A Conversation w/ Bill Siemering

LoPos Oppose
Jim Feeley - January 23, 2003 - #15

Do you have any thoughts about the FCC's Low Power FM initiative to allow for 10w and 100w noncommercial stations? And specifically, any thoughts about NPR's opposition to LPFM?

But Could We Still Get Mugs?
Bill Siemering - January 24, 2003 - #17

I have no technical expertise on this nor do I know any background on NPR's opposition to LPFM. What I find interesting is the idea of neighborhood radio stations. How would it be organized? What would the programming sound like? I'm a member of a food coop that has several thousand members and its value is that we always see friends there; it is a vital social institution. I imagine a low power radio station could be like this too. They could also be the kind of lab I mentioned where people can play with radio, of all ages. There are few places to do this now. But I'm also concerned about maintaining a program schedule with volunteers and ensuring broad outreach. All this is academic, of course, unless there can be licenses. In Macedonia, there are many pirate and small legal Roma stations run out of people's homes. That's the beauty of the low power idea, you can do a lot with little.

A Salute And Queries
SeanTubbs - January 28, 2003 - #26

Your founding document for NPR (National Public Radio Purposes) is one of those high standards that make me proud to be embarking on a career in public radio.

I want to know more about your exploits at the station in Moorhead, Minnesota…

Do all public radio networks have to be national in scope? … Do you think the young producers of today have the opportunity to create innovative pieces of radio? I feel that is the case at the national level, serving a national audience. But, what about at a regional, statewide, or national level?

A Catalyst For Discussion
Bill Siemering - January 30, 2003 - #29

Yes, there can be regional geographic networks and networks of communities of interest. You could at least exchange some audio files as a start. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) is the largest state and regional network in the country.

Which brings me to KCCM in Moorhead as a station in the MPR network. Because we carried network programs nearly all the time, we were free to go out and gather news and features that we would send to both St. Paul and NPR in Washington. Marcia Alvar and I were both new to Fargo-Moorhead and focused a lot on the sense of place. We created a Saturday morning thematic program called, HOME FOR THE WEEKEND that began with the sound of the train rolling in to the station and people getting off, greeted by friends. Once we explored the American family over three weeks, talking separately with the mother, father and children. We talked a lot with the regional poets like Tom McGrath and Robert Bly. We did a weekly arts program. While the production was simple, in all I think we provided a good sense of the community. Once we sponsored an all day workshop on what it takes to create a caring community. So the station was a catalyst for discussion. We could do all this because we had the freedom and time. Somehow, small stations seem to be able to do this more easily than large ones.

Eclectic Formats Die In Tension
Julia Barton - January 30, 2003 - #28

…[O]ne of the main tensions in broadcasting…the assumption that people expect consistency out of a station. Ira Glass put it once this way, that people use radio like an appliance: they expect each station to perform a certain function whenever they turn it on. So formats have become more and more predictable…I know this logic dominates public radio more and more…in terms of sound--shows and voices start to all sound alike. Also eclectic formats and even music/talk formats are dying out. What I'm wondering is if that same tension existed in the early days, too, and if so, how you worked through it.

Stand Us Apart Together
Bill Siemering - January 30, 2003 - #30

This is a big topic. Many educational and community stations believed they should be all things to all people and had a patchwork of unrelated programs; you really needed a guide to follow it. Parallel to this was the idea that radio is a companion that kept the listener company throughout the day. After listening to the news, you'd also enjoy some classical music and maybe reading a story, a documentary, some jazz on Saturday nights and on Sunday afternoon a radio drama. While appealing to the same listener, you offered variety to keep their interest. Now we've evolved into narrower and narrower niches of interest…I still believe public radio can be a place where curious people can come together.

Consistency gives the station identity; you wouldn't want it to be classical in the morning and country and western in the afternoon and jazz at night. However, within that you can build in a wider range of content. For example, if produced features were a daily part of ATC, it wouldn't sound like they are breaking format to run a piece by David Isay or the Kitchen Sisters. You can build in surprise as an element of the format. Introduce new music, new writing, new ideas. [I wanted to do a program called THE NEW that would feature writers and artists telling what they worked on today.]

Public radio can be inclusive, reflecting the community with authentic personalities that are engaged; that will stand us apart.

Attack Of The Bitters
Robert Krulwich - January 31, 2003 - #31

…if I may ask, each time you got yanked or offed, did you have a small attack of the bitters? Had it been me, I might have wallowed for a while or gotten angry. In your narrative, it sounds like you were either a Zen master, or unusually focused on the long-term goal of spreading the seed of public radio. Didn't you ever want to hit anyone with a brick?

