Connect with us

Lifestyle

Ira Glass admits he plays a 'nicer version' of himself on the radio

Published

on

Ira Glass admits he plays a 'nicer version' of himself on the radio

Ira Glass at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Tibrina Hobson/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tibrina Hobson/Getty Images

A note from Wild Card host Rachel Martin: It probably goes without saying, but Ira Glass is legendary in my audio world. He hosts This American Life, one of the most famous and successful radio shows and podcasts of all time. And so when I got an invitation to interview him live at a convention called Podcast Movement, I was super nervous and a smidge intimidated.

When we met backstage, I was surprised to find out he seemed a little intimidated too. Not by me, to be clear, but by the format of Wild Card. He was about to be asked all these potentially personal questions — in front of a really big audience. And he told me that revealing things about himself didn’t come naturally when he was younger — it was something he had to learn to do. But to his credit, he bravely faced the deck and answered every question that came his way.

This Wild Card interview has been edited for length and clarity. Host Rachel Martin asks guests randomly-selected questions from a deck of cards. Tap play above to listen to the full podcast, or read an excerpt below.

Advertisement

Question 1: What is something you think people misunderstand about you?

Ira Glass: I play a much nicer, more empathetic person on the radio than I am in real life.

Rachel Martin: I don’t believe it. You’re not a nice, empathetic person?

Glass: To a point — to the point where I could play it on the radio.

Martin: So there’s like public Ira Glass and then like normal Ira Glass. How far apart are the two?

Advertisement

Glass: Um, I contain that sort of empathetic, people-pleasing person who I’m playing on the radio. That’s most of who I am, but I’m a person under weekly deadlines. And I get freaked out and tired and irritable and don’t want to talk to people. And I get annoyed. And I curse a lot. I really love cursing. So, like, I am that person, but I’m more than that person.

I hesitate telling this story because it’s a little self-something, congratulatory, or something. But one of the very first live shows was a town hall in New York City. And The New York Observer wrote an article about coming to the show, and the article was just about how there were a lot of women who had crushes on me over the radio.

And for the article, they interviewed my senior producer at the time, Julie Snyder. At the time, our staff was me and three women. And she said, “Look, I love my husband. But I’d love him a lot more if every word he said was edited by three women.” That’s the difference between the public and private version of me.

Advertisement

YouTube

Question 2: Do you think about the legacy that you will leave behind?

Glass: No, I do not. I think that’s bull****. I don’t care at all about that. F*** legacy. F*** people of the future. F*** people who will be after all of us are dead. F*** the people who will be alive, having lunch and seeing movies. F*** them. I hate them. I’m not making a radio show for them. I’m making a show for people who hear it now. And when it’s done and we don’t make it anymore, it’s perfectly fine for it to vanish into the mists of time. Like everything will, and it’s fine if that happens very quickly. It doesn’t matter.

Martin: I asked the poet Nikki Giovanni and she basically said the same thing. And she told me that she is often engaged with people who think a lot about their legacy — even thinking about the stamps that America will make with their visage.

Glass: That’s sad. That’s just a sad person. That’s pathetic. Unless you’re President Obama, unless you’re an actual historical figure. Like, that’s appropriate for him to think about his legacy. But he’s the first Black president of the United States. He should think about that.

Advertisement

Question 3: What truth guides your life more than any other?

Glass: I mean, the actual truth is a little embarrassing to say, and I’ve never put it to myself this way, but I think it’s true: I feel like I’m trying to be a good boy. I’m trying to show that I really am trying my hardest all the time to those around me.

I’m given a simple thing to do. And then I make it way more complicated and spend a lot more time on it than I probably should. Or there’s some like thing in a mix that four other people have heard, and it’s Friday, and then I just hear it and say we have to put three-fourths of a second pause here and four-tenths of a second pause there to make this last moment work, which I would like to believe makes it better.

And I feel like I’m always being a good soldier in appropriate and inappropriate situations. In personal situations where it’s intrusive and not called for, and in work situations where I work with super competent, the very best-at-their-jobs-in-the-world people who very much don’t need my help sometimes. And so it’s a quality that is both good and bad.

Advertisement

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending