Skip to main content

The Fight for the Future of NPR

A slow-moving bureaucracy. An antiquated business model. A horde of upstart competitors. Can National Public Radio survive?

160408_TECH_radiolede

Animations by Lisa Larson-Walker. Images via Flickr CC.

One day in May 2015, Eric Nuzum stood before a gathering of influential NPR trustees and board members, and showed them a photograph of a young woman with shoulder-length brown hair. “This is Lara,” Nuzum’s slide read. “Lara is the future of NPR.”

Leon NeyfakhLEON NEYFAKH

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

“NPR’s mission must be to serve that woman the way we served her parents,” Nuzum remembers saying. “Nothing else matters.”

At the time, Nuzum was NPR’s head of programming. The presentation, which he delivered at a meeting of the NPR Foundation, was meant to drive home his most closely held belief about public radio: that young people have different habits, expectations, and aesthetic inclinations than the millions of loyal listeners NPR has been serving since its birth in 1971. “Lara” was a stand-in for an audience that NPR was failing to attract—according to one analysis, the median age of NPR’s radio audience has steadily climbed from roughly 45 years old two decades ago to 54 last year—and one it would need to reach in order to guarantee its survival.

What Nuzum didn’t say during his presentation was that, one day earlier, he had decided to end his decade-long career at NPR and sign a contract with the Amazon-owned audiobook company Audible. Nuzum’s job there would be to develop a slate of original programming that would give Audible a stake in the tantalizing new market for audio storytelling. Although the NPR Foundation people didn’t know it yet, the man who was warning them about needing to win over Lara had just been stolen away by a corporate audio giant.

Today, Nuzum belongs to a club you could call the NPR apostates—onetime servants of public radio who parted ways with the organization and entered the private sector amid frustrations over how NPR and its member stations were approaching the future of the industry. In addition to Nuzum—whose Audible project launched in beta last week—other prominent members include Alex Blumberg, who founded the podcasting startup Gimlet Media, and Adam Davidson, who is an investor in Gimlet and an adviser to a new digital audio unit at the New York Times.

(Slate is also home to some NPR alums who have made the leap into private sector digital audio, including Andy Bowers and Steve Lickteig, who work at Panoply, The Slate Group’s audio business, as well as Mike Pesca, who left NPR’s New York bureau to start a daily Slate podcast called The Gist.)

The work these defectors are doing outside of NPR—and the ways in which it promises to destabilize their old employer—has, in recent weeks, become the subject of intense and emotional debate in the world of public radio. The tumult was touched off in late March, when an NPR executive announced that the network’s own digital offerings—most importantly, its marquee iPhone app, NPR One—were not to be promoted during shows airing on terrestrial radio.

The ban was widely viewed as proof that NPR is less interested in reaching young listeners than in placating the managers of local member stations, who pay handsome fees to broadcast NPR shows and tend to react with suspicion when NPR promotes its efforts to distribute those shows digitally. After the gag order was made public, dozens of public radio and podcasting people set about picking at an old scab—discussing, spiritedly, in multiple forums, whether the antiquated economic arrangements that govern NPR’s relationships with its member stations are holding it back from innovation.

The debate also raised an even thornier and as-yet-unanswered question: What is the value of NPR’s core journalistic offerings—the brief, sober dispatches that air every day on its flagship shows Morning Edition and All Things Considered—in an age when its terrestrial audience is growing older and younger listeners seem to prefer addictive, irreverent, and entertaining podcasts over the news?

The critics say NPR has been standing with its toes in the ocean for too long, curbing its digital ambitions in order to appease legacy radio stations. As its competitors dash into the waves, the question of whether NPR can ever catch up, and what will become of it if it doesn’t, has become increasingly urgent. Can the people who are running NPR make radio for Lara? Or has she already tuned them out for good?

* * *

To understand NPR’s predicament, it’s crucial to first understand what NPR is and what NPR is not. In some ways, the second part is easier. NPR is not a radio station, and it is not responsible for every show in which polite voices speak in a restrained, earnest manner about the issues of the day; other players that traffic in such fare include American Public Media, which produces Marketplace, and Public Radio International, which co-produces The Takeaway. NPR is not involved in the making ofThis American Life, a program that was launched by member station WBEZ in Chicago and has been operating independently since 2015.* Nor did NPR create Serial, the blockbuster podcast that debuted a little less than two years ago and convinced many people that there is money to be made in the medium of podcasting.

160408_TECH_radio350-1

So what is NPR? In short, it’s a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that produces and distributes an assortment of popular radio shows to federally funded local stations all across the country. Some of these stations are tiny and depend entirely on programming they have licensed from outside entities. Others, such as New York’s WNYC or Boston’s WBUR, are powerhouses that produce nationally syndicated shows of their own, like WNYC’s Radiolab and WBUR’s On Point With Tom Ashbrook.

What does this have to do with whether or not NPR will still be making journalism that people want to listen to in 50 years? The answer lies in NPR’s flagship news programs: Morning Edition, which typically airs on member stations from 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET, and All Things Considered, which comes on at 4 p.m. and continues through drive time. The two programs, which are known inside NPR as “the newsmagazines,” are the biggest shows NPR produces, both in terms of revenue and audience. Broadcast on approximately 900 radio stations across the country, they reach an estimated weekly audience of more than 25 million people.

Between the licensing fees that member stations pay to air the shows and the sponsorship revenue they attract, Morning Edition and All Things Considered are responsible for bringing in a bigger slice of NPR’s annual budget than any other source of funding. Member stations—which have controlled a majority of NPR’s board seats since the early 1980s—have strongly opposed the idea of making the shows available as on-demand podcasts, fearing a loss of listeners and revenue. According to critics like Davidson and Nuzum, limitations like these have prevented NPR from making a bigger impact in the digital space.

The way the newsmagazines work journalistically is fairly straightforward, with NPR’s reporters filing pieces to their desk editors, who work closely with the shows’ producers and hosts in deciding what will go on the air. Some of the stories come from NPR’s 17 foreign bureaus; others are produced by the 98 reporters the network has stationed across the United States. Ultimately, the newsmagazines end up airing a few dozen of these stories per day, along with host interviews with newsmakers and NPR correspondents (Steve Inskeep interviewing Nina Totenberg about a recent Supreme Court decision, say), local news patched in by member stations, and live hourly news briefings that hurtle through the day’s headlines in five minutes or less.

By their nature, the newsmagazines are “perishable,” meaning they are designed to be listened to when they are fresh. In sensibility, they have been impressively consistent for decades, and longtime listeners have come to count on them for succinct updates on important world events, measured analysis of major national stories, evocative slice-of-life reporting from around the country, as well as occasional offbeat pieces that are delivered by NPR correspondents with a reliably mature sense of playfulness.

The NPR News voice, though not monolithic, is unmistakably distinct from the diverse range of audio programming that has taken off in the recent podcast boom. Some of the shows that are part of that wave, such as Red Bull Studios’ Bodega Boys, BuzzFeed’sAnother Round, and Slate’s own political and cultural talk shows, have found a market as “low-touch” productions, which require little in the way of reporting (by the hosts) or audio engineering (by producers) and rely mostly on the podcasters’ charisma, expertise, and chemistry. Other successful podcasts, such as Reply All, Criminal, andYou Must Remember This, have paved the way for something else entirely: meticulously crafted feature journalism that, in Alex Blumberg’s words, feels less like a collection of radio segments and more like “narrative-driven, textured, sound-rich documentaries.”

The conventional wisdom among podcasters like Blumberg is that, in 2016, listeners want audio programming that makes them feel as though they’re getting to know a person or a topic intimately, whether through the familiar banter of beloved panelists or through lovingly produced works of storytelling. Whereas the parents of the elusive Lara turned to NPR because they wanted someone trustworthy to tell them the news, younger generations seem to find satisfaction in the velvety bedroom voice of 99% Invisible host Roman Mars as he murmurs about furniture and the self-consciousness of Serial’s Sarah Koenig, who makes the method of her reporting part of her story.

NPR News reporters usually can’t get that personal, in part because, as Gimlet’s Adam Davidson puts it, they are in the impossible position of having to simultaneously “appeal to 80-year-olds in Alabama and 20-year-olds in Brooklyn.”

“All evidence suggests that with on-demand audio, people don’t want the three-to-four-minute radio stories,” Davidson told me. “They don’t want the anecdotal lede, followed by an expert saying something. They want something longer. More engaged. Something that isn’t designed for 30 million people in mind, but 1 million people who are more like them. They want something looser, more fun.”

Ironically, looser and more fun is a good way to describe what NPR was like when it first came on the air in the 1970s. As Steve Oney describes in his forthcoming history of NPR, American Air, National Public Radio was hatched by “misfits, castoffs, and dreamers” out of a desire to experiment with audio, and was widely viewed as the province of left-wingers and hippies. The first broadcast, emblematically, was a chaotic, 25-minute portrait in three acts of the massive anti-war rally that shook Washington, D.C., on May 3, 1971; in Oney’s words, the unusual piece rang out with “a vibration from a realm where youthful earnestness commingled with merry-prankster lunacy, land-grant university idealism, New England pragmatism, and a native instinct for storytelling.”