Bright Green On Black Ash
Bill Siemering - February 3, 2003 - #32

Yes, I was angry; I was no Zen Buddhist. Like a divorce, often one of the parties has been thinking about it for some time and it's a surprise to the other one. There had been some concern about my management style or skills earlier, but I thought that had improved. The surprise and losing a great job caused the anger.

"Fired" is a good word for this. I felt as if a fire had burned across my career. And, as after a prairie fire, new shoots push up, bright green against the black ash. The smoke clings, though…Getting fired prevents hubris. I never feel I can coast.

Simply Asking
SeanTubbs - February 4, 2003 - #33

In Moorhead, you said the production at times was simple. What do you mean by that? Is simple always a bad thing?

Should interviewers add their own comments to the discussion? If they do, is there a code of ethics that they should observe?

When you were allowed to experiment in the past, how many different kinds of show were you able to try out? Is there anything that didn't work?

Following The Grain
Bill Siemering - February 4, 2003 - #34

The simple answer is that effectiveness of a piece is determined by the producer having a clear central idea and drawing upon a range of techniques to achieve the desired response from the listeners. Format follows function. Thought comes first, then gathering and *listening* to the material, like a wood carver following the grain or stone-cutter seeing the image emerge. It's a dialogue with the material.

In Moorhead we didn't have sophisticated production equipment so we did simple mixes and editing. In the oral history series on small towns, it was all natural on location recording. For example, there was a wonderful grandfather clock ticking and striking as an old woman told of her childhood living in a sod hut on the North Dakota prairie. No way to improve on that. Her voice was rich and expressive. Hearing Studs Terkel's oral history work in the '60's in Chicago has been an inspiration to me.

Yes, a single voice of someone who has something to say can be very compelling. When I was at SOUNDPRINT, a talk by theologian Mathew Fox generated the most listener response. I'm just saying you can produce good pieces even though you don't have fancy equipment.

A good interview is an engaging conversation. The interviewer needs to be listening attentively and responding to the guest. Terry Gross on FRESH AIR is an excellent example of this. The guest is front and center but Terry will at times draw upon her experience too when appropriate. Even when you may disagree with the opinions of a guest, I think you should treat them with respect. That's one of our core values.

I can't say how many different shows we tried. The most common fault is not editing tightly enough. It's easy to fall in love with the material and not hear it as the listener does for the first time.

On The Heart Of The Malaise
Ellen Rocco - February 5, 2003 - #35

When you don't get fired--or change jobs for some other reason--it may be important to fire yourself. I think about this a lot these days--I think the most important thing I have left to do at North Country Public Radio is to pull together some resources so the next generation can do whatever it is they're going to do at this station...In some way, I think this may be at the heart of the malaise that has infected public radio in the U.S.--too many middle-aged people coasting to the finish line...

A Truism
Jay Allison - February 5, 2003 - #36

This may be a fundamental attribute -- and even a useful one -- of independent producers and artists and their ilk...living in a perpetual state of having been fired and looking for the next job.

News Nuts
Sydney Lewis - February 7, 2003 - #38

"People are still not getting the information they need to understand the world…"

Americans are absolutely not getting critical information, or information presented critically. It's terrifying…How can radio consumers get the message to NPR that real news matters more than "acceptable" news. It makes me insane.

What Citizens Require To Be Free
Bill Siemering - February 9, 2003 - #39

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenthiel write in "The Elements of Journalism": "Journalism provides something unique in a culture - independent, reliable, accurate and comprehensive information that citizens require to be free. A journalism that is asked to provide something other than that subverts democratic culture."

If most people get their news from television, they don't get much context or variety of opinions. We live with more complexity than ever and at the same time, commercial television simplifies, cuts actualities shorter and shorter and closes bureaus overseas. None of this serves the interests of democracy. Dumbing the news dumbs the viewers.

[B]efore President Nixon delivered his State of the Union Address in January, 1972, NPR produced a program that played excerpts of his 1971 speech and then reported on what had happened to these proposals. To then hear the President delivering the speech with the same tone and similar rhetoric placed it all in a different perspective. As far as I know, that was the only time NPR produced such a program.

On The Mission
Jay Allison - February 13, 2003 - #41

Much has changed since you wrote your original mission language for NPR. Does it still work?

Over the years at NPR one stated aspiration has been to be the New York Times of the air. Is this a fitting goal? Or does the mission of public media make it distinct from other journalism? Except for the arguable absence of advertising, how is our role different from anyone else's? How well are we honoring it?

How should public radio respond to the pressure (and the desire?) to be a primary news source, reporting immediately from everywhere, a la CNN?

In a time of crisis, of war, does public media have a particular role and purpose?

Making Ourselves
Bill Siemering - February 15, 2003 - #47

The original mission was a set of values, principles and aspirations. They are part of the PRPD Core Values; that illustrates how they are embedded in the foundation of public radio…

Generally, such things are written when you begin an organization or when there is a crisis. Perhaps some of your readers of transom.org will write this here. V.S. Naipaul wrote: "We make ourselves according to the ideas we have of our possibilities."

