Bumble & the trap of modern dating; plus, living ethically in COVID's aftermath
BRITTANY LUSE, HOST:
Hello, hello. I'm Brittany Luse, and you're listening to IT'S BEEN A MINUTE from NPR, a show about what's going on in culture and why it doesn't happen by accident.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: This week, we're connecting the dots between dating apps, artificial intelligence and billboard ads mocking celibacy. I know, I know, how are all these things connected? Well, we're going to find out today with Shani Silver, author of "A Single Revolution: Don't Look For A Match. Light One." What a title. And KCRW's Myisha Battle, a dating coach and host of KCRW's podcast, "How's Your Sex Life?" Shani, Myisha, welcome to IT'S BEEN A MINUTE.
SHANI SILVER: Thank you for having me.
MYISHA BATTLE, BYLINE: Thanks for having us.
LUSE: So, let me set the stage here. This week, the dating app Bumble could not stay out of the news. First, the company launched a new advertising campaign mocking celibacy and suggesting women shouldn't give up on dating apps. Billboards said things like, thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun. That backfired.
BATTLE: Sorely.
LUSE: Wonder how. The company got roasted by women who said it was frustrating to see a dating platform mock women's choices when women bear the brunt of verbal and sexual harassment on dating apps. Plus, at a tech summit this week, Bumble's founder was talking about the potential changes to the platform and suggested artificial intelligence might be the future of dating. Now, all of this comes as Bumble is losing its influence. The company was once valued at $20 billion - with a B - and has plummeted to $2 billion. And the company needs to do something to attract users, but users across the board seem to be disillusioned with dating apps. Shani, Myisha, to start off, what's one word you would use to characterize the current state of dating apps?
SILVER: I would use the word abusive. I think the whole ad campaign and Bumble's efforts this week are disingenuous in light of the business model of most swipe-based dating apps in general - maybe all dating apps in general. The app itself is incentivized to keep its own users single as long as possible because that's how they make money. If you find love and delete the dating app, it lost a customer. So I don't really trust their advertising because I don't trust their business model in the first place.
LUSE: Myisha, what say you?
BATTLE: Imploding. I think the dating app industry is currently imploding on itself. They've really missed the mark here, and they are grasping at anything and everything to try to stay alive. And we also are seeing, generationally, a shift away from these apps with younger users saying, hey, this ain't the way. Tech companies don't know what to do with this.
LUSE: Well, according to Pew Research Center, only one in 10 adults met their significant other on a dating app. That means only 10% of couples across all ages happen via dating apps, and even just an aside, like, even among millennials, that figure is only 11%. And yet, when people think about modern dating, I think that we all think about finding dates on an app. I think that a lot of people who are dating think about finding dates on an app. And that's clearly not what's happening. From both of your words, I take it that you - neither of you think that the apps are working. Why not?
SILVER: I don't think they were designed to. I think they were designed to acquire and keep users as long as possible. When dating sites were dating sites, they were gathering information about our preferences and what we were looking for, what we like in other people, they were gathering data points of compatibility, and they were matching people up based on those points of compatibility. And that worked, and that was a problem because people were flowing through dating sites because they were meeting people. They were working for their users, and that was a problem for bottom lines. And once dating had been gamified into swipe-based apps, we see this deterioration of dating culture. We see this deterioration of the way people treat each other in the dating space. The dating industry wasn't really solving a problem, it was creating a business opportunity.
LUSE: That is such an interesting point (laughter). Such an interesting point.
BATTLE: I have a caveat for that. I met my partner on Tinder. Before that, I had a partner on OkCupid.
LUSE: That's where I met my husband. Yeah.
BATTLE: You know, in the Battle family, we have some success stories. And as a dating coach, it is a tool that I do help my clients use while also helping them to understand that you've got to go out and live your life. You know, you've got to go out and be a social person.
SILVER: Communities were working. Communities...
LUSE: Yeah, communities...
SILVER: ...Were working.
LUSE: ...Were working.
SILVER: We've unfortunately overcomplicated it and put it behind a paywall, and I don't find that to be fair to people who just want companionship.
