Broadcasters Face Tough Choice

[TheBigA]

This was a pretty good article from the Buffalo News about the tough choices stations have to make when airing the daily press briefings by a president who is also running for office:

https://buffalonews.com/2020/04/15/...-if-they-go-from-presidents-news-conferences/

Karl Rove has observed that there really isn't a moment when he isn't thinking about re-election. Everything he does is couched in that context. So he may be reading a prepared statement that on the surface appears pretty fair, but he often diverges from the script. That's when certain signals come out.

So what are stations supposed to do?

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Yeah. I can see this thread being exiled to Take It Outside. The over-under is seven posts.

 

[TheBigA]

Yeah. I can see this thread being exiled to Take It Outside. The over-under is seven posts.

Only if someone chooses to take it there. My view is this is a tremendous issue for any broadcaster to face. There are issues of fairness, of factuality, and of ratings. Perhaps these stations are seeing an increase in their ratings when they broadcast these briefings. That helps them overlook other concerns. Even if they don't see it in the ratings, they might get attacked in social media or with physical demonstrations outside their studio. Some of us faced this problem with the Dixie Chicks in 2003. They were a popular group with a lot of big hits, but there was a very vocal group of people who didn't want their music played because of their statements. In this case, there's a vocal group who demand to have their leader's briefings. How do you respond to that?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Sounds to me like the people with their fingers on the switchers have made reasonable choices. Anyone who wants to see the endless "press conferences" from all levels of government have them available. TV has made good use of its subchannels and online capabilities.

Since this is supposed to be a radio discussion forum, how about commenting on how WBEN and WBFO handle the press conferences? And how most of the Buffalo stations have primarily become jukeboxes with less and less local content as time goes on?

A lot of people are listening to radio - or at least audio - to escape the relentless torrent of Covid news and commentary. I think we're going to see a continuing shift in how they're consuming audio. I also think that local stations are missing an opportunity to connect to listeners. Most radio no longer responds to crisis in real time, or even close to real time. Even local press conferences are embarrassing when the County Executive asks for questions, and "The News Leader" is usually absent when called on.

We could do better. We SHOULD do better. The technology is available. It seems that the will is not.

 

[TheBigA]

Since this is supposed to be a radio discussion forum, how about commenting on how WBEN and WBFO handle the press conferences? And how most of the Buffalo stations have primarily become jukeboxes with less and less local content as time goes on?

Regarding your second point, I always feel that music stations should be music stations. I wouldn't expect WYRK to interrupt Luke Bryan with Donald Trump, even though they may have similar audiences. And yes I know you didn't say that they should. I don't think all stations should carry the briefings live at the same time. There was a discussion in the public radio world about this too. They did something I thought was unprecedented, which was interrupt All Things Considered to carry the briefings live. After a few days, the stations told NPR to put the briefings on the events channel, and keep ATC on the main channel. That was correct, and IMHO they should never have pre-empted ATC with briefings.

As far as jukeboxes vs. local content, that's a financial decision. Stations should be local if it can use it to attract advertising. If talent is active and interactive with the community, if they make personal appearances during their off air time, I think that's great. That's exactly what they should be doing. If they want to work a four hour day and stay locked in the studio, then they leave themselves open for being replaced.

 

[tbolt909]

The moderators have said they don't want Political dialogue here. Nevertheless, I recall that Fox News often did not carry some Obama press conferences when CNN, PBS and other networks did. Was Fox's decision not to air then President Obama for ratings or political reasons? Did their research tell them that the average Fox viewer did not want to see or hear Obama?

These daily Trump press conferences are supposed to address the COVID 19 crisis, not be a re-election campaign. Networks have the right and should cut away when it veers into fantasy and propaganda land. Remember, Trump said just 6 weeks ago that the virus was a hoax. He's also been impeached, vilifies the media constantly, and for 3 years rarely held press conferences. The virus is apolitical...

 

[TheBigA]

Remember, Trump said just 6 weeks ago that the virus was a hoax.

To be factual, he didn't say the virus was a hoax, he said it was the Democrats' new hoax. Let's face it, this virus being used as a weapon by both sides. The difference is the president gets a nightly 2 hour forum paid for by taxpayers and broadcasters. The question as far as broadcasters are concerned is where do you draw the line between politics and public service. That's a good question. Tonight he spent a lot of time on the 2nd amendment. I wasn't aware that had anything to do with health or a virus. He should say "This is not the time or place for that question." But he didn't. That was off topic. It would be off topic here too.

