Round 3 Entry for Anne Glickman

* Impressive choice of subject matter - decent opening. Unimpressive as a host. Line of questioning exhibits little to no follow-up. When interviewed Anne came across as a bit funny. "Totally" uttered way too much. Not funny enough for someone interested in humor.

* As interviewer: Very interesting choice of subjects. However, for me, Anne’s energy seemed out of synch with the interviewee and the subject. Her unselfconsciousness that works so well in the other rounds, here sounds a bit shallow, I’m afraid. As interviewee, though, totally brilliant, honest and complicatedly on point. The gentrification conversation showed a depth and honesty missing, for me, in the earlier segment.

* Interview: Felt very rigid, with little connection between Anne and her interviewee - no response, just question followed by question. Anne didn't sound knowledgeable enough about the topic to choose this interviewee. Her interview . . . entertaining and sometimes humorous, but in the end not very long-term memorable.

* Anne can write a provocative intro, and choose an interesting guest and topic, but the interview just skims the surface leaving too much unexplored, from censorship to self-censorship, politics, war, loss, Islam in the modern world, etc. It can be hard to talk about art in the abstract and even harder to hear about it without bold images and compelling stories. Anne really shines when she is interviewed. She is very, very, very funny, but seems to bank very heavily on the pornographic art of neuroses. Laugh at me, will ya? Peter O’Toole? That just sounded silly. If only she could bring her edgy personality to her interviewing. It really seemed like a mismatch. I’ve concluded she should probably be a commentator, someone who carefully crafts short pieces in a controlled environment.

* Intro is really forced - clearly reading. Her questions are good, she's asking what the audience would be curious about. Not at all conversational. She's ticking through a list. She's struggles to read her own questions. Very academic sounding - did not really get any sense of the role creativity plays in the art being discussed. Could not care less about her internal fears. What does all this stuff at the top have to do with her questions? Not sure I understand really why she's interested in Peter O'Toole. Why the potshot at public radio? "Grossed Out about where I live?" Is she 12? Where's the self-confidence?

* Interesting choice of subject, but the interviewee took over. Questioning a bit balky and repetitive word use. She's fun though. I suggest building on her neuroses, rather than trying to obscure them.

There is no doubt that she is personable (especially compared to other contestants…I’m looking at you, April) but Anne’s hyperspeed, stream-of-thought delivery when she was being interviewed made me think I was listening to an episode of MTV’s The Real World. There is something to be said for having a personality that people can identify with, like she was your good buddy, but there’s a line that Anne crosses that makes her sound unprofessional, unintelligent, and self-important. Possibly my least favorite in this round.

Anne is very genuine - she has a genuine voice, she has genuine interest, and she has a genuine spark. I've had a very ambivalent relationship with NPR over the years: while I like the subjects being discussed, all too often I feel like I'm being either being lectured to or I find the tone and presentation to be off-putting in its condescension and/or smarminess.

This is regretable, as I'd really like to be a consistent listener and I should be. But I digress - this is about Anne Glickman exhibiting an element of humanity in all aspects of her work, which I have found to be lacking in public radio today. If voices like Ms. Glickman's are recruited and cultivated as talent, I could see myself being a regular listener.

Anne Glickman is a real presence to connect with in the often opaque genre of radio.

I'm really surprised Anne has made it this far. She nearly shouts into the mic, has a ton of ums, uhs and uh-huhs underneath while the guest is talking, and has a difficult time speaking. Didn't she mis-pronounce "conquistador" in the last round?

She did pick a good guest I have to say but if this is the best talent....? We're in trouble.

loved, loved, loved her "realness" ... in addition to her sense of the ironic, her energy, her personal perspectives freely shared, and more. i thought that the interview was particularly good: she asked good questions; it did not seem rehearsed; she elicited interesting responses; etc. i was impressed!

Anne - bring it on! great interview, kept me interested and your own interview was very real, not as if you were some "personality". Jody in Austin(fan of the H2hos...)

The difference between Round 2 and Round 3 was pretty big. I think you are getting more comfortable. If you make it in the next round, you could be the spoiler.

You have the enthusiasm and the skills; I hope I'll soon hear you on the public radio. Btw, as far as NPR and entertainment goes, have you ever listened to Wait wait don't tell me? : )

Anne doesn't do her interviews hiding behind some stilted intellectual poker face. This girl is straight up. It's a radical approach when you consider the other PRTQ interviews. Glickman is equal parts honest and secure which avoids that uncomfortable situation where the host spoils their questions with too much information and too little question. Anne is like a cannonball on a hot ass summer day into a ice cold lake.

about revealing the unknown or lesser known facts and perspective. Most often interview subjects are already popular and have been interviewed dozens of times. I enjoy the ones that ask genuine and unique questions. The run of the mill is boring and gives off a fluff appeal.

