Round 4 Entry for Rebecca Watson

Maxie Jackson:
Her personality shines on the demo, unfortunately I still don't find her interesting as a host particularly one who would lead me through a story.

Doug Mitchell:
There is an idea here. The demo could be a 5 minutes of a well-produced, quickly-paced “skep-check.” I would listen to 5-minutes and probably enjoy it. Nothing more, however. She’s very good at looking under the carpet or taking an extra peek around the corner or asking why is furniture shaped that way? There was a segment on Morning Edition years ago called “Why Things Are” done by a Washington Post reporter. That’s what this sounds like.

Jake Shapiro:
Not very hosty this time around, also not sure the debunking mystery/science theme can sustain a show.

Julie Shapiro:
This show idea has a ton of potential. Rebecca handles interviews well - they sound pretty natural - and it's obvious she's genuinely curious about the topics she's covering. Stays in the story, but doesn't overwhelm the subjects. May be a challenge to maintain a clear/audible level of respect for the folks whose stories she's challenging through science.

A LOT happened in the five minutes but they went by quickly, due to an overall energy that runs throughout. The "science" comes out easily digestible. Don't love the name.

Julie Drizin:
Interesting idea, great voice and so totally sharp and hip. Even though she comes across as clearly sincere and sensitive, I'm worried that her role as debunker of myths will serve to amplify public radio's image as a haven for smug, self-righteous know-it-alls.

Izzi Smith:
Really nice open – I'm curious. The conceit of this could get old every we week – ok, she's skeptical. Sounds like a Weekend America segment – not its own show. Rebecca has a nice, natural presence. Really feels well produced – great flow and momentum. Best demo of the bunch – just not show-worthy. Like the way she works the web into the segment – sounds integrated and natural.

Jay Allison:
Intriguing open. The story got a bit garbled as it went on. Energetic, but limited in forward motion. More telling than showing.

John Barth:
My biggest issue with this is it is like shooting fish in a barrel: lots of people believe in a lot of nonsense, so disproving them (and in a painful way showing them up to be dupes, or fools or just . . . wrong) then airing it feels a bit painful and exploitive. Now, if we go after charlatans ripping off and hurting people that’s a whole other story. But this concept felt really predictable and like it would get tired fast. However, I liked Rebecca’s voice and hosting in this a lot. She is clearly quick and gets it. So maybe this concept needs sharpening. She has drama—you have to perform a bit to be a host, and she can sure do that. Hosts with edge—we need more of that. Good. Get a producer and work on it.

No question, Rebecca Watson has courage. The question is whether or not the judges of this contest have courage. Where is there a show like this? Instead we fill the airways with what we think people want to hear. The path to wisdom is to question EVERYTHING! How about some wisdom, NPR?

In this day and age where far too many personal, public, and political decisions are made based on untestable, unprovable, and irrational beliefs, this is EXACTLY the sort of show we need in our Public Media.

I find this true especially as we find most existing science reporting (with certain exceptions) to be appallingly short on the most basic fact checking.

I honestly don't care what people believe but I want the decisions made that affect all of us to be based on stuff we can actually test.

Also, people who don't see the wonder, beauty, and even mystery in the actual testable world, aren't even looking.

I read the post below titled, "disheartening", and it seemed to capture exactly why we need more programs that address the real world. Science reveals the world as fascinating, as wondrous, as anything but boring. Yet the last commenter feels the need to believe in falsehoods, in myths, in frauds, to find life interesting. That's sad.

5 stars for this program. Rebecca looks promising to make the real world as interesting as the fake world people mistake for the real one.

Skeptigirl

This show idea is so sad to me. the world doesn't need more skeptics, or more people bursting the few things that bring us joy, faith, or imagination. I left this feeling sad, disappointed and generally bummed out. I don't think that this is what anyone needs in the middle of their day.