 

[ckg279]

Only if someone chooses to take it there. My view is this is a tremendous issue for any broadcaster to face. There are issues of fairness, of factuality, and of ratings. Perhaps these stations are seeing an increase in their ratings when they broadcast these briefings. That helps them overlook other concerns. Even if they don't see it in the ratings, they might get attacked in social media or with physical demonstrations outside their studio. Some of us faced this problem with the Dixie Chicks in 2003. They were a popular group with a lot of big hits, but there was a very vocal group of people who didn't want their music played because of their statements. In this case, there's a vocal group who demand to have their leader's briefings. How do you respond to that?

To your point: Recent ratings books are seeing a jump in news/talk as well as public radio ratings.

That said, KUOW in Seattle isn't airing the presidential briefings at all. (And, BTW, they're #2 in their market in the latest ratings.)

 

[davideduardo]

Let's face it, this virus being used as a weapon by both sides.

Please, engrave that on brass plaques and put one on every entrance to Congress and, of course, the White House.

 

[davideduardo]

The moderators have said they don't want Political dialogue here.

You correctly said, later in the post, that the virus is apolitical. But when we discuss the coverage of radio and TV of the Coronavirus we are talking about radio and TV programming.

As long as everyone is civil about such discussions, that is definitely a radio and TV subject; discussing how broadcasters cover the pandemic is a valid subject.

 

[Element9]

Let's face it, this virus being used as a weapon by both sides.

Sorry, not sorry; not buying the both sides premise. Most of the disinformation emanates from the right. Rush Limbaugh tells his lemmings that Covid-19 is nothing more than the flu. Dr. Fauci counters with facts and is excoriated by Sean Hannity, who tells his flock of pigeons that Covid-19 is "like the common cold" adding that Fauci is a member of the deep state. Local talk show hosts tell their clan that "we should all go back to work and develop herd immunity... the only way to solve this is to get back to normal." Right? Damn the hundreds if not thousands of locals who might die. Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil being the latest high profile examples twisting truth and promoting idiocy. Laura Ingraham had her compass set straight by Dr. Fauci, when she attempted to equate Covid-19 with HIV.

The difference is the president gets a nightly 2 hour forum paid for by taxpayers and broadcasters. The question as far as broadcasters are concerned is where do you draw the line between politics and public service.

Concur. Especially when a campaign-type video is played in the middle of what is supposed to be a fact session-update. There's no both sides weaponize when one group wants to flatten the pandemic curve, minimize deaths and lighten the burden on the medical-health infrastructure; while the other group is hell bent on disputing the severity of the pandemic, saying "even the word pandemic" lends itself to crisis.

Local TV in Western New York is walking a fine line. NPR and WBFO have done an admirable job of factually reporting, as well as giving listeners insight as to how this pandemic is affecting every day lives of citizens in small communities and major cities. WBEN plays the news was straight, but being an Entercom station, the manpower and reporting are nowhere near that of WBFO. WBEN talk show hosts, after a few early days of attempting to appear rational, went off the deep end. To their (marginal) defense, listeners commandeered the shows and it could be argued, took the (fearful) hosts with them. As noted, marginal defense.

 

[TheBigA]

Local TV in Western New York is walking a fine line. NPR and WBFO have done an admirable job of factually reporting, as well as giving listeners insight as to how this pandemic is affecting every day lives of citizens in small communities and major cities.

Moving forward, that may be the future, where commercial radio and cable news channels compromise credibility in the attempt to attract the largest audience, while public stations quietly stick to the goal of providing public service. This was at the core of the argument when the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was being debated. Do you want "I Love Lucy" reruns or live coverage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? For those who wanted the latter, there was public broadcasting.

So what that means is not only to broadcasters face a tough choice, but also the audience faces a touch choice: Do they want to be entertained or do they want straight talk and public service.

 

[gr8oldies]

The loudest voices have always gotten the coverage. Polling still shows majorities....even Republican (though not as high as Democrat)...want social distancing to stay in force, but noisy protestors with confederate flags who claim they want that Waffle House open for dine-in right this minute and grandma can just die for the economy, make it seem like it's some kind of majority position.

Moving forward, that may be the future, where commercial radio and cable news channels compromise credibility in the attempt to attract the largest audience, while public stations quietly stick to the goal of providing public service. This was at the core of the argument when the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was being debated. Do you want "I Love Lucy" reruns or live coverage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? For those who wanted the latter, there was public broadcasting.

So what that means is not only to broadcasters face a tough choice, but also the audience faces a touch choice: Do they want to be entertained or do they want straight talk and public service.

