Public Radio Core Values in a Web 2.0 World

[John Sutton]

About 8 years ago PRPD, the professional association for public radio program directors, set out to uncover and articulate Public Radio’s Core Values. The process was thorough and included resources to help stations and program producers identify and nurture Core Values in all forms of programming including fundraising, underwriting, and promotion.

Today’s challenge is to do the same in a Web 2.0 world, especially with blogs and user-generated content. On one hand, public radio needs to ensure the Core Values of the “brand” are protected. On the other hand public radio can’t ignore or suppress the richness of Web 2.0 opportunities.

How does that happen? Which of public radio’s core values have universal application? That is, they apply on the radio, to the written word, on video, and in community dialog. Which of public radio’s core values don’t translate to Web 2.0? Do other values need to be uncovered and defined so public radio can maintain its identify in new spaces? Does public radio’s identity change beyond calling it public “media?” How so?

To ensure that “Core Values” isn’t reduced to a mere buzz phrase, here’s a link to the original introductory report from the PRPD Core Value.... Please read it as part of participating in this discussion, even if you read it before. And here are the Core Values:

Qualities of the Mind and Intellect
Love of lifelong learning
Substance
Curiosity
Credibility
Accuracy
Honesty
Respect for the listener
Purpose

Qualities of the Heart and Spirit
Humor
Idealism
Inspired about public life and culture
Belief in civility and civil discourse
Generosity

Qualities of Craft
A uniquely human voice
Pacing that's appropriate to the substance of the content
Attention to the smallest details of music, sound, language

[John Proffitt]

I love the Core Values from PRPD. It's one of those distillation documents that makes so much sense both immediately and upon deeper reflection.

I'm hopeful a lot of folks will answer your call to discussion here. I'd like to hear from folks with more experience in the industry than I have.

My own take is that this list of Core Values can be mildly tweaked -- to take out the radio-specific language -- and you have a wonderful set of values for all media. "Web 2.0" media -- which is a lot of different things, depending upon who you ask -- should live up to as many of these ideals as possible at all times.

The only additional value I might add would be "sharing" or some variant of that. But there's already Generosity, which is somewhat close. My sense of "sharing" is a little more like an open source notion rather than a "host gives content the center stage" notion in the PRPD description.

To me, these are the values of our public media tribe, and they are the values that our listeners / viewers / readers prize -- it's why they join us on the journey. If we stick to these values, in any medium, we should find success. Maybe not blockbuster commercial success, but a sort of quiet, dignified success; a success of having improved upon our communities.

[Randy Kinkel]

Core Values and user-generated content/blogs:

aye, there's the rub. would this mean a lot of oversight/editing on somebody's part? or simply careful selection and making sure core values and other guidelines are understood?

[John Proffitt]

I think when people hear "user-generated content" they think of kooky videos on YouTube. But if you've developed a strong relationship with your tribe, with those that share these core values with you, the stuff you'll get will be considerably different and better. Further, the core values will need to work on a sliding scale, a spectrum of experiences. Not everything we do wins a Peabody or an Emmy or a PRNDI or name-your-award. We already allow for a spectrum of quality across multiple factors.

If you believe that interacting / sharing with your community -- those that share your core values -- is part of your mission, then a range of experiences is open to everyone sharing in those values. Just tag all the media with where it fits in the quality spectrum.

As for UGC that doesn't fit into the core values -- it's rejected. Same with people that espouse views that are counter to the core values -- they are rejected. How many public media outlets embrace local KKK groups and give them air time or produce a high-quality skinhead racist show? None, right? Because those values are counter to our core values.

All this said, there's definitely some curation going on here -- the process of intelligently choosing between the media that's available and evaluating it against the core values. The good news is that some of that can be done by members of the tribe, not just paid staff in all instances.

[PJ Swift]

I agree. One core value missing for me is shared effort. That's what I love about Web 2.0: people working together for a common goal. This is our Amish barn, or it can be. We just have to tap into it.

[John Sutton]

User generated content will enhance certain aspects of public radio's core values, especially the Qualities of Heart and Spirit and the Uniquely Human Voice.

The risk is diluting the Qualities of Mind and Intellect along the way.

Those core values -- accuracy, credibility, substance, etc. -- exist not just because there are a bunch of smart people in public radio. Those values exist because of the discipline exercised in creating, checking, editing, re-crafting, and producing public radio content.

Today's public radio listeners expect that discipline when they tune in, long on, or play a podcast. That discipline distinguishes public radio content from other media choices. It's an important part of the brand. To use the 1980s vernacular, it's one of the USPs -- Unique Selling Points -- of public radio.

There is no win for public radio if more voices are heard but accuracy is lost. You don't have to search long on the web to find examples of that trade-off.

