for, a concept and execution that really explore the medium.

In my opinion, this was easily the worst of the five finalists. It sounded like the typical banter that makes me turn off most of the morning FM radio shows. Well-produced, but nothing else there to make me want to listen. After all, infomercials are well-produced, too, but they're not the thing you purposely tune in to hear.

I think April's the best in the field all-around. Very polished and professional in form, with a really good idea for the content of the show in explaining the news (and, hopefully, quirks) of the day. I'd listen regularly to this show, and suspect many people would.

As an aside, I know some people seem to think the point of this contest is to avoid polish and professionalism, but I want that. I want new ideas and voices, yes, but I want them well packaged and produced. Otehrwise, no one will listen and they'll fail. Then who wins?

Having said that, I'd give a sixth star, if possible, to anyone who didn't have music running through their whole entry. What is this, ADD radio?

April's strength is her hostiness. She takes a solid public radio concept (Krulwich, Scott Simon, Dick Gordon all do similar interviews)and gives it fresh personality with excellent skill and a great voice. But the co-host doesn't add a thing. Go it alone, April!

April has a way of connecting with viewers that I have not heard in public radio to date. Her show idea is refreshing and much needed even for the most "up to date" types of people. I am embarrassed by some simple facts about the Iraq war that continue to allude me. I hope April will get the chance to answer some of my nagging questions.

All of the finalists are strong, but April is an original. As I listened to all of the entries, I couldn't help but think I've heard it all before-maybe not quite as clever, but still more of the same.
And then came April. These are tough times for public radio and we need new voices with a sense of history that can take talk to the next level.
We've found it in April.