Jay Allison, who filed stories to All Things Considered in its early days and is now something of a public radio elder statesman, said doing work for NPR back then was about “discovering the world with this new technological marvel, which was portable tape.” Allison, who now hosts PRX’s The Moth Radio Hour, said he sometimes misses NPR’s more freewheeling days. When he turns on All Things Considered in 2016, he said, “There’s hardly any commentary, and very little exploratory or strange portraiture, documentary, or poetic stuff.”

“By abandoning that kind of sonic terrain of exploratory narrative,” Allison said, “NPR has ceded that territory to the podcasters.”

* * *

As NPR’s critics see it, letting others dominate that terrain will ultimately prove fatal, because it’s where young listeners now live. But for the moment, NPR’s top executives, including CEO Jarl Mohn, are unapologetically focused on shoring up the radio audience for Morning Edition and All Things Considered instead of diverting newsroom resources to begin industrial-scale podcast production.

But Mohn is adamant that NPR has not let its focus on the newsmagazines distract from its podcasting efforts. The network already has a bunch of successful podcasts, Mohn told me, including a pair of talk shows (the NPR Politics Podcast and the Pop Culture Happy Hour) and an ornate science show, Invisibilia, which in its second season will consist of seven episodes created over the course of many months by a team of three.

160408_TECH_radio350-2

“The mythology is that somehow we’re being left behind,” Mohn said. “Now, the thing that I find so laughable about the argument is, if you look at the iTunes chart any given week … we’re consistently four of the Top 10 podcasts, and consistently six of the Top 20. No one else has the number of hit podcasts that we have. No one.”

Still, when it comes to allocating resources, NPR’s current leadership is proceeding cautiously. According to Anya Grundmann, who replaced Eric Nuzum at NPR as the head of programming,Morning Edition and All Things Considered are simply too important to the economics of the network to be anything other than the top priority. “We need to make sure that we are continuing to invest in the newsmagazines,” she said. “If we pulled 50 people from the newsroom to do podcasts, that would be a challenge.”

It isn’t just about the bottom line, though. Mohn and his team seem to genuinely believe that NPR’s formidable network of reporters—as well as the local journalists working at member stations—will allow the organization to prevail over the private podcast shops growling at their gates.

“Look, your storytelling is great,” Mohn said. “It’s fine. It’s fun. It’s interesting. It’s charming. But we’re covering Syria. We’re covering Ebola.”

The CEO is not the only one drawing attention to NPR’s status as a mighty news organization—and suggesting that, so far at least, its profit-minded competitors have behaved more like purveyors of entertainment than of news.

In a Facebook post written in response to a recent jeremiad by Adam Davidson describing public radio’s dire prospects, the reporter Lourdes Garcia-Navarro—who is currently based in Brazil and previously reported from Libya on the Arab Spring—drew a sharp contrast between what she and her colleagues do and what Davidson did on the first episode of his new Gimlet podcast Surprisingly Awesome, which promises listeners “Stories about things that sound totally boring, but turn out to be totally awesome”:

[S]eriously, NPR does matter unless you want to live in a world with ONLY 30 minutes of vocal fry on the value and meaning of Mold (which is GREAT) and not, also, let’s say … news of a terror attack in Belgium. I’m sorry if that seems quaint to you.

This distinction between “news” and podcast-style “storytelling” has emerged as a key fault line in the debate over NPR’s future. And while it is considered impolite to value one above the other, there’s a tendency among some podcast people to think of themselves as too ambitious and creative for the constraints of the four-minute radio news spot, and a tendency among some radio people to look askance at the pretentions of podcasters and their twee, personality-driven soundscapes.

“It’s an art form and they do a really good job at it,” said JJ Sutherland, a former war reporter and producer for NPR who left in 2012. “I saw myself more as a journalist than someone creating art. And that’s not to disparage anyone who does it differently, but I spent from 2004 to the end of 2011 going back and forth from Iraq. And you know what? I didn’t do it because it was fun.”

160408_TECH_radio350-3

Of course, fun is not necessarily the enemy of seriousness, and to their credit, podcasters have proven that even very complicated and abstract material can be made compelling with the right touch. Planet Money, the twice-weekly podcast about the economy that Davidson and Blumberg founded as an experiment at NPR in 2008, provides perhaps the best illustration of this: On the show’s de-facto pilot, “The Giant Pool of Money,” which aired on This American Life, Blumberg and Davidson managed to explain the financial crisis to delighted listeners over the course of an hourlong episode that was no less edifying for being deliriously entertaining as well.

If free-form storytelling can make even credit default swaps engaging, Blumberg and Davidson thought at the time, it could work on anything. In the wake of the rapturous reception that Planet Money received from NPR listeners, its creators started asking themselves why a four-minute news brief should still be considered the ideal vehicle for reporting on and explaining current events. If people are getting more out of the longer, more propulsive stuff, why wouldn’t the NPR newsroom try to produce more of it?

“The 3-4 minute story should not be the core audio product of NPR,” Davidson said in an email. “It shouldn’t be the thing that NPR’s reporters and editors spend most of their days focused on. I know from experience that it takes different muscles, different tools to do longer-form stories. I think it would be smart if NPR had more of its staff spending a decent chunk of their time working on developing those skills and muscles.”

Blumberg and Davidson ultimately left NPR out of frustration with what they saw as the organization’s half-hearted embrace of a concept they felt they’d proved. Since Mohn became CEO in 2014, there has been a further exodus of high-level, digitally minded talent, including Kinsey Wilson, who was pushed out as chief content officer and is now spearheading an all new digital audio unit at the New York Times; Margaret Low Smith, an NPR lifer who was running the news division at the time of her departure; executive editor Madhulika Sikka; director of vertical initiatives Matt Thompson; and content strategy executive Sarah Lumbard.*

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t people still at NPR who are trying to push the organization to be more adventurous and experimental: Despite the departures, there remains a clutch of public radio optimists at NPR News who are operating from the premise that their core product must change if they want to still have an audience after their existing listeners are no longer around.

Two people in particular are leading the charge: Kelly McEvers, who took over as a co-host of All Things Considered last year as part of an effort to make the show appeal to a younger audience, and Sara Sarasohn, who oversees content for an app called NPR One, which many in public radio consider to be the most exciting thing to have happened at NPR in years.

McEvers and Sarasohn are trying to bring NPR into the audio present from different angles. McEvers is tackling the problem of what the news should sound like, both onAll Things Considered and in podcast form, with her new show Embedded. On ATC, she told me, she’s been striving to talk the way she does when she’s talking to her friends. “I’m trying to make myself sound a little less like an anchor might have in the past—a little more conversational and transparent,” she said. Though some older listeners, including McEvers’ parents, have not been entirely supportive of her decision to start saying “like” and “you know” on the air, the less buttoned-up tone might turn out to be more inviting to young ears.

With Embedded, McEvers has created a show that is textured and process-driven, likeSerial, and one that’s being promoted as a demonstration of what NPR can do when it challenges its newsroom to make high-end documentary programming. McEvers, who reported from the Middle East for years before joining All Things Considered, uses each episode to take her listeners along on a reporting trip, burrowing down into one story and feeling around in it at a leisurely pace. For the first episode, which appeared on iTunes on March 31, McEvers spent a week with a group of painkiller addicts in Indiana whose insistence on sharing needles had caused a local HIV epidemic. Over the course of the 30-minute episode, McEvers lets us listen in as addicts inject themselves and murmur answers to her questions. As McEvers narrates her reporting, we learn in great detail about how the people she encountered fell into their habits and gain a visceral appreciation for the difficulty of getting clean.

Embedded may or may not turn out to be a cultural phenomenon. But NPR wants as many people as possible to hear it, which is where Sara Sarasohn and the NPR One app comes in. Though marketed as a “Pandora for public radio,” NPR One is better understood as a high-stakes experiment in creating a dedicated audience for all of NPR’s offerings—digital and terrestrial. Whereas the previous NPR News app required listeners to make playlists of segments they wanted to hear, NPR ONE generates a streaming playlist of audio content based on a person’s interests and feedback. In one session you could be taken from a Morning Edition dispatch on police reform in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to an All Things Considered segment on the Federal Reserve to an episode of the Pop Culture Happy Hour. There are offerings from other networks too—if you’re a fan of Reveal, the podcast from the Center for Investigative Reporting, you can tell the app you want it in your mix, and decide when it comes up whether you want to listen to it or skip.  

I’ve been using NPR One for about three weeks, and I have found it extremely enjoyable. Some days, when the algorithm is really humming, it makes me wish my commute to work was longer; on other days, when I’m tired and walking the dog, I turn it on for no other reason than to spare myself the trouble of actively choosing something to listen to.

But the app isn’t just a delight for listeners. It also generates precise data for NPR about when people skip segments and what keeps them engaged. This data, Sarasohn told me, has been used to train NPR hosts and reporters on how to write copy that is most likely to catch listeners’ ears. (One lesson Sarasohn has learned: Instead of opening with the who/what/where/when/why of a traditional news story, open with a “big idea” sentence that explains the stakes right away.)

On the strength of these efforts—not to mention the slate of podcasts that Mohn boasted of when we spoke—it is reasonable to conclude that progress is being made at NPR, and that when the organization does put its weight behind something new and bold, it is more than capable of competing with its new challengers. WhenEmbedded hit the top of the iTunes podcast chart, NPR’s head of news Michael Oreskes tweeted at Adam Davidson, “May I ask you fine innovators a question, respectfully? If @NPR is so strategically inept, why is Embedded #1 today?”