So the question is, how does public radio use interactive opportunities to enhance some Core Values without diluting others? There's probably not a complete answer today, but it's question worth asking a lot along the way.

[Steve Behrens]

In practical terms, don't you think user-generated-content generators will look around at the other content and won't post their cute-cat videos unless those videos are outstandingly credible and civil in discourse as well as humorous?

What worries me is that the entire UGC sphere will be poisoned if Web 2.0 showcases of all kinds are essentially spammed by tricksters of the Swift Boat type (or promoters of fad diets who couldn't quite get their own public TV pledge specials) who pay plenty of attention to qualities of craft and can fake a uniquely human voice.

The public at large won't have the patience to sit through wonky mediations over facts and wording like those that go on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. If people venture into Web 2.0, they'd have their suspicions and prejudices unholstered and tend to believe only what they already think.

That would be a shame because openness to civilly presented ideas ought to be the major additional "core value" in public media 2.0.

If openness isn't already in the list of core values, it's certainly implied by the presence of phrases like lifelong learning, curiosity and civil discourse.

[John Sutton]

I think openness is worthy of consideration as its own Core Value, especially in a Web 2.0 world.

Also implied, and perhaps worthy of stand-alone Core Value status, is valuing the user's time. Listeners tune in to public radio because it is a consistently good use of their time. Public radio speaks to them while they are getting ready for work, driving, fixing dinner, doing weekend chores, sitting at the computer, exercising, etc.

Making good use of the user's time will remain the key to providing public service on any platform. It should be a central tenant of any content creation, packaging, and promotion.

[Robert Bole]

There are two other core values that I would advocate:

Relevant- that the content produced is relevant to the lives of the listeners

Action-Oriented - that wherever possible and appropriate that content should point listeners to the next step in improving their lives

[Jim Russell]

A little truth is in order about "Core Values."

Some years ago, Marcia Alvar asked seven of us senior/executive producers to gather in Philadelphia for a discussion. We came from ATC and ME, Car Talk and Fresh Air, Prairie Home, Marketplace and ... I know I am forgetting someone. My apologies. We were asked to identify the common qualities that successful public radio programs had, and from this list emerged the so-called "Core Values." It was an interesting and worthwhile exercise, but via sensational marketing by the above-mentioned Ms. Alvar, it has taken on a religious aura it was never intended to have by its creators!

The most important thing to remember is that it was compiled retrospectively. No program was ever invented using these core values. Instead, after the fact of their success, the programs in question were "reverse engineered" -- as if by using these values, their success could be cloned.

Nowhere in the list is the native creativity and invention that are the ESSENTIAL ingredient in making new shows. If anything, the Core Values may encourage sameness and copying in the same way that commercial TV and movies imitate themselves.

I urge my colleagues to bear these facts in mind as they use the Core Values in new program or Web 2.0 applications. Invention comes first. Then come core values -- old ones or totally new ones.

Jim

[John Sutton]

Thanks Jim. I would argue that the Core Values were present in the invention and creation of public radio's best programming.

I have to believe the Core Values you named in that meeting were the values you brought to the creation of programs such as Marketplace, The Story, All Things Considered, and even Newton's Apple. Not all apply to every situation. Some values not listed are present as well.

What I think you're describing from Philadelphia is merely the process of identifying and naming Core Values after the fact. That's very helpful for those of us who do not inherently have the feel for what resonates with listeners.

For some folks, like you or Bill Siemering or Garrison Keillor or Doug Berman, it's a gift. It's part of who you are. You just "know" it. The rest of us need guidance. The naming of Core Values provides that guidance.

[Jim Russell]

I take your point, John and thanks for your compliment. Core Value's primary benefit was to develop a common language to describe the values that characterize quality on pubradio programs. But, my point is that that language should be dynamic and continue to grow. Listen to Jesse Thorn's The Sound of Young America -- you can hear new "core values" developing in addition to a good many of the old ones. I know the purpose of Core Values was to start the discussion, not to end it.

[John Sutton]

I agree Jim. I started this discussion not only to reinsert Core Values language into our everyday discussion but also to question what carries over to the print, video, interactive, and the "long tail" aspects of a Web 2.0 world. The values are going to differ some, even if just in the Quality of Craft category.

I think we have some good suggestions in response to this discussion. Openness has new meaning in a Web 2.0 world. "Shared Effort" is a different, and maybe much better, concept than "Interactive."

It's interesting that Relevance was brought up. Like Creativity and Invention, I think Relevance was assumed in the original Core Values. But new ways of creating and vetting, or not vetting, content might make Relevance a more important Core Values concept.

Thanks for being part of the discussion. It's a good beginning.