BROOKE GLADSTONE: From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I’m Brooke Gladstone. BOB GARFIELD:And I’m Bob Garfield. We’ve been sitting in these chairs about six months now and can’t help but think about how we’ve been doing. In a few minutes we’ll bring you a few of the pieces and interviews we’ve run, that offer a pretty good illustration of what of what we had in mind when we re-invented On the Media.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: But first we thought we’d hear from you. Of our discussion of ABC’s John Stossel last week, David Heintz wrote “I’ve only recently discovered your show. I find the rare breath of truth about commercial media to be exhilarating. Without shows like yours, the corporate coup d’etat would be complete and completely invisible. I will continue to be a habitual listener.
BOB GARFIELD: And this general comment from Frank Haber…I make it a point to listen to your show as often as possible. Attaboys first: The show is well-produced, always topical and mostly on-target. You dig the dirt while somehow staying on the reportorial side of that magic line. Brickbats next: When you get too internecine, or run out of things newsworthy, you uh, acquire certain National Enquirer traits.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:But we can’t conclude this segment of listener criticism without hearing from Ronald D. Giles of Glenmoore, Pennsylvania. He writes: Here are the words I would apply to this program. Downer. Negative. Petulant. Snickering. Spoiled. Wronged. Mournful. Dark. Pissy. “Even the musical stings are in the minor key,” he writes. “The pacing is dreadful, the announcers have frowns in their voices, and I am sure the staff wears black.”
BOB GARFIELD: We want to hear your comments, story pitches, or lists of adjectives. We want to hear your general suggestions, your specific complaints, and what pleases you, too. Write to us at onthemedia DOT ORG, and be sure to tell us where you live and how to pronounce your name.