Davidson and his ilk, however, worry these steps are too little, too late. In their view, NPR should have rushed the field sooner and staked out a dominant position in digital audio back when it had the sector almost entirely to itself. Instead, its leadership abetted the rise of small, swift competitors with whom they must now contend for market share and talent, all while trying to accommodate the interests of terrestrial member stations—many of which still fill their weekend slots with zombielike reruns of Car Talk—in order to maintain an anachronistic business model.

A big part of the problem, several former NPR staffers say, is that some of the most creative producers and reporters in the newsroom are too often thwarted when they move to pursue new ideas—not because they are always told no by their superiors, but because the process of getting something made at the organization tends to be grindingly bureaucratic and incremental, and requires feats of strength, patience, and political finesse on the part of those who try.

Perhaps the best evidence of this tendency is a long-gestating podcast from the Code Switch team, which was formed three years ago to cover race. Though the official line at NPR is that the team wasn’t ready to have a podcast until recently—it is now being piloted and will debut “soon,” according to a spokeswoman—if NPR had moved faster to develop the project, they might already have a major franchise on their hands. Instead, the Code Switch staff have been limited to appearing on other people’s podcasts, publishing written pieces for their vertical on NPR.org, and contributing the occasional news segment to Morning Edition or All Things Considered.

* * *

There is something quaint about the idea of turning on a radio to learn about the day’s events. We are, after all, bombarded by news constantly—on our computers, on our phones, on TV, from newspapers, from cable news networks, from our friends on social media. Against that backdrop, it seems like there’s a very real possibility that the medium in which NPR’s reporters work—not just terrestrial radio, but audio full stop—could simply lose its place as a news source in people’s lives.

And yet, one of the discoveries Sara Sarasohn has made from NPR One is that listeners skip over newscasts less frequently than they skip over anything else. Maybe that’s because there remains something valuable about hearing someone reliable offer you a summary of every important thing that’s happened in the world since the last time you checked. That experience—of being passively informed and temporarily relieved of the responsibility to decide what is and isn’t worth knowing—still seems to hold great appeal. Perhaps, in our on-demand world, that appeal is even stronger. As Sarasohn put it to me, the need to know that “the world is still turning” is not going away.

For now, NPR, with its unrivaled audio newsroom, still has a head start in the race to fill that need. Even its most acerbic critics would agree on that. Every day, though, that advantage shrinks, as companies like Audible and the New York Times step into the digital audio fray with heightened ambitions and the resources to realize them. 

NPR should take the threat seriously. They still have a chance to win Lara over. But she won’t wait around forever.

For more great stories like this one, subscribe to Slate’s daily newsletter, the Angle.

*Correction, April 11, 2016: This article originally misstated that NPR’s former chief content officer Kinsey Wilson was hired by the New York Times to spearhead its new digital audio unit. Wilson was initially brought on by the Times as an editor for strategy and innovation, and is now executive vice president for product and technology. (Return.)

*Correction, April 13, 2016: This article originally misstated the year when This American Life began operating independently. It was 2015, not 2014. (Return.)

Conservatives Will Hate HBO’s New Film on the Disgraceful War Waged on Anita Hill

“Dope” director’s new film relives the horror of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill standoff.

Kerry Washington as Anita Hill

DIRECTOR RICK FAMUYIWA remembers watching the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a freshman at the University of Southern California. He was interested in politics, and in scrutinizing the man who would replace the retired civil rights crusader Thurgood Marshall on the high court. The hearings “always stuck with me,” he says. Nearly a quarter century later, the script for the forthcoming HBO film, Confirmation, by Erin Brockovich screenwriter Susannah Grant, “just completely took me in,” Famuyiwa told me. He was struck by how many of the details America seemed to have forgotten.

The Nigerian-American director, raised near Los Angeles, was fresh off a breakout success with his coming-of-age comedy, Dope, about a black nerd from Ingleside who sets his sights on Harvard. Confirmation was about as far away from Dope as Famuyiwa could get. Yet some of the story’s elements were familiar, like the intersection of race and politics. He also explored that theme in 2007’s Talk to Me—wherein Don Cheadle plays Ralph Waldo “Petey” Greene Jr., an ex-con turned DC radio personality who helped keep the city calm the night MLK Jr. was assassinated.

Taking sides would have been a “fool’s errand,” Famuyiwa says. Frank Masi

Confirmation‘s air date—Saturday, April 16—is excellent timing given the constitutional cage-fight over President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the high court. Famuyiwa’s film looks back at one of the nastiest political fights of the last century—and one that has had a lasting impact on gender interactions in the workplace. Here’s a quick recap: In July 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas to replace retiring Justice Marshall. Deep into the hearings, Anita Hill, a religious, reserved Oklahoma law professor who’d worked under Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education, was called upon to testify. Her public charges of sexual harassment against her former boss threw a bomb into DC politics that left few unscathed.

Vice President Joe Biden, played by Greg Kinnear, will not be too pleased with this blast from the past.

Famuyiwa plays things pretty straight, despite complaints from some of the politicians portrayed. Kerry Washington, of Scandal fame, plays Hill, andWendell Pierce, best known as Detective “Bunk” Moreland from The Wire, portrays a stoic Thomas. But in Famuyiwa’s telling, Hill and Thomas are almost peripheral characters. The big players are the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose infighting and backstabbing make up the bulk of the action.

Vice President Joe Biden, played by Greg Kinnear, will not be too pleased with this blast from the past. It recalls Biden’s less-than-stellar performance as the committee chair who ineptly let his GOP colleagues eviscerate Hill with thinly sourced evidence, and refused to let other witnesses, including women with similar allegations, to testify on Hill’s behalf.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), who saw a script of the film that was not yet final, raised the possibility of legal action. So has former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), Thomas’ longtimepatron and mentor. Danforth’s ruthlessness comes across in a scene in which his character consults with a psychiatrist who implies it would be possible to say Hill was suffering from “erotomania”—a delusion that Thomas had been in love with her.

The conclusion of Confirmation is no more satisfying, alas, than that of the real-life hearings, which elevated Thomas to the Supreme Court on a 52-48 vote, yet never really resolved who was telling the truth. “I didn’t want to try to take that point of view,” Famuyiwa explains, “because it would be a fool’s errand.”

Wendell Pierce as Clarence Thomas Frank Masi

Mother Jones: So much of the story is people talking—in offices, in Senate offices, phone calls. How did you hope to dramatize that? I mean, it’s a good thing this happened before email, because—

Rick Famuyiwa: It would have all been email! Exactly. That was the biggest challenge. It was also just embracing the fact that it was going to be procedural, and that it was going to be a lot of talking heads.

MJ: You did actually manage to work in a car chase of sorts, with Hill being pursued from the DC airport by TV trucks.

“We wanted to be representative of the beginning of that hot, 24-hour news feeding frenzy.”

RF: We were excited to get outside! By the time she arrived, there had been such a buildup of who she was and her impact on the hearings. There was a huge attack on her as she descended into DC. Obviously there are creative licenses that you take as a filmmaker. At the time, there were these paparazzi chases—Princess Diana. We wanted to be representative of the beginning of that hot, 24-hour news feeding frenzy.

MJ: Hill and Thomas seem almost secondary in the film, but the senators are really front and center. Was that intentional?

RF: Yes, in some ways. It was titled Confirmation very purposefully. I wanted the film to be about that process—about how Judge Thomas and Anita Hill were thrown into a situation that was difficult for anyone to navigate, no matter what the truth was. It’s hard to know what the truth is.

I really wanted it to be about the human reaction—whether you’re Judge Thomas and you’re reaching the pinnacle of your career and you see it about to fall away from you, or you’re Anita Hill and you know that injecting yourself into this process probably means coming under attack and possibly having your life and career changed in the process. Both of them had to face this. They were similar in many ways. There’s just a lot of interesting plot turns beyond who told the truth.

MJ: There was one scene in which NPR Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg*calls Hill. Was that really Totenberg?

“We were trying to be fair to everyone involved knowing that these were issues that a lot of people wouldn’t want to revisit.”

RF: [Laughs.] Unfortunately, no. There is a strict NPR policy in terms of having their reporters in films and television—unless they are recreating the actual broadcast. That was a sound-alike.

MJ: I hear some of the senators you portrayed are pretty upset. Especially John Danforth, who was way creepier in the film than I remember him.

RF: That wasn’t the intention. These are people who believed in Clarence and believed in his innocence and believed he was being wrongly accused and railroaded by special interests. In that case, you try to protect your friend and colleague. Things look different to you now then they did then. You look back on it with a lens and you go, “Wow, maybe that didn’t look so great.” A lot of this stuff was researched, and many accounts came from books, including [Danforth’s]. We were trying to be fair to everyone involved knowing that these were issues that a lot of people wouldn’t want to revisit.

MJ: As a black man, did you feel sympathy for Clarence Thomas?

“These were two very accomplished black people who were basically on a national stage calling each other a liar.”

RF:  I think you feel for anyone who’s going through something like this. I can understand being in such a public place and having your intimate private life examined. These were two very accomplished black people who were basically on a national stage calling each other a liar and going after each other. At the time, there was a notion that because he was black and she was black that race didn’t factor into the overall experience. But as we all know, race is central to all of our experiences. Anita Hill has changed the history of how we deal with each other in the workplace. But it also was an interesting episode in how race and the history of race converged in this moment and got used and twisted and interpreted in all kind of ways. I didn’t want to shy away from that.

MJ: This film is pretty different from Dope. Is there anything that ties them together?

RF: [Laughs.] If there is a thread, it is the perception of how race changes perception and points of view. Obviously, the big turning point in the hearing was Clarence Thomas’ high-tech lynching speech, where race was thrown right in there.

MJ: Okay, I know we’re out of time, but before you go I have to ask: Whom did you personally believe?

RF: I don’t know if I can definitively say anything about that. My perspective has changed and morphed. That’s why I felt like that wouldn’t necessarily be the way to approach the film. I’ll give you that non-answer.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled the last name of NPR reporter Nina Totenberg.

The Guy Behind the Planned Parenthood Sting Videos Is Now In Trouble With a Second State

Y’all remember David Daleiden, the guy behind the attack videos against Planned Parenthood, don’t you? Well, his videos generated a bunch of state investigations that turned up no evidence at all of any wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. But how about wrongdoing by Daleiden? That’s a whole different kettle of fish. A second state is now going after him:

Investigators with the California Department of Justice on Tuesday raided the home of David Daleiden, the anti-abortion activist behind a series of undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood, the activist said. Authorities seized a laptop and multiple hard drives from his Orange County apartment, Daleiden said in an email. The equipment contained all of the video Daleiden had filmed as part of his 30-month project, “including some very damning footage that has yet to be released to the public,” he said.

Daleiden is now in trouble with both Texas and California. But I suppose it’s all good PR as long as they spell his name right. At this point, Daleiden can probably do better as a martyr for the cause than he can as a straightforward activist. After all, his activism produced squat—except for lots of death threats against abortion providers. But maybe that was the whole plan.

How Netflix’s Original Programming Is Poised to Outpace the Top Cable Networks, in One Chart

By

Photo: Maya Robinson and Photos by Netflix, FX and HBO

Just before the February 2013 debut of House of Cards, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos revealed his game plan for the streaming service. “The goal,” he told GQ, “is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.” More than a few TV-industry insiders dismissed Sarandos’s statement as bluster, tough talk from a Silicon Valley outsider playing to investors and the tech media. But by at least one major metric — the size of its original programming roster — it turns out Sarandos wasn’t bluffing. Barely three years after it started churning out its own programming, Netflix already has more original series in various stages of production than HBO, the longtime leader of premium cable content and a network that has been in business for over 40 years. What’s more, as the chart below illustrates, Netflix next year is poised to expand its lineup to more than two dozen series, blowing past both HBO and TV’s most prolific basic-cable programmer, FX/FXX. A service until recently known mostly for repurposing other people’s movies and TV shows will thus achieve a major milestone: It will boast the biggest collection of first-run scripted content of any other subscription-based network in America, cable or streaming.

To be clear, having so many shows in production does not by itself stand as some sort of “game over” moment for Netflix or its rivals. HBO still maintains a massive lead in Emmy nominations, this month pulling in 126 nods versus 34 for Netflix. HBO this year also did what Sarandos predicted it would back in 2013: It “became” Netflix by launching HBO Now, the direct-to-consumer, no-cable-subscription-required clone of the mothership. And then there’s the yardstick that matters most to Netflix shareholders: profitability. While Netflix last year had more subscribers and revenue than HBO, the cable veteran still outpaced Netflix in terms of overall profitability (by a margin of nearly 10 to 1, by one analysis).

And yet the rapid rise of Netflix as a source of original programming is breathtaking — and without recent historical precedent. FX and HBO, for example, had been in business for one and two decades, respectively, before they began seriously expanding their scripted offerings — and then did so at a much more measured pace than Netflix. (It should be noted that both FX and HBO stepped up the pace of development in recent years — a reaction to the disruptive force that is Netflix as well as the slew of other new entrants into the scripted game.) On the broadcast side, the (relatively) short-lived WB and UPN took about five years to build up to their peak programming rosters in the late 1990s, and then rarely produced more than 16–18 titles each season. Fox followed a similar flight path as it built up its slate in the early 1990s. The closest precedent to Netflix’s scale-up can probably be found back in the earliest days of linear television, in the late 1940s and early ’50s, when CBS, DuMont, and NBC invented the notion of TV networks in America and flooded the airwaves with programming (even then, many shows were unscripted or only 15 minutes in length).

To illustrate just how quickly Netflix has evolved into a programming powerhouse — and how its lineup has grown relative to its main rivals — we’ve put together an interactive chart documenting all of the service’s scripted originals, by year, since the 2012 launch of Lilyhammer. For comparison’s sake, we’ve also included similar charts for HBO and FX, currently the leading suppliers of first-run scripted fare in the premium and basic-cable spaces. A few ground rules:

  • Our chart counts only comedies and drama series that run at least five episodes, thus accounting for limited-event programs (the single season [so far] revival of Arrested Development and next month’s David Simon–produced Show Me a Hero on HBO) but leaving out short-run mini-series (thus, no Casual Vacancy).
  • We left out series designed strictly for kids; those with crossover appeal, such as Netflix’s upcoming Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, are included.
  • We’ve folded in programming produced in conjunction with, or acquired from, international partners, and we’ve marked those shows accordingly. (Right now, these shows give a bigger boost to Netflix’s overall tally, though by next year, it is still expected to have more originals than HBO or FX even when acquisitions are excluded from its tally.)
  • We’ve listed some veteran shows during years in which they didn’t actually air original episodes: FX’s Louie, for example, didn’t have new installments last year, but it was still part of the network’s roster in the minds of viewers and execs.
  • And two final notes: First, since Netflix, HBO, and FX haven’t announced premiere dates for everything on their rosters, we’ve combined shows that have already debuted this year with those scheduled to launch later (in 2015, 2016, or possibly even 2017) into a single “2015 and Beyond” column. Second, Netflix, HBO, and FX will be meeting with reporters starting today for the semi-annual TV Critics Association press tour, where they’ll almost certainly be revealing even more new programming.

*Correction: An earlier version of this graph left off The League, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and Man Seeking Women under “FX, 2015 and Beyond,” and Getting On and The Young Pope under “HBO, 2015 and Beyond.”

Jesse Eisenberg on His Indie Louder Than Bombs and Crafting Lex Luthor for Batman v Superman

By Kevin Lincoln
In 2015, Jesse Eisenberg acted in his own, well-reviewed Off-Broadway play; starred across from Jason Segel in one of the year’s best movies, The End of the Tour; and published his first book, Bream Gives Me Hiccups. With other artists you might expect a cooling-off, but that hasn’t happened to Eisenberg, one of our most talented and consistent young actors. Based on the box-office returns, there’s a good chance you were leered at by him last weekend as he played Batman v Superman’s villain, Lex Luthor. Next up, he’ll appear in Louder Than Bombs, the intimate, emotionally sophisticated English-language debut of celebrated Norwegian director Joachim Trier. In the movie, which opens April 8, Eisenberg plays Jonah, an anxious new father dealing with the impact of his mother’s death on both himself and his father and brother. Vulture caught up with the 32-year-old actor to discuss appearing in movies both big and small, how he finds his characters in emotion, and whether he’d like to add “filmmaker” to his crowded resume.

What appealed to you about Louder Than Bombs? Were you familiar with Trier’s work before you got involved?
Yeah, I’d written a play that was actually being adapted for a movie, and the producers had sent me some European films because the movie would take place in Poland. One of the movies they sent was [Trier’s] Reprise, and it was absolutely phenomenal, so when I got a script from that director and that writer, I was really interested. What I initially liked was that I thought the character’s behavior was so unusual. I loved having the opportunity to play a role that, over the course of the film, you kind of discover, as opposed to this preconceived idea of the character’s behavior presented in an accessible and clearly explicated way.

The way your character’s story unfolds over the course of the movie is really fascinating. It’s very measured-out.
Yeah, exactly.
One prominent part of the movie is your character’s fatherhood and the legacy of his father’s fatherhood. You’re 32, an age when people start to think about fatherhood. How did you bring your own experience with the dynamics and considerations of parenthood into the making this movie?
I think that this character was probably plagued by his own premature adulthood. He probably was crushed into a position that he was not ready for — and by virtue of the circumstances of the movie, in that he hasn’t had proper closure with tragedy, he reverts back to a sort of adolescent immaturity, neglecting his family, neglecting his new child. I’m sure I have an unfortunate wealth of relatable experiences by virtue of being an actor in very public things — I’m thrust into a spotlight that would probably make anyone uncomfortable. Even if the spotlight is shining brightly and seemingly with good intentions, it’s just uncomfortable. It can be easy and tempting to want to reverse back to a kind of infantilization, and that’s what the character’s going through in the movie. I really liked that it was ambiguous enough for me to impose my own personal feelings on it.

A lot of actors, they reach your level of prestige and exposure and they don’t necessarily go back to those small movies.
My absolute favorite thing to do is to write a play and then, after I finish, do the first reading of it with my friends around the table. That is the most fulfilling acting experience that I could possibly have, with no one watching, and it becomes increasingly uncomfortable as more and more people know about it. The next thing I’m doing is one of my plays in a 400-seat theater on the West End. I will be terrified every night before the play starts, even if 400 people are seeing it, or especially because 400 people are seeing it. That, to me, is what I’m driven by. It just so happens that with Batman v Superman I got to play one of the most interesting characters I assume I’ll ever get to play, in a movie that is probably bigger in scope than I’ll ever be involved with again. And I really hope to play that part again. So I don’t see that big of a difference in my job except when there’s more scrutiny.