LUSE: You know, I want to get into some of this Bumble news because what's not being said by their founder is that Bumble, Tinder, Match, all of these companies - let me repeat - companies, they're losing money. Like I mentioned, in 2021, Bumble was valued at $20 billion, and they are now valued at about $2 billion. Match Group, which owns - this number shocked me - 45 dating apps like Tinder, Match.com and OkCupid, was valued at $50 billion during the pandemic. It's now down to $8 billion. I mean, we're still talking billions. This is a lot of money. But, Shani, you spent a lot of time thinking about how the business of some of these companies is actually at odds with its customers' needs. Like, the customer wants to ultimately delete these apps, but the companies, I'm guessing, would prefer for them to stay.
SILVER: Listen. Love is free, and the founder of Bumble met her husband on a ski trip.
LUSE: She didn't meet her husband on one of these apps.
SILVER: No, she didn't. She met him because she was living a life that made her happy, and she naturally came into contact with her partner. And I don't think it's fair to suggest that we need AI dating from a position of having done the most natural thing in the world - just living your life, and you found this thing that you want all of your users to pay to find. I don't find that to be - cool is probably the word I'm looking for. But I have spent a lot of time thinking about it because I've spent a lot of time working with single people who have fed their energy and their money into dating apps for years upon years upon years. And it's not right to have the societal single shame on one side and the dating industry taking your money on the other.
BATTLE: A lot of my clients actually do believe that if they're not successful on the apps, then how will they have a long-lasting relationship? So we've really seen a big impact on the culture and what we believe about ourselves and about relationships. And I think my main concern is that these companies do not have daters' best interest in mind. So, again, they are going to continue to try to put their best features behind a paywall because they are struggling financially.
And these are the kinds of conversations that I have to have with my clients, you know? Do you want to kind of shuffle through this without the aid of some of these - you know, they're proven to do a little bit more if you pay, but not that much. But, you know, it's worth a try. And some of my clients are willing to take that bet, and some of them aren't.
SILVER: You used the perfect word - you said bet - because Vegas hasn't done much to make us all millionaires either...
BATTLE: Right.
SILVER: ...Because the business model doesn't fit. They don't want...
BATTLE: Yeah.
SILVER: ...Their users to win, and neither do dating apps.
LUSE: So dating apps are supposed to, on their face, help you find connection. But you both are suggesting that actually it's better for business if you don't. And dating apps are constantly rolling out new promises for how you're going to find this elusive partner. Right now, Bumble's founder is talking about using artificial intelligence profiles or bots to date for you so you don't have to spend as much time on these apps - just pay the company to artificially date and kind of leave it up to them. I know you both think that the swiping dating era has been bad for people's self-esteem. I can't help but worry about how AI dating is only going to add to that.
BATTLE: It absolutely will. When I heard this news drop, I polled my audience to see what they thought, just posing the question on Instagram, would you allow a bot to date for you? (Laughter) And overwhelmingly, people were like, no, absolutely not. This is ridiculous. What are they doing? And personally, I don't understand it as someone who is constantly trying to encourage my clients to get off their phones and to use less technology in their social lives. I don't understand the adding another layer of tech into this process that is supposed to be, at its core, about human-to-human connection.
SILVER: Tech allows a product to scale and to scale very easily, and shareholders like that. It's hard to scale in-person events for people who would like to find partnership. That's a hard thing to scale, and it would take a lot of effort and on-the-ground management, and it probably doesn't sound very sexy from a business model standpoint, right? But just because you can scale it and just because it sounds super sexy when you talk about it on a panel - that doesn't mean that it's going to have positive real-life effects for people using your product. And all we've seen is that dating has been made worse and worse and worse by tech. So why would pushing the pedal all the way to the ground and incorporating AI make that better for the human user experience?
LUSE: So OK, OK - I want to do a little thought experiment. So, like, let's say I'm a CEO at a dating company. I don't think that's a job I would ever have, but let's just say that I am, and I'm calling you for advice on how to create a company that actually helps people, you know, connect and empowers them to feel a sense of self-worth. How would you advise me on building that company?
BATTLE: I would say it would have a more community focus. And this is a little bit more like how traditionally we dated in community, where I would go to a party. I'd be like, hey. This is my friend Brad and Tiffany, and they're really great, and you should talk to them. And then, you know, maybe you like Brad. Maybe you like Tiffany. Maybe they both like you. Maybe you have a really fun night all together - you know, just allowing for possibilities. But we really don't have that as much anymore. I think that that's a perspective I would offer to, you know, Brittany as your CEO self. But, yeah, I think some of these things have been tried and haven't been successful. So that's another thing to consider.