We have to hold on to something these days, and as far as "facts" go that's great- if it's facts about the news like April's show. But bringing facts about inconsequential things doesn't do much but fill the airwaves with more inconsequential blather. If she is so committed to skepticism (which seems a sad way to live) then why not put it to good use?

Rebecca is also pretty "cutesy." I find her tone artificial. She'd be great on TAL (This American Life) as she's clearly modeled her whole persona after the Ira Glass formula. No offense to TAL or Ira, but it's a bit of a cookie-cutter model. I thought this competition was about finding something new and fresh.

damali ayo

Rebecca has been an inspiration to me ever since I first heard her on The Skeptics Guide Podcast and began reading her blog. She is informed, entertaining and witty. A breath of fresh air for those of us hungry for the facts. She has helped me to become a more informed and critical thinker and has helped me realize that science something that is both fun and exciting. She has changed my life for the better. If she gets this opportunity it would be all of the listeners (especially the young women) who have yet to hear Rebecca that would truly be the winners.

While the field of skepticism is perhaps the most overshadowed position in the media, the most difficult task will probably be to consistently find the fine line between coming across as being rudely dismissive or as pandering to fringe lunatics. Perhaps it'd help deflate the perspective of such a false dichotomy to also look closer at the roots to how some people come to false conclusions comparing the same method with true conclusions?

Although, there's certainly enough odd public claims out there to devote a whole 24/7 radio station, I bet it'd be worth it to step back a bit and devote a little time to personalizing why it'd be so easy for any of us to convincingly go so wrong.

I loved the 5 minute sample. I haven't been this excited about a new NPR show since wait, wait. This would be a perfect pairing of shows. Put Wait, Wait together with Skepchick and half of the U.S. would shut down for two hours a week. I wouldn't be able to pull myself away from the radio.
It is way to hard to find a skeptical point of view on the broadcast media. Skepchick has a great radio personality. I have been a big fan of NPR since college but it seems that NPR has become more credulus over the last 12 years. I would welcome a show that is based on reality.

You know...if NPR were to have a show like this and demonstrate what ALL media outlets should (that they actually have some shred of skepticism and are willing to ask difficult questions), I would actually contribute money to them, again.

I would so love to hear this as a full hour or even half-hour show. GREAT work, Rebecca!

Shows that highlight the benefits of rationality are sorely needed. This entry is well crafted and Ms. Watson's voice is a great addition to the choir of reason!

To everyone who thought Rebecca was smug or mean or harsh or...

RELAX. I really think you're reading (and hearing) too much into this. Yes, she has a point of view: she wants a rational explanation. But that doesn't necessarily mean that she'll always get one, and for me that's the mystery that could hold me from week to week. And it's even possible that over time her penchant for rationalism could begin to give way and that would be a cool thing to hear as it happened.

That said, I think this best suited as a half-hour show, not a full hour.

I dug it.

-LvL

will the show come off simply as making fun of people who have weird beliefs? This was fun to listen to, but I felt kind of bad for your subject ultimately, because it was so clear that he's part of this very small group of people who most folks don't take seriously at all. If the material you're exploring is more controversial -- like the show you mentioned about prayer as a form of medicine -- where there's bonafide evidence of such bizarre phenomena -- that would keep me listening week after week and also give you more clout as someone digging into subjects that are *truly* hard to explain.

I loved your 5 minutes. I love the skeptic angle. You are Hands 'up' the winner.

Nice clear clean well edited, fun, funny and thought provoking piece. Regardless of what the NPR types think, you need to get a sponsor and podcast this baby!

Sally
Executive Producer and Host
WWW.BabyBoomerTalkRadio.Com

"Both faith and fear are the belief in things not seen." S. Franz

Great work in this round, Rebecca. I think and hope you’ll be one of the three finalists (of course with your voting army, you’re probably a shoe-in). This entire contest has been very difficult for this voter to judge (and probably others as well). 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 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 struck just a good balance of voice and content, with your content being very strong. I like the fringe element angle a lot. I look forward to seeing what you’ve got in the finals (assuming you make the finals – hope I didn’t jinx you). Good Luck!!!