You took the characterization of Lex Luthor in an all-new direction. How did you go about developing your version of him?
The movie’s writer, Chris Terrio, who’s absolutely brilliant, created a totally fresh take on this movie villain, writing a role that seems like somebody you might know who is troubled, who is charismatic but also disturbed, and that’s what made it so interesting for me as an actor. It was grounded with an emotional reality, with an eccentricity that seems very modern. That’s what made it really fresh. As an actor, you go into it the way you go into anything else. I was shooting Louder Than Bombs simultaneously, and those experiences were similarly fulfilling. I would wake up at 4 in the morning and contemplate grief. In Louder Than Bombs, my character is grieving over the death of his mother under mysterious circumstances, and in Batman v. Superman, my character is grieving over his bad childhood and that feeling of powerlessness in this city that he runs. My experiences were similar. Now of course, the final products couldn’t look more different, will be seen by a different amount of people, and play in different spaces, and yet my experience is the same. That’s why I think actors like doing both kinds of movies, because the experiences can be the same and you get to continue doing what it is you like to do.

As a writer, how does it compare performing other people’s scripts versus your own? Is there a give-and-take?
I’m increasingly less inclined to meddle because I know the experience of writing a document that’s not going to necessarily feature characters who are 100 percent authentic. At some point, characters and fictional stories are going to do things that are not necessarily logically linked, and the actor’s job then becomes to provide an emotional logic to tie those potential loose ends together. I know that as a writer, occasionally you’re hoping the actor ties up a loose end, and that’s how I feel working on other writers’ work as well. I love the challenge of butting up against something that doesn’t feel exactly natural and trying to use what I learned in acting school to create some reality for it.

Do you ever want to write for the screen or direct?
I’ve written screenplays when I was young, ten years ago, and it was a very frustrating process. Then my book [Bream Gives Me Hiccups] was optioned for a TV series, so I wrote the script for that. That will be the first thing that I do. And I’ll direct it, if only to make sure it maintains the style and tone that I had intended as a writer.

So you’re not dying to get out there and direct movies at this point?
No. I look at somebody like Zack Snyder, who not only draws every frame of his movies but constructs them with things that are nowhere on set, things that have to be drawn in. I don’t have a mind for that. It’s so impressive and I loved watching him work.

You said you would like to play Lex Luthor again. Is that in place yet, or is it up in the air?
I have an ankle bracelet on that’s connected to the Warner Brothers precinct, so forgive me for being evasive.

How Did WGN America So Quickly Become a Formidable Player in the Scripted TV Game?

By Josef Adalian Follow

At a time when Netflix and Amazon rack up dozens of Emmy nominations, Twitter pays millions to land NFL rights, and YouTube makes its own shows, the idea of a decades-old cable channel such as WGN America jumping into the original scripted-series game isn’t particularly novel. What is a bit surprising is how quickly the Chicago-based network has found success. Since mid-March, two first-year WGN dramas — the John Legend-produced slavery-era thriller Underground and the Appalachian-set soap Outsiders — have been staples on Nielsen’s list of the top-20 scripted cable series, with both regularly outdrawing highly touted freshman fare, such as HBO’s expensive new period piece Vinyl; A&E’s The Omen spinoff Damien; and FX’s Zach Galifianakis comedy Baskets. Meanwhile, the supernatural-themed Salem has developed a devoted following and will be back for a third season in October. And while the Mad Men-esque Cold War drama Manhattan was canceled in February after two seasons, the show drew critical raves and helped the network burnish its reputation as a destination for quality fare.

WGN’s decision to evolve beyond its decades-old diet of Chicago sports and syndicated shows, such as NCIS reruns, is paying off. Largely boosted by Outsiders and Underground, WGN’s overall audience shot up 51 percent during the first three months of 2016 (versus the same quarter a year ago), with doubledigit improvements in key demographics as well. Also encouraging: January’s record-breaking premiere audience for Outsiders was surpassed just two months later by the debut of Underground, signaling that WGN — like AMC and FX before it— is starting to develop its own core of regular viewers willing to at least sample each of its new shows. And compared to its normal diet of syndicated reruns on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, Outsiders and Underground are both improving WGN’s ratings among adult viewers under 50 by nearly 900 percent. Given how tough it is for any network these days to stand out in the age of Endless TV, WGN’s ability to establish itself as a legit player in the scripted game so quickly is pretty impressive.

Vulture recently rang up WGN America president and general manager Matt Cherniss — an alum of FX and Fox — to discuss his network’s programming evolution, whether there’s a common theme to the channel’s three hit shows, and what (if anything) he learned by the failure of Manhattan to connect with audiences. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

WGN survived and succeeded for years as a superstation, with syndicated reruns, and Chicago news and sports. Why did your owners feel the need to jump into the world of scripted original programming, particularly at a time when that marketplace has been getting so crowded?
You have to have, in this day and age, something that is unique unto you. The days in which a network could exist in a world purely supported by syndicated programming, acquired series from other networks, and still distinguish itself has passed. Within that, there is more than one choice: You can distinguish yourself with sports, you can distinguish yourself with unscripted, you can distinguish yourself with scripted shows. I don’t think there’s one way to do it. [But] I do think scripted television, particularly as it relates to branding yourself and garnering attention, is one of the stronger and more provocative ways to do it without putting on hundreds of [reality] shows.

Is there a bigger business rationale behind bulking up on scripted, especially now? Established TV brands, from the broadcast networks to the big dinosaurs of cable such as USA and TNT, are struggling to hold on to their audiences. What made it seem like a good time for yet another player in the non-digital space?
There are a couple answers to that. The first is, despite the way it was being programmed when we arrived, WGN America was still a really valuable piece of real estate. We were in just under 70 million homes. It’s not an easy thing to just wake up one morning and have a network in 70 million homes. When we looked at that asset, we said, “We want to grow the asset, but we also want to preserve it.” In this rapidly changing environment, there’s risk that this asset may not be here in five or ten years if we don’t invest in it. Given the valuable real estate it is, and given the other resources that Tribune Media has, this is something we think is worthwhile to invest in, despite the transition that businesses are going through.
The second part, as to whether it’s a good time or a bad time — one of the benefits of the transition that’s taken place is, ten or 12 years ago, there were very few places where the audience had an expectation [for] quality original programming. What’s happened over ten years or so is that the audience in many ways has become agnostic to the idea that there are only certain places that can do quality programming. Their experience with places like Netflix or Hulu, or any of the other traditional networks that have put on quality shows, and shows that have been meaningful to them is, they’re no longer saying, “I don’t watch that network” or “I’m only a viewer of this.” They seek out the shows that interest them.

As a newcomer, one of the advantages you have [now] is, you don’t have to break down a barrier to people [thinking] that there are only a couple of places capable of producing quality programming. People still have their go-to places. But more than ever, people associate themselves with the programming they like, more than the network that they watch. Even though it’s really competitive, and there’s a lot of noise out there, you can break through.

When you started out developing shows back in 2013, 2014, was there a brand already in mind? Were you charged with developing a certain kind of show?
I don’t know that we had a specific, definable brand in mind. We were importing an aesthetic, a belief in quality scripted programming. When you’re a general entertainment network, your brand develops more over time as you gain a better understanding of your audience, as you gain traction with certain shows that can lead you to a sense of how you can define yourself specifically, apart from all the other networks that are on the air. You can aspire to a certain level of quality, you can decide whether to focus on drama or comedy, but the level of success that certain shows meet helps guide your brand and the direction you can take the network.

So you weren’t aiming at any particular niche of the audience, the way Freeform, for example, goes after millennial women?
We were confident in our ability to build a general entertainment network that had fairly equal appeal as far as male and female, targeted at the 25–54 demographic. That was where we felt WGN America was closest to at the time that we arrived. It had sports, it had syndicated comedies and dramas, and was in the vein of a general entertainment network. So rather than strip it completely down to the studs, it felt like the wiser decision was to build and curate a general entertainment brand that didn’t become hyperfocused on one demographic.

Beyond trying to make shows you thought would be good, were there other elements you looked for in your early development, particularly with what would be your first show, Salem?
I needed a show that not only was going to be good and well-executed, but would stand apart from everything else on television from the sheer look of it. When I see a billboard for a show on one of the more established networks, I see the image, I see the logo in the corner, and I’m like, “Okay, I know where that is.” For us, I need someone to see the image, for it to make an impact on them, then they’re going to see WGN America, and some people are going to go, “What is that? Is that a streaming service? Is that a cable network? What channel is it?” You need a show that stands apart from everything else on television, or [viewers] won’t bother to take any of those steps. If the show looks or feels like something on someone else’s network, you’ll find it on that network. You probably won’t spend the extra time and effort to seek it out. That was really important to us when we were looking at those initial shows.

How have your first shows met that test?
When you look at Salem, which was a show we felt was a provocative concept, well-executed, had elements of genre within it, but also a world that we hadn’t seen on television before. Those things made the show really interesting and appealing to me as a show to launch the network with. And not only entertain the audience, but make a statement that this is a new network with a new identity that was being formed. Our second show, Manhattan, had a really interesting world that hadn’t been explored on television before, executed at a very high level [with] great auspices. We followed that up with Outsiders, which is a modern-day show but really asks some fundamental questions about this idea of the price of modernity. What would it be like to live life by our own rules, and on a more rugged level, which I think a lot of people wonder about in their own day when they’re stuck in traffic going to work. And, certainly, Underground, which looks at the first integrated civil-rights movement in the U.S., but has a lot of relevance to our world today.