SILVER: I would tell you to find a new line of work.
LUSE: (Laughter).
SILVER: I would say that singlehood is not the place for profit. I think human beings have been gathering, meeting and falling in love since the dawn of time. So I would say, leave single people alone. Don't try to make money off of them. Let them live their lives and connect with each other because I think they will.
LUSE: I appreciate the advice that you both gave me on this company that I will never...
BATTLE: (Laughter).
LUSE: ...Try to come up with. Shani, Myisha, I have learned so much here. Thank you so much.
SILVER: Thank you.
BATTLE: My pleasure.
LUSE: And as a thank-you, I'd like to teach you something by playing a game with you both. Can you stick around for a tiny bit longer?
SILVER: Sure.
BATTLE: Yeah.
LUSE: Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. We'll be right back with a little game I like to call But Did You Know? Stick around.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: All right, all right. We're going to play a little game I like to call But Did You Know?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: Here's how it works. I'm going to share a story that's been making headlines. And as I give you some background on that story, I'll also ask you trivia related to it. But don't worry - it's all multiple choice. And the first one to blurt out the right answer gets a point. The person with the most points wins, and their prize is bragging rights. Are y'all ready?
BATTLE: Yes.
SILVER: Yes.
LUSE: All right. That's what I like to hear. So I am just now finding out about this, but I'm completely obsessed. And it's on theme because we just talked about how dating apps are kind of like gaming apps. To get into it, back in April, the mobile gaming company Glu Mobile discontinued what was once one of the most popular celebrity-centered mobile games. Which celebrity's life was this game based on?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: Was it A, Katy Perry; B, Taylor Swift; or C, Kim Kardashian?
BATTLE: Kim...
SILVER: C.
BATTLE: ...Kardashian.
SILVER: Yeah.
LUSE: OK. Wow. OK. Where I'm sitting right now, y'all both said that at the same time.
BATTLE: (Laughter).
LUSE: Yes. While all of these women had games based on their lives, the most popular of these was C, Kim Kardashian.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: The game was called Kim Kardashian: Hollywood. And y'all, this game was a hit. It made a whopping $160 million in its first two years on the market. Clearly, I'm in the wrong business. I'm not making a dating app. I'm not making a game about my celebrity lifestyle.
BATTLE: Listen, Brittany, life is long.
LUSE: (Laughter).
BATTLE: You can have an opportunity to build an app based on podcast life. You know what I mean?
LUSE: Oh, that's true. I'm sure it's so riveting.
SILVER: We're just coming up with eight new careers for Brittany while we're talking. We're just like your next...
(LAUGHTER)
SILVER: ...Road map.
LUSE: I appreciate both of your investment in my future. You are coaches, and I'm receiving that. I'm receiving that.
BATTLE: (Laughter).
LUSE: So I'm going to give you each a point for the first round.
BATTLE: Fair.
LUSE: Onto the next question - Kim Kardashian: Hollywood was all about going from E-lister to A-lister and boosting your fame by going to fashion shows and hanging out with celebrities. Notably, your first friend in the game was none other than Kim Kardashian. Anyways, with 100,000 users using the app at the same time, it's no surprise that fashion brands started collaborating with the app designers to promote their lines. Which of these designers was the first to do an exclusive shoe drop on Kim Kardashian: Hollywood?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: Was it A, Michael Kors; B, Roberto Cavalli; or C, Marc Jacobs?
BATTLE: A.
SILVER: I'll go B just for variety.
LUSE: The answer is my Scorpio king Roberto Cavalli, B.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: So Shani, you were right. You get a point. And the shoe was a special edition of the Viper sneaker that only featured 60 digital pairs that sold out in three hours. No wonder they made money off of this game.
BATTLE: Wow.
LUSE: (Laughter).
BATTLE: What a scam.
SILVER: We are living in "Black Mirror." We are living in "Black Mirror."
BATTLE: (Laughter).
SILVER: It's here. It's happening.
LUSE: We may be living in "Black Mirror," but be real with me. Like, how badly do y'all want that shoe? So, like, are you...
BATTLE: Not at all.
LUSE: Are you feeling...
BATTLE: Zero.
LUSE: I don't know. The demand is not - it's not driving desire for you.
SILVER: The day I gave up heels was a blessed day. It was just...
