Vogel’s Radio Digest thought it would be interesting to start 2011 with an interview with a top network radio anchor, so we sat down recently with Ned Smathers of NBF News. After many years at major market stations, Smathers now does afternoon drive for NBF. VRD: Tell us about your work habits. We frequently hear that “reading in,” that hour or more anchors spend looking at wire copy and websites before they begin writing their first cast of the day, is the most crucial part of an anchor’s shift. Do you agree? Smathers: Oh, my. No. Absolutely not. “Reading in” is highly overrated. I already know what’s going on when I get to work. If you wait until you plop down in front of your computer in the newsroom, you’re hopeless. I think…. VRD: How do you know what’s happening around the world if you don’t look at the wires and websites? Smathers: By listening to radio and TV all day long. That way I already know what’s going on before I get to work. Once I’m there, there’s no need to waste time relying on the wires or websites for information. I already know the stories. VRD: But don’t stories change? Aren’t there new developments, new angles that are reported after you get to work? Smathers: Occasionally. But I’m always on top of any late developments¸ either by spotting a scroll on one of the cable channels or sometimes a producer or another anchor will point something out to me. VRD: So if you don’t “waste time,” as you put it, reading in, what do you do before you start writing? Smathers: Pelvic tilts. VRD: Pelvic tilts? You’re putting me on. Smathers: Am not. They’re good for you. Good for the discs. Plus they help with my breathing when I’m on the air. An added bonus to doing pelvic tilts while sitting down is that some of the desk assistants, especially the young women¸ love to watch you do them. I would be lying if I didn’t admit it’s a real kick to be tilting when you know some of those little ladies are enjoying it so much. Maybe you shouldn’t print that. VRD: Some, make that many, of your newscasts sound as if you don’t have a script, that you haven’t written anything before you go into the studio. That’s not possible, is it at the network level? Smathers: Thank you, thank you. That’s a huge compliment. I want to sound as if I’m ad-libbing, that I’m giving the news in a conversational, spontaneous fashion. I really try to work on that part of my style. I do have a script, of sorts. Usually I write several stories the conventional way but at times – especially if my pelvic tilts are going well that day and I’m really relaxed – I’ll just scratch down notes on a couple of stories before I hightail it into the studio. VRD: In preparing for this interview, I listened to maybe a month’s worth of your broadcasts, and one thing that really struck me is how often you never identify who’s talking in a sound bite or a correspondent’s report. One newscast had President Obama talking and you never identified him before or after the sound bite. I was …. Smathers: So? VRD: Well, don’t you think you should have, so people knew who was speaking, that it was the President? Smathers: Obviously not. Just because he’s President doesn’t mean I have to fawn all over him and mention his name every time we use a sound bite of him. People who can’t identify his voice aren’t listening to my broadcasts anyway¸ and, even if they were, I see no need to insult the intelligence of other listeners by giving the President’s name every damn time we provide him valuable air time to spread his, frankly, very twisted message. VRD: Do your bosses know you talk like that off the air about the President? Smathers: Don’t know, don’t care. I’m entitled to my opinions. Do you have other questions? VRD: I’d like to pursue this not identifying voices on your newscasts, though I doubt it will get me anywhere. I heard one of your casts in which NBF’s long-time Washington correspondent, Rob Walsh, was talking about Obama and what had happened in the lame duck session of Congress, but Walsh was never identified before or after he spoke. Why? Smathers: Why not? VRD: Shouldn’t a listener be told who is speaking and maybe some hint of why the speaker is qualified to be talking about the subject? Smathers: Not necessarily. That’s old school. We’ve moved beyond that. We’re trying to present the news and give folks the latest information. Who the speaker is, is ultimately unimportant. It’s the information being imparted that counts. I say get the facts and information out there and don’t clutter up things with a bunch of meaningless IDs that will be forgotten two minutes after the broadcast is over. VRD: A week or so ago you did a story on Afghanistan and used a cut of someone telling what happened. It sounded like a reporter, but you never named the person. A friend who heard the broadcast with me knew the voice was that of NBF’s Pentagon correspondent. Do reporters complain if you use a piece by them but never give their name? Smathers: Listen to what you just said - “Do reporters complain?” All reporters complain. It’s the nature of the beast. I say ignore them. Let’s face it, that’s what most reporters do best, complain. VRD: I assume NBF News has editors. Do they object when you hand them a script in which a correspondent isn’t identified? Smathers: They can object all they want. It doesn’t matter. Some of them even try to fiddle with my script. I simply don’t stand for that. That’s not their job. The only thing they’re there for is to make sure I have the best and latest sound bites and reports available. They’re not being paid to mess with my writing style or delivery, which, if I do say so, has proven very popular for quite a long time now. Nor are they there to moan, as a few of these pipsqueaks do, about something they don’t think is clear. If they focused a little more on the big picture, a smooth flowing newscast with good tape and different voices and a generous mix of stories, we’d all be better off. It’s not my fault if they’re so dense they can’t understand something I’ve written. That’s tough! For God’s sake, I’m not broadcasting to them. My obligation is to my national audience not these East Coast Rutgers’ jerks. VRD: A producer at another network whose judgment I respect pointed out that you have a habit of not immediately telling listeners where a story is taking place. This producer heard one of your casts in which the lead-in to a reporter’s piece mentioned “West Coasters” and then the reporter talked about “the city,” but what city was never identified. Ever. The only clue came after the piece when you gave the call letters of the reporter’s station. Isn’t that…. Smathers: No. Whatever you were going to say the answer is no. Your producer buddy is another wienie harping about minutiae. Listeners on the West Coast wouldn’t need those meaningless details spelled out for them. Once again, it’s the information that’s paramount not the reporter’s name or some editor’s silly fixation on, la de da, clarity. These clowns ought to look around. That’s why newspapers are dying all over the place. People don’t want long, dull stories loaded with details and descriptions of how someone looked or felt. VRD: Several of us at Vogel’s Radio Digest have noticed you are frequently very casual about providing a source for a story. You’ll say something like “A big counterfeit ring is broken up – 10 people who had been making phony 100 dollar bills from Maine to Maryland arrested.” That’s an allegation or a charge, yet you seldom make that clear until much later in your story. What do you say to those who think that’s sloppy journalism? Smathers: Audition for my job and see if you get it. (Laughs.) Seriously, many anchors, including some at my own network, get bogged down in all kinds of sourcing at the start of an item. That really interrupts the flow of a story, so why do it? Anyone arrested in this country has obviously done something bad or the cops wouldn’t have brought them in. I’ve been at this a long time and I know what I’m doing and how to do it. By the way, you look very uncomfortable. Are you okay? VRD: Yes, I’m fine. Why do you ask? Smathers: Well, you probably noticed I’ve been doing some pelvic tilts as we talked and that makes some people very, very uncomfortable. It’s okay. You wouldn’t be the first person who refused to admit they were uneasy when I was tilting. Anyway, go on. VRD: There has been criticism of your newscasts – listeners send lots of notes to our website about you – that your broadcasts are a mess of strange, random noises and sounds that are frequently never explained. One listener who signed himself BG said most of your newscasts don’t make sense. How do you respond to that criticism? Smathers: Simple. Most of life doesn’t make sense. Why should my newscasts? VRD: I guess we stop there. Thank you, Ned, for spending time with us. Smathers: My pleasure. Thanks for listening.
(Posted January 4, 2011)