And now that you’ve got four shows under your belt, do you think you’ve got a better handle on the WGN America brand?
I can step back now and say, this is a network that looks to tell American stories — not just in how they’re set, but as they relate to us as Americans today. I’d be lying if I said that was the mindset of the brand we had when we walked through the door, but the shows helped define it for us.

Manhattan, specifically in season two, got some amazing reviews. A lot of networks are renewing shows now even though the numbers aren’t great. What went into your decision to not move forward with a third season when there seemed to be some brand equity there? Was it the fact that you see show such as Outsiders and now Underground come on and immediately do so much better?
Both those shows came on after the decision to not go forward with Manhattan, so that didn’t play into the decision. It really was a decision based on the commercial viability of the show. It was a fantastic show. It was incredibly well-reviewed. It had a place for us in the defining of our brand, and that’s something we’ll always be appreciative of, as well. Sam [Shaw] and Tommy [Schlamme] did a wonderful show, and it was a painful decision to not move forward. But you do have to acknowledge the audience of a show, or the lack thereof. Despite best efforts of all involved, we were just unable to generate a meaningful audience for that show and had to make a decision about where our resources were going to go in the future.
Did you learn anything from that experience in terms of what works or not for WGN?
No. I don’t take a lot of lessons from it. I think it was quality television that deserved a much bigger audience than it received. Unfortunately, sometimes shows don’t connect.

Do you see any connection between Outsiders and Underground in terms of why both are working on WGN? They seem, on the surface at least, to be very different shows.
On the face of them, they appear to be very different. When you get underneath them, and you really look at the stories being told, these are stories about characters that are struggling with the world they live in and the world that they want to live in. They’re telling epic narratives as they go on these journeys. So while the subject matter may be very different, there’s a commonality to the experience of watching the shows. If you look anecdotally online, a lot of people say, “I’m watching Underground and Outsiders.” It’s a great combo on Tuesday and Wednesday.

One thing I get asked a lot about on Twitter is why your shows are not easily accessible via Hulu, VOD, or your own streaming service. Is that going to change?
Shortly you’ll see Outsiders and Underground — there should be some other places that [they] start to show up. Salem has been on Netflix. Manhattan was on Hulu. I don’t have any news on Underground and Outsiders and when or what platforms they’ll go to, but that’s certainly within the plan and structure. Sony, our [studio] partner, is responsible for making those deals and determinations, and they’re in the process of doing so on those shows. And very shortly — within weeks — our website is going to have the ability to stream the latest episodes of each of the shows. We were able to put both the first three episodes of Outsiders and the first three episodes of Underground on Crackle, with Sony as partner, and that’s been really helpful. We’ve been driving as many viewers as we can, who haven’t seen the linear episodes, to Crackle.

How many shows would you like to have as part of your schedule?
We’ve always said that our goal is to have 52 weeks of original programming. That’s what I feel is a healthy amount and would put us in good stead.

Does that mean one show every quarter?
Yeah. That’s how I break it down. Right now we have two shows on within the same quarter. I don’t know if I would say there can never be a week where we don’t have an original series, but in general, that’s what we’d like to build to.

So you’d like to have four or five scripted shows?
Four is a great number.

Assuming Underground is renewed, you’ll have three weekly series. What is on your development slate to fill that fourth slot?
We picked up two pilots. One is Scalped, which is based on the DC Vertigo comic book written by Jason Aaron. It’s set in the modern-day world of an Indian reservation. There’s a crime element to the story. There’s a big family drama at the center of it. I just think it’s a really great world. I don’t know that anyone’s ever put a series on the air with a predominantly Native American cast, so the show could distinguish itself from everything else on television. And [we’ve ordered] Roadside Picnic, which is based on a novel written back in the ’70s, maybe the early ’80s. It’s our first step toward a sci-fi element, but it’s a very grounded science-fiction world that looks more at the impact on human beings of an extraterrestrial event than on the actual extraterrestrials themselves.

You also announced a limited series with the Weinstein Company based on the Ten Commandments. Is it still going forward?
That’s still in development right now. It may move forward at a later date, but right now we’re still working on it. It’s been a difficult show to tie in the individual episodes with directors and writers.

It’s not uncommon for younger cable networks to rebrand themselves as part of their evolution. Is that something on the horizon for WGN, especially since it’s so associated with your roots as a local TV station?
I suppose it’s an option. I’m always open to the idea of a rebrand. When we started one of the biggest things for us was to transition the network from a superstation to a basic cable network. [It] took the better part of two years to get done. It’s not an easy thing to do. You have to renegotiate with almost every single [cable operator], and that took a long time. But the truth is, we’ve spent so much time and effort finally getting people to be aware of WGN America as a home for our programming that to then change the name and then have to recommunicate to all those people what our name is? I think your shows brand and define you much more than your call letters. FX is Fox without the “o”, right? But that’s not what defines it. The shows that are on it define it. I don’t know how many people can tell you what AMC stands for, but they can tell you The Walking Dead is on that network. I really believe the shows are your primary asset for branding, and being associated with those shows is ultimately what is going to make that association for the viewer.

What writing about death taught one woman about life

Heather LendeImage copyrightMatt Davis

When Heather Lende was asked to write an obituary for her local paper in Alaska, she had no idea that over the following 20 years she would go on to write hundreds of them – all for people she knew. She also became an unofficial bereavement counsellor for the town of Haines.

“A friend’s mother was old and dying at home. Nedra was her name, Nedra Waterman, and she was a pretty opinionated old gal,” says Heather Lende.

Nedra had made it clear that she didn’t want the reporter on the town’s newspaper to write her obituary. But there was only one reporter, so the editor asked Lende, a writer, to step in.

“You write about living people so you can probably write about dead people too,” he told her.

Nedra Waterman with her husband WesNedra Waterman with her husband Wes – she died in 1997
White line 10 pixels
Nedra Waterman's obituary

“Since then I’ve pretty much done them all,” says Lende.

Everyone she writes about is from Haines, home to 2,400 people, or the nearby village of Klukwan. It’s an isolated place – the state capital, Juneau, is a four-and-a-half-hour ferry ride away.

“The people who live here are fishermen, merchants or schoolteachers – people who work for the state or federal government, social services or wildlife and fisheries management.

“We all know each other pretty much – carpenters, artists, regular folks, mums and dads, or sometimes quite adventuresome people.”

Over the past 20 years Lende has written about 400 or 500 of them, mostly for the Chilkat Valley News.

Rene Pisel Walker and her husband DavidRene Pisel Walker and her husband David

On one occasion someone who was still alive asked her to write her obituary.

Rene Pisel Walker had lived in Haines as a young woman before she got married and moved to Juneau. The family kept a cabin in Haines, and Walker would travel on the ferry service between the two homes.

Lende bumped into her one afternoon on the boat.

“I knew she’d had breast cancer… and she said ‘My expiration date was a month ago, and I’m still here. Would you write my obituary?’

“What can you say to that except ‘Of course’?”

 


Lende has two grown-up daughters in Juneau so she would drop in on Walker when she visited the city.

“She was very brave and very organised. She told me all the things she wanted in there, different times in her life, names and dates – things her husband might not know.

“She gave me the names of people I could talk to who she worked with, friends in Haines or Juneau, how she wanted her children to be listed – with their middle names or not.

“It was really sad and also really remarkable, to see someone so prepared for their own ending. I wouldn’t necessarily say at peace, but just recognising the reality of her situation.

“Her motivation was that she didn’t want her family to have to do it. She wanted to have everything taken care of as best as possible, to make it easier on them when she left.

“That’s the only one I’ve done like that and I didn’t write it ahead of time, because I didn’t want to jinx her. She actually lived another year-and-a-half or so after that.”

When Walker finally reached the end of her life and was at home in bed, she asked Lende to come and see her.

“She knew it was time to die and she was OK with that. But she said, ‘The hardest thing is that all the people around me aren’t, and my family’s telling me to hang on a little while longer. You’re the only one who understands that I’m not giving up, it’s just how it is. None of us live forever and this is my time.'”

Olen NashOlen Nash died at sea in 1999

The obituary that Lende found hardest to write was about 20-year-old Olen Nash, who died in a fishing accident.

“He was with two of his brothers and a friend, and they were crewing the family boat. The dad wasn’t fishing that week – he gave it to the boys to catch their halibut quota. There was a storm and the boat sank,” she says.

Olen, the youngest brother, drowned while diving for a life raft that he thought would save them all. The other three were rescued by the coastguard.

“His parents are my son’s godparents and the thing I think about with that one all the time is that my son grew up to be a fisherman as well,” says Lende.

“He’s 26 and has been fishing since he was a teenager. He became a deckhand for Olen’s father, Don – fished with him for many years and now fishes on a larger boat.”

It’s not so much the dangers of fishing at sea that occupies her thoughts though, but “how life can turn on a dime”.

Olen’s mother told her he had lived for 20 years and died in a minute and she was keen to ensure that his death wouldn’t become his story.