LUSE: (Laughter).
SILVER: I don't have - you're telling me that the girlies are wearing sneakers out now. I've arrived. I have arrived. I'm so happy.
LUSE: (Laughter).
SILVER: The heels just flew out of my home - just flew out.
LUSE: All right. So no Roberto Cavalli Viper, Kim Kardashian sneaker for you all. And, yeah, honestly, none for myself either.
BATTLE: (Laughter).
LUSE: But to those 60 lucky people out there who got their digital shoes, congratulations. All right. To recap the score - Myisha, you've got one point. Shani, you're at two points, OK? Now, because I'm the game master and we're getting to the third question, this question is going to be winner takes all. So without further ado, the final question - now, Kim Kardashian, the real one and her game avatar, have always been so good at being at the right place at the right time. And this game was also in the right place, right time as well. It came out right as mobile gaming was starting to soar. Today, mobile gaming accounts for more than 50% of all gaming profits. What year did mobile gaming revenues surpass console and PC gaming? Was it A, 2010, B, 2015 or C, 2020?
BATTLE: I'm going to go with B.
SILVER: I'll go C.
LUSE: Wow, Myisha, you came up from behind. What a victory.
(LAUGHTER)
LUSE: The answer is B, 2015.
(SOUNDBITE OF FANFARE)
LUSE: Kim Kardashian's game was peaking at the same time mobile gaming was overtaking the industry. Today, nearly 3 billion people - 3 billion people - play mobile games, and mobile gaming makes over $100 billion every year. Again, I'm in the wrong business. As for Kim Kardashian, she might not have a video game anymore, but that game paved the way for her to make a whole lot of money. She is now valued at $1.7 billion herself, almost as much as the dating app Bumble.
BATTLE: Versus one company. Wow.
LUSE: Let that sink in. Let that sink in.
SILVER: I don't want to. Don't want to. Don't want to.
LUSE: Well, I will say, Shani, Myisha, you right this second may not feel like there are any winners in this game...
(LAUGHTER)
LUSE: ...But Myisha, congratulations on your win on this week's edition of But Did You Know?
BATTLE: Thank you. Thank you.
LUSE: Yes, yes, yes. And Myisha, Shani, thank you so much for joining me today.
SILVER: Thank you so much.
BATTLE: This was fun.
SILVER: Yes, it was.
(LAUGHTER)
LUSE: That was writer Shani Silver and KCRW's Myisha Battle. I'm going to take a quick break, and when I get back, we're getting into the ethics of public health.
BATTLE: Big pivot.
SILVER: Big...
LUSE: It's a big pivot.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: My big question this week is, what did the COVID pandemic teach us about our culture's ethics?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: It's been a little over four years since COVID hit the States and shut everything down. We were slowly crawling back to normalcy the first couple of years. And thanks to vaccines, the death tolls have gone down. But now that everything's open again, it seems like a lot of us want to forget that COVID even happened at all. And I get it - it sucked. But for some, the pandemic is still a major threat. Older adults made up 90% of the 75,000 people that died of COVID last year, and 7% of Americans report long COVID symptoms. That's a lot of Americans with a health issue or some level of disability because of COVID.
Now, everyone is capable of making their own decisions about their health, and I can't say that I want to go back to life under lockdown. But I have been craving a conversation looking back on all we've been through and where we are now. So I called up a bioethicist - for those who don't know, someone who studies ethical questions in medicine and life science. Here's Dr. Keisha S. Ray, associate professor of bioethics and medical humanities at UTHealth Houston.
KEISHA S RAY: There are a lot of very big lessons that I think we did not properly learn in the pandemic, and if we don't get them right in the next one, it could be worse.
LUSE: And while the avian flu outbreak isn't spreading to humans on a large scale, some are worried that the next one is coming sooner than we'd like. So I wanted to hear from Dr. Ray about how our attitudes towards public health have changed, where that leaves us for the next pandemic and how our response to COVID actually reflects our culture. Dr. Ray, welcome to IT'S BEEN A MINUTE.
RAY: Thank you for having me.
LUSE: So we're here to talk about how COVID has changed public health and what that means for us. Life looks really different now than how it did in the early stages of COVID. You know, cases and deaths have declined, and there are fewer mandates in place, but, you know, COVID is still around, and thousands of people have died from COVID this year. As people take fewer precautions, what's changed for public health and the conversations that you have with your colleagues about it?
