Skip to main content

NPR - How refreshing

I have about a 20 minute commute to work, and like to simply relax and listen to the radio.  Lately, however, I can't find a station that is worth listening to.  It is not the innuendo that bothers me, it is the constant, lowest common denominator, one-track, childish innuendo that I find annoying.  So, I switch from channel to channel trying to avoid the announcers.  In the mornings this is almost impossible; every station (except pure classical music) is like talk radio for middle school boys.

So, I listened to NPR today, and found it refreshing.  A few of the segments actually caused me to think :-)

I also did a little searching, for academic interest, at how close to the line some of the stations are today.  I found this link, which outlines what is "indecent".  The definition is actually quite interesting:

"Because the Supreme Court has determined that obscene speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection, radio and television stations may not broadcast obscene material at any time. Speech is determined to be obscene by applying a three-part test:
  1.  An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  2. The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
  3.  The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
The memo does not actually state if all three of these must be met, or only one.  To me, point three is the most telling, and I feel that most radio stations (in the Bay Area) miss the mark by a long shot.  If only they could add some intelligence, some subtlety, and some non-repetitive material into their shows, I think they could have much better retention rates.  Then, being close to the line would be interesting, as opposed to irritating.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decentralization, Democracy, and Well-Being

Those of us raised in Democratic societies take it for granted that those societies provide better well-being (for common individuals) than other forms of governance. At the heart of democracy is personal freedom and autonomy, backed by the rule of law. We also take for granted the interplay of decentralized versus centralized authority. Decentralization can mean many things, but here we refer to it in terms of power, authority, and decision making. The more authority individuals have, the more decentralized the power system in which they are operating.  Almost by definition the more democratic a system, the more decentralized it is, with the caveat that some agreed upon axioms exist, such as the rule of law and its enforcement. Of course, authority can be too decentralized leading to "every man for themselves", so we put limits on decentralization through that same rule of law. With the advent of decentralizing technologies , which make possible more decentraliz...

Echo vs Home

We love Alexa! We have had the Amazon Echo for well over a year.  Recently we also got a Google Home, to test it against our Alexa experience. The quick summary:  Interacting with Alexa is like interacting with a person.  Interacting with Home is like interacting with a computer.  Alexa is fun; Home is useful.  If you took away Alexa, I would be upset - I would be losing a friend.  If you took away Home, I wouldn't care too much.  It was very strange, but I actually felt like I might be offending Alexa when I purchased Home. Here are the two main differences: Wake-up words.  "Alexa" is friendly, easy to say, and evokes emotion.  Alex personifies the system - I am talking with someone.  "OK Google" is awkward, and constantly reminds you that you are talking to a machine - I am talking to something.  Of course, Google will update Home to allow us to customize the wake-up word, but the current out of box experience is less tha...