Becky Nash working on a quilt.Olen’s mother Becky Nash working on a quilt

“She wanted to share his life,” says Lende. “I think about that when I write any obituary. The immediate tendency by the family is to talk about how they died. But good grief, they had a big life before the end. My job is to focus on that.

“When I only have 500 or 600 words, the death is just a sentence. The rest of the story is how they lived.

“With Olen there were stories about a dog he had, or how he was a snowboarder, a surfer, an artist who won prizes at the fair for his carvings of birds. He was an outdoorsman with sweet and shiny eyes – that kind of kid. So there was plenty to write about.”

Lende also says she started to realise that the time she spent with grieving families – the cups of coffee and tearful walks, the cookies and the leafing through photo albums – was more important that the obituary itself.

“It’s helping someone grieve. I can get all the details I actually need to write the piece in the first 20 minutes. But people are sad and they want to talk about all kinds of things.

“They might talk to me for two hours about the end of the life, or the cousin that won’t come and that they haven’t been reconciled with for years. Or the child that was fighting with the parent.”

These are details that never make it into an obituary, “but they weigh on people and they want to tell me – it’s more about them and how they’re feeling,” says Lende. “It’s like I’m an inadvertent grief counsellor.”

She’s also come to the conclusion that acknowledging faults in the people she writes about can be a good thing – a reminder that the living still have an opportunity to put things right. “We’re still a work in progress,” she says.

Clyde BellImage copyrightDoris Bell

And she has learned to value everyday contact with people in the community. Clyde Bell ran a fish shop in Haines, where he had lived for most of his life. He died relatively young “organ failure at 60,” she says.

“He liked to drink beers and smoke cigarettes, but was always out on the sidewalk talking to people. He was a very bright guy and when he died suddenly there was this void in town. We had this big memorial service for him that I think his family was really surprised about.

“Clyde’s rather sudden death taught me that there’s all these people around who make my life better, that I need to make sure I acknowledge.”


Lende’s five tips for a happy life

  • Pretty good is better than perfect
  • Draw lines in the sand so you can move them
  • Send a forwarding address – Lende wrote about a man who lost touch with his family for 37 years after moving from the east coast of the US to Alaska
  • Tell them you’ll miss them when they’re gone
  • Be kind – that’s what everybody needs more than anything

Heather Lende has written about her time as an obituarist in her book, Find the Good.


And if she has to write about someone she didn’t like so much? “You can tell sometimes when it’s somebody that wasn’t particularly generous or kind,” she says, laughing. “Theirs tend to be shorter.”

“I try very hard to find somebody that will say something nice about them. Frankly there have been some where everyone in town knows there wasn’t particularly much there – so then you just stick to the biographical details.

“They may have been very good at their job, or built something in town that everybody recognises as a building we all use and like. But I tend then not to embellish a whole lot.”

Heather Lende's deskThe desk where Lende writes obituaries

Having written so many obituaries Lende is often asked what makes a good life. She thinks it comes down to one thing – relationships.

“When we go, do we leave behind people that will miss us? If you want to have a lot of friends, you have to be a good friend. I take that to heart. It’s something I have learned in writing obituaries.”

In some ways she feels her writing has desensitised her towards death, though it can still be a blow, she says, “to realise this force in your life was gone for good”.

That’s how it should be in her view, “Death should be a little bit of a stunner – it should wake us up to how we really want to live.”

Boats in Chilkat harbourImage copyrightHeather Lende

With thanks to the families of Nedra Waterman, Olen Nash, Rene Pisel Walker and Clyde Bell for the use of their pictures.

Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine’s email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

Astronauts Wanted VRP

[from Astronauts Wanted website] 
 

Our focus is co-creating premium content with the top 1% of the worlds’ social media star creator class. The stories we tell live across all platforms, and have social media in their very DNA.

Everything we create is designed to capture the imagination, eyeballs and fingertips of the next generation of content consumers.

Astronauts Wanted is a joint venture between Judy McGrath, former Chairperson and CEO of MTV Networks, and Sony Music Entertainment.

Process

We use our social media platforms and channels like one giant creative incubator: testing everything from new talent to formats to platforms. From Snapchat and Twitter to YouTube and Vine, they function as our playground for Research and Development. Below are some examples of the experiments we’ve conducted and the ways they’ve since influenced our programming strategy.

Creators

We’ve turned the travel show format on its head with the crowd-sourced #HeyUSA series. We updated reality TV with the social media-only @SummerBreak. We broke new ground with the country-skipping fashion series Wear In The World. We tore up the late-night talk show with Tawk. Our co-creators in this format disruption include many of the world’s top next-media stars, including Grace Helbig, Mamrie Hart, Tyler Oakley, Kingsley, Jenna Marbles, Colleen Ballinger, Flula Borg, Cameron Dallas, Nash Grier, Lauren Giraldo, Andrea Russett, Simone Shepherd, Rudy Mancuso, Logan Paul, Laci Green, Timothy DeLaGhetto, Jerry Purpdrank, Sam Pottorff, Lilly Singh, Awkwafina, and more.

Partial List of Projects
A Trip to Unicorn Island Lilly Singh travels the world to meet her fans
HeyUSA Crowd-sourced travel show
@SummerBreak Real-time social media reality show
Talk “Stylishly awkward” internet talk show
ANXT Reality show about overcoming phobias 

Company Size: 11 – 50
Founded: 2013
Staff:
Judy McGrath Founder and President
Nick Shore Chief Creative Strategist 
Amina Canter COO & SVP Business Planning
Raul Celaya Head of Production
Megan Westerby VP Social & Transmedia
Sami Kriegstein Executive Producer, Development
Alesia Glidewell Supervising Producer
Caleb Drewel Design Director
Sarah Flanagan Associate Social Producer
Colin Woods Associate Social Producer
 
About Julie McGrath, President

Prior to Astronauts, Judy was Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, responsible for the business and creative operation of the company networks, including MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, VH1, CMT, Spike TV, TV Land, LOGO and Nick At Nite. In addition, McGrath championed pro-social initiatives like the Hope for Haiti Now global concert, Nickelodeon’s Let’s Just Play, MTV’s anti-bullying initiative A Thin Line, and many more. McGrath is a member of the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame, received an Emmy for Outstanding General Programming, and is on the board of Amazon as well as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Twitter (61K followers): https://twitter.com/astroswanted
Instagram (14.5K followers): https://www.instagram.com/astronautswanted/
Vine (128.5K followers): https://vine.co/Astronauts.Wanted
In the Media:

Judy McGrath’s Astronauts Wanted Strikes Exclusive Content Deal With Go90 (Exclusive)  | The Hollywood Reporter | Nov 11, 2015

A new season of ‘Tawk with Awkwafina’ and ‘HeyUSA_X’ will premiere exclusively on Verizon’s video streaming app.

Astronauts Wanted, the digital studio from MTV veteran Judy McGrath, is bringing two of its franchises to Verizon’s go90 mobile video service.

Verizon has ordered two new seasons of Tawk with Awkwafina, a comedic talk show hosted by rapper Nora Lum, aka Awkwafina. Lum, who will appear in Neighbors 2, brings the satire from her music to the show, which during the first season generated more than 90,000 views on the Astronauts Wanted YouTube channel. Upcoming guests include Alia Shawkat, YouTuber Lilly Singh and Orange is the New Black stars Laura Gomez and Abigail Savage. New episodes of Tawk premiere Nov. 11 exclusively on go90.

McGrath tells The Hollywood Reporter that the Verizon deal gives Tawk a broader platform. “Tawk was one of the first series we ever did, and we did it on our own because we had fallen in love with her,” she says. “It was really great to give her a platform to launch and to make her ideas, along with some of ours, come to life. To be able to sell two seasons of that to Verizon means it will live in a place where her audience is going to be.”

Astronauts Wanted is also bringing HeyUSA spinoff HeyUSA_X exclusively to go90. The first season of the series featured YouTube comedians Mamrie Hart and Grace Helbig as they traveled around the country, and a second season starred Hart with a revolving door of guest travelers. This expansion with see two new social media stars tackle extreme challenges chosen by fans. Helbig and Hart will executive produce the series, which will premiere in early 2016, with Astronauts Wanted.

“This is a perfect platform for us,” says McGrath. “Go90 is reaching out to a demographic that we’re most interested in. They’re experimental and brave with their original content. They have a great library — you’re next to BuzzFeed and Comedy Central. The fact that we have two franchises here that will get a new life on an exciting new platform like this is really great.”

McGrath launched Astronauts Wanted after a long career at MTV Networks, where she served as chairman and CEO. The company is focused on producing content for digital platforms. Among its current projects is A Trip to Unicorn Island, a documentary about Lilly Singh that will premiere on YouTube Red.

Tawk and HeyUSA_X are the latest in a string of exclusive deals that Verizon has struck to boost the offerings of go90. The recently launched video app will also feature Marvel and Star Wars-themed shows from Maker Studios and programming from AwesomenessTV, in addition to licensed content from networks including Comedy Central and eventually sports.

Former MTV Chief Builds Video Network for the Snapchat Generation | Ad Age | April 4, 2014

Judy McGrath spent last decade developing shows for millennials like “Jersey Shore” and “Teen Mom.” Now she wants to do the same for the Snapchat generation.

This June the former MTV Networks CEO’s new company will debut a show and website aimed at the highly sought-after younger millennial and teen female audience.

“I’m an admirer of Vice and AwesomenessTV and believe there’s room for another brand,” said Ms. McGrath, referencing two video-heavy digital media companies that appeal to Millennial-aged and younger consumers.