 

[frankberry]

The loudest voices have always gotten the coverage. Polling still shows majorities....even Republican (though not as high as Democrat)...want social distancing to stay in force, but noisy protestors with confederate flags who claim they want that Waffle House open for dine-in right this minute and grandma can just die for the economy, make it seem like it's some kind of majority position.

When protesters violate State-mandated stay at home and social distancing orders, they should be arrested. They are endangering the lives of others with their careless behavior.

 

[tbolt909]

When protesters violate State-mandated stay at home and social distancing orders, they should be arrested. They are endangering the lives of others with their careless behavior.

Agreed and hopefully they will be. Unfortunately, there are still people who don't believe what hospitals are dealing with. They want what they want and believe what they want. Logic and reason are ineffective with that sort...

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Agreed and hopefully they will be. Unfortunately, there are still people who don't believe what hospitals are dealing with.

I disagree with you. The reality is most rural areas have seen very little impact from COVID-19. Some residents in these areas see no reason they should be subject to a lockdown order when there is no problem in their area. I live in one of these rural areas now. Over the last 4 weeks, we have had 14 patients with confirmed COVID-19 go to the hospital for treatment according to the regional health department (which serves a 10-county area). That's not a crisis, and it's not about to evolve into one -- several of those formerly hospitalized patients have either been discharged or "expired" as they put it.

Let's take Michigan, which does have a crisis in the southeastern portion of the state. 85% of the total COVID cases and 89% of fatal cases to date are in Detroit/Flint/Ann Arbor, while those counties account for about 38% of the state's population. I can see why residents of places outside that belt might be annoyed at the lockdown order.

I'm sure you know the dominant political leanings in these rural parts of most states, and the resentment a lot of rural residents (especially older rural residents from my observations) have for urban-dwellers. It's not a great recipe for harmony.

 

[TheBigA]

I disagree with you. The reality is most rural areas have seen very little impact from COVID-19.

The problem is they hop in their cars and go to the big city, where the virus is in full swing, to hold their demonstration. That opens themselves up to infection. This is why this will be so difficult to deal with. We are a mobile society. So you open up one part of the country, and don't put limits on where they can go, they just will spread the virus.

 

[Element9]

When protesters violate State-mandated stay at home and social distancing orders, they should be arrested. They are endangering the lives of others with their careless behavior.

This would be the proper course of action, but it plays into exactly what the extremist entity wants. Left or Right. These entities often represent a minority that longs to be a majority. As such, they adeptly use media. By capturing video and audio and broadcasting it, media plays into the hands of the extremists, legitimizing their cause and purpose. Sidebar, this isn't a new tactic or strategy. It was employed, inadvertently, then purposefully, at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. "The whole world is watching!" "The whole world is watching!"

So the question resurfaces; to what extent does the media broadcast what is essentially a campaign speech or a political rally? It's been suggested that local stations completely drop coverage of White House daily briefings and leave that to the networks, particularly Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Channel 2 one day last week moved live coverage of the daily briefings to its website and HD2 channel in order to accommodate the station's local six PM news block. Seemed to be a fair and equitable solution.

It's also been suggested that networks selectively play only the salient portions of the daily briefings, omitting the extraneous. But deciding what constitutes extraneous becomes an editorial decision, subject to attack from the left and the right.

 

[tbolt909]

The problem is they hop in their cars and go to the big city, where the virus is in full swing, to hold their demonstration. That opens themselves up to infection. This is why this will be so difficult to deal with. We are a mobile society. So you open up one part of the country, and don't put limits on where they can go, they just will spread the virus.

That's right. Anywhere there are clusters of people it can spread. Some of these rural folk just don't understand.
Areas that have low population will of course have fewer cases. It's simple math. Places like Wyoming, North Dakota and other rural areas are not immune, they just have less people. Some folks can't grasp the concept that ANYONE can spread it without knowing it. Responsible journalists have tried to make that clear...

 

[TheBigA]

Seemed to be a fair and equitable solution.

Would you be satisfied if a radio station put a format you wanted on their HD-2 instead of their full signal FM?

That's right. Anywhere there are clusters of people it can spread. Some of these rural folk just don't understand.

And why are they traveling to the cities to protest? So they can get on TV! If they live out on the farm, there's no problem with them leaving the house, going out to the woods to hunt or fish. They're not going to infect the turkeys. But the minute they jump in the cars and go to the city, they mingle, someone coughs, and they get sick. All because they want to be seen on TV. And the TV folks aren't helping. They're out there encouraging them.