RAY: Absolutely. The conversations were really about collective effort. It was really about everyone doing their part to protect everyone else. I think the conversation now has shifted to a little bit more about individualism and how the COVID-19 pandemic affected our ability to live our lives. How do we, you know, quote-unquote, "get back to normal"? There are a lot of people who don't want to stay inside and wear masks in public. But at the same time, there are so many people who cannot go back to normal, who cannot risk getting this virus. And so now the conversations are, how do we balance what people want and what vulnerable people need?
LUSE: Yeah, I mean, you know, to your point, it felt like toward the beginning of the pandemic, there was kind of, like, a turning point towards collective care - people making meals for each other, running errands for each other, governments giving all kinds of different aid to their citizens. It seemed like maybe things would shift more permanently to a more collective model. And now the prospect of that - it feels kind of far away. What changed?
RAY: I think what changed is two things. One, I think people started seeing the effects of COVID-19 less. I think there was a time where news stations were having 24/7 coverage and so you could not deny that people were dying from COVID-19. But now, as the numbers sort of have slowed down and you start seeing less and less coverage, people's compassion fatigue is starting to go. And I think that's really the second reason, is there's this thing that we talk about in health care a lot with physicians and nurses and other kinds of health care providers. And it's this idea of compassion fatigue that there are so many things that a physician or healthcare worker sees that are really sad and they can feel bad for the patients, but there's only so much compassion to go around. They can't feel so sad at every single case because then they won't be able to act.
LUSE: They'll get burnt out, yeah.
RAY: Right. I think the general public is suffering from a little bit of compassion fatigue. We got war. We have homelessness. We have race issues. We have gender issues. We have so many issues in the world that are deserving of our compassion. But our minds, psychologists would tell us, literally cannot be compassionate for all the things that we may want to because if we really thought about the heaviness of the world, we may not be able to get up in the morning and function every day. And I think that's what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic.
LUSE: I mean, I hate the idea (laughter) that we even can experience compassion fatigue.
RAY: Right.
LUSE: But also, I think what's undergirding a lot of that is a lot of fear. I think that fear was the fear of death. Obviously, there are a lot of subcultures, you know what I'm saying? Everybody - they have their own mythologies around death. But in my opinion, by and large, Americans, on the whole, tend to be very avoidant when it comes to death or even talk of death.
RAY: Agree.
LUSE: And COVID, I think, caused a lot of us to have to confront that very baldly, in a personal sense and also in a collective sense.
RAY: Right.
LUSE: I wonder, how do our attitudes towards death factor into our attitudes about collective care in public health?
RAY: People are scared to talk about death. They are scared to talk about their own mortality - seeing the amount of death going on around us and thinking that that could be us. And we also like to be able to say bad things happen to people who aren't prepared. They must not have done something right. But the pandemic flipped that on its head and said it doesn't matter who you are, this virus can kill you. And so I think it made people feel like they weren't in control.
LUSE: I wonder if the way people are responding now, having this more individualistic response, in a way, are we trying to wrestle control back from that time where, you know, many of us felt more powerless against COVID?
RAY: I think we are. I think for so long during the early stages of the pandemic, other people were in control, telling them to stay in your home. They had no control over that. Telling them you can't go to work - and for some people, that also meant you can't have an income - and when they felt like the pandemic was getting better and they don't ever want to go back. And so I think a lot of that right now explains why people are acting like people aren't still dying from COVID-19.
LUSE: I wonder also, though, about our government response to COVID and how that factors into all this.
RAY: Our government, our very large healthcare organizations set the tone for what people should care about. And right now, it is not the pandemic, and I think people are following suit because it's so easy to say, well, if my president hasn't said anything about it in a long time, why should I care about the pandemic? And so, absolutely, the government has a responsibility to say these things are still going on. These issues are still important.
LUSE: How do you think COVID impacted people's attitudes or trust towards public health?
RAY: So what I think is really a detriment to professions like mine, like bioethics or public health, is that people felt like they could not trust our messages. They could not trust what we were communicating. And I don't think we did a very good job. The pandemic just really, really tested our ability to communicate, and a lot of bioethicists, a lot of public health officials, a lot of health care officials did not pass that test. And I think that was already happening before the pandemic. There was already a questioning of expertise. A lot of why people were hesitant to follow certain guidelines and requirements is because they felt like if this public health information is coming from an entity sponsored by the government, that that also meant controlled by the government, and for them, that necessarily meant not trustworthy.