Her brand is Astronauts Wanted, a joint venture with Sony Music focused on online video that Ms. McGrath announced last July. “We’re purposefully positioning Astronauts Wanted as a brand, not a production company or a branded content agency, though those are part of it,” she said.

Brand strategy
Having a brand has become important for companies in online video, which is dominated by single personalities like PewDiePie. But content companies increasingly want to move audiences off YouTube to properties they own, and need a brand to do that. The same goes for Astronauts Wanted, which plans to debut a full-fledged site for its videos this summer.

“Right now we have the architecture. We have been working with a firm on building it and are entering into phase two or three. We’ll have a slate to roll out by, let’s say, June and will have the owned-and-operated in pretty good shape for that launch,” Ms. McGrath said.

Over the last nine months, the New York-based company has staffed up seven people, including two execs well-versed in youth media culture, as it looks to program for today’s cool kids.

“We have a team of young college students and one of the series is from a high school student. They’re on the payroll and we talk to them formally every Friday. We talk to them constantly. We want them to be like scouts for us on talent and what’s going on,” Ms. McGrath said.

Finding Gen Z
Ms. McGrath’s top scout is her former senior VP-strategic insights and research at MTV, Nick Shore, who has spent years studying up on youth culture.

“We’re seeing the tail end of the millennials and the ascendancy now of Gen Z [loosely categorized as those under 17 years old],” said Mr. Shore, now chief creative strategist at Astronauts Wanted.

When he joined Astronauts last July, Mr. Shore’s first job was to figure out what audience the company should be targeting and how. He described the mid-to-late female teen audience as “the sweet spot” for the social hyperactivity. But to program to them successfully means breaking down the fourth wall to create a dialogue between a show and its audience. It also means looking to them for talent as opposed to forcing stars upon them.”It speaks a lot to the bottom-up nature of Gen Z. They are their own heroes; they’re kids on Vine and YouTube and Instagram,” he said.

Mr. Shore also found that Vine may carry more sway than YouTube. “Vine is edgier than YouTube, though that’s hard to say because there’s so much content on YouTube,” Mr. Shore said, describing Gen Z as “a bit edgier” than millennials.

‘Summer Break’
All of Mr. Shore’s insights are represented in what Ms. McGrath described as the company’s flagship show, “Summer Break,” which Astronauts grabbed from The Chernin Group along with its producer.

Something of a younger sibling to MTV’s former reality series “Laguna Beach,” the show aired its first season last summer about a group of Southern California high school graduates during the months before leaving for college. But unlike its predecessor — or any show, really — “Summer Break” didn’t air on any specific service. Termed a “transmedia” production, the show streamed episodes on YouTube but also regularly posted content between episodes on Tumblr, Twitter and Instagram.

Aimed at Astronauts’ Millennial-and-teen-girl audience, the second season to premiere in June will add Vine and Snapchat to the distribution mix. And the company has brought in Billy Parks who produced the inaugural season as executive VP-digital production and programming at The Chernin Group and is now the chief content officer at Astronauts.

“We plan to make several shows over the next 12 months,” Mr. Parks said. As with “Summer Break,” those shows will pop up on the company’s site, YouTube, Vine, Twitter and other services. Ms. McGrath declined to share show specifics because they’re still in development, but mentioned fashion and music as two categories of interest.

“Summer Break” serves as not only as a template for content and distribution but also revenue. The series is co-produced with AT&T, which carries a presenting sponsor branding in episodes as well as product placement.

Astronauts plans to fund “a lot of the content ourselves,” Ms. McGrath said, but is open to co-funding with marketers. That sounds expensive but potentially worthwhile if a brand can piggyback any traction Astronauts’ gets with Millennials’ and their younger cohort.

However Astronauts’ content output won’t always be so formal as programmed series. For example, last weekend Astronauts worked out a deal for Vine star Princess Lauren — who counts 2.5 million followers on Twitter’s video-sharing service — to take over the company’s Instagram account and post videos from the Ultra Music Festival in Miami. Like this one: That’s not so much a show as it is content people in this demo want to check out. “We want Astronauts to feel like a ‘for us, by us’ brand. We want it to feel like it’s a conversation,” Mr. Parks said.

Judy McGrath’s Astronauts Wanted Hires Chernin Group’s Billy Parks as Content Chief | Variety | April 4, 2014
Astronauts Wanted: No Experience Necessary, the millennial-targeted media joint venture between Judy McGrath and Sony Music Entertainment, has hired Billy Parks, Chernin Group’s EVP digital production and programming, as chief content officer.

Parks was the co-creator and exec producer of “@SummerBreak,” the Chernin Group’s real-time social reality show about Southern California teens sponsored by AT&T launched last year. Series is set to return for second run in mid-June, and had already enlisted McGrath as a creative and production partner.

At Astronauts Wanted, Parks will develop series and branded content aimed at young, social-savvy consumers, working with chief creative strategist Nick Shore, formerly SVP strategic insights and research at MTV.

“Billy’s talent as a creative storyteller is perfect for Astronauts Wanted as we look to engage young people in bold new ways,” said McGrath, former MTV Networks CEO. “He has a unique understanding of today’s young adults and how they consume, create and share content. Engaging this generation of content creators is our mission.”

Prior to Chernin Group, Parks was an independent producer of commercials and music videos working with brands such as Honda, P&G, NFL and Microsoft, and artists including Rihanna, Beyoncé, Kanye West, Prince, Miley Cyrus and Jay-Z. He also was director of new media and production at Quality Filmed Entertainment, and worked under Lucas Foster, former president of production for Bruckheimer/Simpson.

Parks was included on Variety’s Reality Impact Report 2013 list of top bizzers in the category.

Why Netflix Should Buy Its Own Studio

Taylor Schilling in a scene from Netflix’s “Orange is the New Black.”
Netflix doesn’t actually make its “original” shows like Orange is the New Black (pictured). But with a studio, it could.

Photo courtesy Jessica Miglio/Netflix

 

This post originally appeared on Business Insider.

 

The volume of TV content is going to grow exponentially over the coming years, and creative talent won’t be able to keep up, according to analysts at Barclays.

In a note last week, the analysts outlined the case that an “over-the-top” (OTT) powerhouse like Netflix might have to actually acquire an established studio at some point in the future, simply to continue in the arms race for content.

The analysts believe we are at the start of an explosion in the amount of TV that will be produced (including streaming content from the likes of Netflix or Amazon). Indeed, Netflix alone will spend at least $5 billion on programming in 2016.

But eventually there will be a limit on how much good content can be produced, the analysts argue. “Creative talent is not infinitely scalable,” they write. And if the competition to woo top TV talent heats up, organizations that can identify talent early and maintain a relationship will become more valuable. This means studios, “especially those with established franchises and an ecosystem of talent,” according to the analysts.

Given the lack of big studios, in this new climate it could make more sense for a “OTT” player like Netflix to buy one, versus having to continually bid against its rivals, the analysts write.

Right now, when Netflix puts out an “original,” it doesn’t usually produce the show. Lionsgate Television, for instance, makes “Orange Is the New Black.” Netflix then pays for a global license.

But Netflix appears to be moving toward producing more of its own shows, including Chelsea Handler’s upcoming talk show, according to Bloomberg. Buying an established studio could supercharge these efforts.

What is bubbling under the surface of Barclays’ prediction is the threat that traditional TV giants might stop licensing their shows to Netflix. For the past few months, media executives have grumbled that they might have to reassess their relationship to Netflix. If media companies shy away from licensing to Netflix, presumably because they see the practice as financing a competitor, then it will become harder for Netflix to maintain its steady flow of content.

The analysts write that “OTT” platforms like Netflix will need a “more controllable” pipeline of content over time. One way to get it: Buy your own studio.

Netflix was not immediately available for comment.

Allison Pataki’s ‘Empress’ Novels in the Works as Two Miniseries

Empress Miniseries

COURTESY OF HOWARD BOOKS

Andras Hamori’s H2O Motion Pictures is developing a pair of miniseries based on Allison Pataki’s novels about Empress Elisabeth of Austria, Variety has learned exclusively.

The company has optioned “The Accidental Empress” and “Sisi: Empress on Her Own.” Pataki is the daughter of former New York governor George Pataki.

“The Accidental Empress” revolves around the tumultuous love affair between Elisabeth (Sisi), the daughter of a Bavarian duke, and the young emperor of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Franz Joseph Habsburg. Sisi was originally sent to chaperone her older sister on her first visit with the emperor.

“Empress on Her Own” follows her struggle to assert her right to the throne beside her husband, to win the love of her people and the world, and to save an empire. She had married Franz Joseph in 1854 at the age of 16 and was killed by an anarchist in 1898.

 “The Sisi character that Alison Pataki has written is a vibrant character that is still relevant today,” Hamori said.

Hamori will produce, Julia Rosenberg will co-produce and Anonymous Content’s Doreen Wilcox is an executive producer on the project — planned as two four-hour miniseries.

Pataki also authored “The Traitor’s Wife: The Woman Behind Benedict Arnold and the Plan to Betray America.”

Variety reported in February that H20 Pictures was developing Dan Mazer’s rock-star comedy “Stiff,” the thriller “American Solo” and the biopic “Herzl,” based on the life of political activist Theodore Herzl — one of the key players in the creation of the state of Israel.