I don't think there is a perfect analogy to other media. I think most journalists regard NPR as one of their most important, reliable sources of news…But radio, unlike print, is immediate and personal, we *hear* the voice. We have two-ways with reporters. I think public radio has a distinct mission from other media. This is why even with all the information on the Internet, millions of listeners rely on public radio and voluntarily send money to support it.

Although we don't talk about it as often these days, we are *public service* broadcasting. We have reserved frequencies and receive federal money (though less and less), because we can offer programs that would not be feasible on commercial radio. At the same time, if the program serves just a small segment, it isn't serving the public.

What is the public interest? What is public service broadcasting in 2003?

Public media has a particular role to bring accurate, complete reporting, placing the events in context and reflecting the full spectrum of opinion.

Engaging Debate
bill mckibben - February 13, 2003 - #43

lately i've been listening to npr run pieces that amount to op-ed pieces read into a microphone--dull, carefully balanced liberal against conservative, etc. how do you think opinion could be handled on shows like atc, so that the political debate can be engaged but in some way that makes real use of radio.

Balanced Not Boring
Bill Siemering - February 15, 2003 - #49

I think when Robert Siegel talks with a conservative and liberal on Fridays it is much more engaging than read op-ed pieces as you say. Of course NPR and public radio need to be balanced but that doesn't mean dull.

I'd like to see local stations initiate discussions in neighborhoods, kind of an on-going state of the union and community. Out of these, they could find some impassioned, articulate speakers and not just the regulars. I'd like to see public radio be a catalyst for all kinds of discussion, the never- ending process of democracy.

Diehard Fuel
Gregg McVicar - February 15, 2003 - #46

[M]any of us diehards believe noncommercial radio is more relevant than ever, especially in combination with the Web -- but still I sometimes wonder where I'll be in a couple more decades -- after 50 years in radio. Will we be like those old guys with a passion for trains with their caps and walkie-talkies, anachronisms of a bygone era, or will our art and craft fuel even brighter fires?

My question…how you came to frame your radio life as, apparently, more than a career but rather some kind of lifelong mission or vocation? When others were retiring, you kicked into overdrive!

The Calling
Bill Siemering - February 15, 2003 - #52

Because radio is so flexible and personal, it will be here, as long as we continue to make it essential. Danny Miller, of FRESH AIR, says radio is like a cockroach, it will always survive.

Our raw materials are ideas, culture, community, news and interesting people. We *do* affect the lives of our listeners. It's a wonderful and challenging career.

I don't know as I framed my life, but over time I did feel it was a vocation, a calling and not just a job. I don't believe I could do my work overseas if I didn't feel this was what I'm supposed to be doing now.

Sound Tracking
Jay Kernis - February 16, 2003 - #53

In the early days of NPR, there was a lot of experimentation with sound as a storytelling tool. Over the years, it seems that some of the sound became caricature, some became self-indulgent, some is more powerful than ever. From your vantage point, what has happened?

Framing And Cropping
Bill Siemering - February 17, 2003 - #54

In the early days we sometimes let the sound run on far too long, in part because we were trying to make a point, saying, "Listen to this!" Then it became formulaic, "the NPR sound" and done sometimes without thinking enough about it. Then it loses its effectiveness. Actualities are sometimes used too often when the source isn't really saying anything special that couldn't better be summarized by the narrator.

If we think of the sound as photojournalism for the ear, then we need to be very careful of what pictures we select, how we frame them and crop them so they have the most punch. It's a matter of discernment and good editing. Whether it was writing this piece for transom or when I produced pieces for radio, having someone I can trust as an editor is invaluable.

Dancing in Mongolia
Bill Siemering - February 25, 2003 - #57

In writing a story with grass, I find a young horse deep inside it.
-James Dickey

In the process of writing, I've revealed new things to both you and myself. This has been an extraordinary experience. This too, is a personal medium.

The passion you have about public radio is the best evidence of our vitality and that we'll continue to grow. We care enough to offer constructive criticism. J. Montgomery Curtis, one time president of the American Press Institute, wrote, "Our job is to make tomorrow's newspaper better than today's. Daily discontent with the product has benefited every great newspaper."

While we can always be better, we should never lose sight that public radio is an essential part of the lives of millions of listeners. I know of no other programming that generates such strong feelings. You hear it all the time. Think for a moment what your life would be like without public radio.

Amazing, isn't it?

This connection between producers and listeners is unique. Let's celebrate it. Let's dance with our listeners.

<< part 1 Introduction / Bill Siemering's Manifesto

part 3 >> Dispatch from Mongolia.