This is what the main stream media needs. All to often the media seems to accept paranormal stories without any skepticism at all. Some may think that believing in "orbs" and "hauntings" is silly and that no one really takes them seriously. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These silly beliefs are wide spread and they will keep spreading if nothing is done to combat them.

Rebecca's lighthearted and down to earth and entertaining approach is the perfect weapon against this sort of nonsense. Her show would be more than just entertainment, it would be a public service.

That one was what I was waiting for. The new "Loh down on science"!

Or maybe, even better and longer.

Kate
I just listened again and still think this could be a fun addition to an existing show, but a whole show? It would get tired fast. Doesn't have that new twist I'd think would be needed to make it onto the airwaves.

Nicely done. You are one of the few who have truly gotten better as you've gone along. This is not a totally new theme/format-busting show, but that's not the point really. It sounded good, took on the problem of people who will believe anything and was not smug and devoid of humor. It would be a really listenable addition to NPR. Good Luck!
Erik Villesvik

Although I think the concept of the show could work,this particular sample was silly and pointless. Obviously, we all know where it was going. Nothing new revealed. And a little mean spirited.

Of the five samples, this is by far the most compelling as filling an important NPR niche. With the paucity of science education and the prevalence of wishful thinking, we desperately need a rational counter-voice to all the creationist, UFO, snake oil, conspiracy theory, and rapture (etc.) promoters on the air waves. Thank you!

But once you win over even the skeptics, will you have to change?

Nice job on the demo - definitely captures the feel of a real show. I thought the subject was pretty tame though. Debunking ghosts? Thats like shootin' Shaggies in a barrel.

Is Rebecca a kinder, softer voiced, PG-rated Penn and Teller? Could be. P&T's "Bull's hit" doesn't focus primarily on the paranormal though, and neither should Skepchick. Alternative medicine is a big, fat target as well, for example.

Anyway, she's smart, personable, has a ready made audience from SGU , Skepchick, and her many frustrated but adoring suitors. She is also well connected into the skeptical community and so can draw from the leading lights.

Also, I like her voice. Molly Bentley she's not, but still I like it, and I think it will age well.

Overall, I think a winning proposition for public radio.

Part of me wants to like the theme and thinks it could be done well, but most of me thinks that the premise is thin and would run out of steam quickly, with shows becoming repetitive after a short stint. "Ah the fools and their silly beliefs! Look how much better science is!"

More importantly, and relatedly, I got the distinct impression that you were a bit haughty and nearly condescending with your paranormal guide. That doesn't make me want to listen and doesn't indicate that you'd be a good, insightful interviewer.

Otherwise, the production was good and the sense of humor was pretty good.

Competently produced and all that, yeah -- although the music is annoying -- but it just is not something I'd want to listen to. We want to love our hosts or at least like them, and cute and smug aren't very likeable, at least once you get past the age of 26.

Very balanced. Entertaining to boot. What's not to love? No pandering, no mocking. Merely great commentary with humor, passion and compassion.

A wonderful job, Rebecca! I'm looking forward to hearing much more from you.

I like this. I think that skeptics like Rebecca have fascinating perceptions,and unfortunately a lot of skeptics typically end up sounding like soulless rigid naysayers. But this is different. Rebecca carries herself with a sincere passion for her curiosity, and she doesn't express herself as being close-minded or condescending. This entry doesn't resort to protagonist tactics, nor does she put us to sleep with scientific brikabrak. Her voice carries maturity, and put to an entire broadcast I think that Rebecca could bring a sometimes unappreciated philosophy and introduce it to a new audience.

I love it all. It's my favorite! But I hate the word "chic". There will of course be a fine line to walk between scientifically skeptical, and disrespectul. There's a whole lot of precedence with cultural beliefs and "superstitions" as I remembered at the anthropological musuem today. It's pretty beautiful.