LUSE: So you saw distrust of government and distrust of science lead to less buy-in of public health. You know, thinking from a public health perspective, when COVID hit, it seems like a big cornerstone of public health was that we all have to care about the health of our neighbors and not just ourselves. If that idea is what makes public health work and if we have, you know, as you said, moved on to a more individualistic model, what does that mean for the efficacy of public health at large?
RAY: Yeah, you know, I think it's something that public health cannot deny, and it cannot hide from it. We can't say, here are the models of public health, and ignore that people are very individualistic. Public health has to say, hey, here's things that we can do to protect people who are vulnerable while at the same time, it doesn't require too much of you. It's not ideal. It's not something that I would want, but it is the reality.
LUSE: You know, I look around now, and I see people with totally different attitudes toward COVID. I mean, there are those who still live like it's 2020, there are some who are back in, like, 2019, and other people like myself who fall somewhere in the middle. Given people's very individual risk mitigations, as a bioethicist, how can we each move ethically through the world alongside one another?
RAY: Right. That's very hard because, in your question, you also capture that people have different risk. Right? There are some people who, if they were to get the virus, can suspect that they would be OK. And then you have other people who absolutely know that if they got the virus, they would have some dire consequences to their health, maybe even death. I think right now, the best we can do is have practical advice, which is make it easier for people who are higher risk or those people who still want to take higher precautions in other people to do that. And so that can mean making sure we're still wearing masks in health care facilities, in nursing homes. In places where there's higher risk, we should help other people who are vulnerable take care of themselves. It may also mean still having masks at places, like, if you were in a store, they should have masks available, so if you want to wear one and, say, you forgot yours, it's still available to you. We also have to think about proper ventilation in places, again, where there's large gatherings.
And so these are sort of practical things that we can do where people still get to live the kind of life that they want. They still don't have to wear a mask. But we can do those kinds of things to help people who are at higher risk or those people who are taking more precautions.
LUSE: So there are a number of people worried about the potential for the avian flu outbreak in livestock to jump to humans in a more sustained way. But even if the next pandemic isn't avian flu, you know, many scientists say that pandemics are kind of inevitable. Where does COVID leave us in the face of a future pandemic, and are there other models for public health that you think might work better here in the future?
RAY: Yeah, you know, it's not about if. It's about when the next pandemic - right? - will happen. And I think what the pandemic has shown us that we need to prepare for the next one is social resources, proper housing, access to proper healthcare, access to proper income. We did this for a little while where we had a halt on evictions - right? - where people were able to stay in their home and not worry about if they're going to get kicked out because if you don't have a home, it's harder to separate people who have the virus from people that don't. It's harder to stay home if you don't have a home to protect yourselves.
But it ended. No matter how many individual behaviors you took to care for yourself, like wearing a mask, using hand sanitizer, washing your hands, all of those things don't matter if you don't have the larger resources to care for yourselves. And I think that is something that we can learn from is even individual behaviors - no matter how good they are, they're not going to save us. It has to be something at a higher institutional level.
LUSE: Dr. Ray, thank you so much.
RAY: Yeah. Thank you.
LUSE: Thanks again to Dr. Keisha S. Ray, associate professor of bioethics and medical humanities at UTHealth, Houston.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
LUSE: This episode of IT'S BEEN A MINUTE was produced by...
BARTON GIRDWOOD, BYLINE: Barton Girdwood.
ALEXIS WILLIAMS, BYLINE: Alexis Williams.
LIAM MCBAIN, BYLINE: Liam McBain.
COREY ANTONIO ROSE, BYLINE: Corey Antonio Rose.
LUSE: This episode was edited by...
JESSICA PLACZEK, BYLINE: Jessica Placzek.
LUSE: Engineering support came from...
BECKY BROWN, BYLINE: Becky Brown.
LUSE: Our executive producer is...
VERALYN WILLIAMS, BYLINE: Veralyn Williams.
LUSE: Our VP of programming is...
YOLANDA SANGWENI, BYLINE: Yolanda Sangweni.
LUSE: All right, that's all for this episode of IT'S BEEN A MINUTE from NPR. I'm Brittany Luse. Talk soon.
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.