Also, there should be a connection, something endearing about the flow of conversation. That's not evident here, especially when the hosts remarks, "right" and moves right into the next question without genuflecting or giving consideration to what the source has said.

I like your energy, though. Of course the potential and the resources to develop you into NPR material would not be a wasted investment. All best to you.
"If one is lucky, a solitary fantasy can totally transform a million realities."
---Maya Angelou

There's just something about Anne's delivery and speech and general way of being that is so real and unself-conscious. I think what's really missing in Public Radio is a the kind of personality who, despite the pressure to sound "professional", can stay true to who s/he really is. No more generic cadence and style! I mean, I bet it you were to get all of the NPR correpondents in a room together and feed them a glass or two of wine, they would transform into real, believable people you could relate to on a personal level. What's so great about Glickman is that she's already there. She is who she is, through and through...a rare breed in Public Radio (and life, for that matter!). Hope this candid sound continues!

interesting, but i think we need to get a little more political here. you seem to be tip-toeing around the destruction of iraq by the united states.

First of all, great topic. I knew nothing about Iraqi art before, and it was very interesting to hear. Second of all, Anne, you totally make me grin when I hear you just go off. I mean, when you toss the note cards and just talk -- so much energy and honesty! I want to play Scattegories with you. Also Cranium.

I'm writing to sound my praise for the radio talents of Anne Glickman, who continues to surprise and amaze. Rarely do you have the chance to hear someone on radio who is so funny, so risky, so thoughtful and creative, so engaging. Whether it's Anne-on-Anne (the delightfully inventive entry tape with such a great narrative; the utterly honest interview—to have the guts to fess up to and DEFEND the fact that Peter O'Toole is a man "you believe in" alone makes me believe in Anne Glickman) or Anne Glickman exploring larger issues (this interview with the Iraqi art historian, which was relevant, intelligent and totally compelling), she always takes it to another unexpected level.

Ok... this is news broadcast madlibs writing...

Most people think ___cliche___, but this __noun___ is/has recently/just __verb___.

(if it was even written down and not just internalized bad, "some people say"-type drivel)

...but, really, Don't:
"VENTURE TO GUESS MOST AMERICANS THINK" this is SOOO frustrating. Interviewers: If you want to say what you think, great. If you want to ask someone what they think, great. If you want to tell me what someone SAID or DID that would be great too. But [pretty please] don't f___ing tell me what you would "venture" to "guess" I, or anyone else thinks...
2nd point: ASK REAL QUESTIONS, don't try to lead the guest to say what you've already laid out in your opening bit! Don't make statements, then ask: "can you talk a little bit about that"? Even the world's worst host, Larry King, does, on occasion ask questions.

Ok. That's my 25c. for now.
PS (just like in the CNN/Youtube debate, the PRX people are really holding all the power by selectively curating this, ergo there is no real power in the democratic voting end of things, which even American Idol has, as far as I know)

She seemed comfortable and articulate. The interview with the art historian was too linear for my tastes, and certainly not a conversation. She let the interviewee make long pronouncements. The interview with Anne herself was more interesting - it is always good to hear someone "think" if interesting ideas emerge. And they did. She needs to lose the occasional whine that creeps in, and she needs to banish "gross me out" from her vocabulary.

I like the freshness and feel of Anne's voice and approach. I don't agree with the her priority of just entertainment -- I prefer to think of NPR as moving more toward real. Today real and not so safe. Now that would be entertaining.

how do you think people are responding to modern iraqi art? errr uhhhh not good.

Great interview. Very original, contemporary, and interesting subject.

I was surprised at how relaxed you sounded. In your previous entries, you come off as extremely energetic, dare I say manic, and it was nice to see you embrace and excel in the calmer "NPR interviewer" role.

Of course, it was also fun to see more of your personality as the interviewee. "What the hell," indeed.

The choice of interview was just excellent. I liked how we got to learn more about Iraq from a completely different perspective than the norm. I was quite engaged, and would love to hear the full interview.

I really enjoyed this whole interview. Iraqi art? Very original idea. Part two, your interview with Matt, was cheeky, honest, and off-the-wall. That's the thing that works well about your contribution to the panel: you have your own voice and I can never predict what you're going to say next.

P.S. I agree with your reasoning about the limitations of public radio.

Nice work, Anne. And good luck!

was great...very professional sounding/well laid out, got allot from it. but part two? kinda sounded like a teenager was being interveiwed. to many "totally's" and "like" and just to fast and hard to follow. maybe that route will work for you? who knows?
any way, nice entry, good luck.

Interview: The beginning seemed you were reading the intro and felt kind of forced. The subject was great and the questions were good. The sounding of the questions needs to be smoother.

Interviewee: An infectious personality. That's it, that's the list.

Overall, be confident on your questions because you have the personality to do things different in public radio.