KCRW Reduces Staff

[Delete My Account]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2020-09-15/kcrw-radio-station-buyouts

Among them, three music DJs.

I'd noticed tuning in lately they seemed to have fewer music DJs on the schedule and went to Eclectic 24 (their HD/streaming all music service) at 11 PM but had assumed this was a COVID issue. Does anyone know when that started?

 

[TheBigA]

No but it's not uncommon. Most of the NPR system has cut local staff, and NPR headquarters has also cut staff. Several national shows have been eliminated.

The bad news for KCRW is they're still raising money for their new building. The tough part about this current economy is that the bills continue to come even though the donations have stopped.

 

[goriajk]

I just read Radio Insider and I’m saddened to see Liza Richardson and others go. It’s a tragedy

 

[TheBigA]

Here's another article on the KCRW cuts. It says some staffers were offered buy-outs.

http://www.insideradio.com/free/buy...cle_5ce322ee-f842-11ea-8ea6-9f87036cded8.html

 

[Chase Andrews]

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2020-09-15/kcrw-radio-station-buyouts

Among them, three music DJs.

I'd noticed tuning in lately they seemed to have fewer music DJs on the schedule and went to Eclectic 24 (their HD/streaming all music service) at 11 PM but had assumed this was a COVID issue. Does anyone know when that started?

The nighttime/weekend schedule started back March due to the pandemic and was not related to the recent buyouts/layoffs.

 

[Dr. Sound]

To put it bluntly, NPR is like the "CNN of radio". This station, along with KVCR San Bernardino and KPBS San Diego always seem to have anti-Trump news segments. So it follows that donations will always be 50% lower than desired results. At least the PBS news programming appears to be fairly balanced.

 

[TheBigA]

To put it bluntly, NPR is like the "CNN of radio". This station, along with KVCR San Bernardino and KPBS San Diego always seem to have anti-Trump news segments. So it follows that donations will always be 50% lower than desired results.

Not sure what you mean. A big chunk of the programming at KCRW is music or conversation about music and the arts. It's possible that, since LA didn't vote for Trump, a lot of local people they interview reflect that view. But its just representative of the community. As for donations, that's primarily a function of uncertainty in the economy, caused by the virus. Their views haven't changed since the virus, but the donations have.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Not sure what you mean. A big chunk of the programming at KCRW is music or conversation about music and the arts. It's possible that, since LA didn't vote for Trump, a lot of local people they interview reflect that view. But its just representative of the community. As for donations, that's primarily a function of uncertainty in the economy, caused by the virus. Their views haven't changed since the virus, but the donations have.

I am pretty sure I can count the NPR affiliates in "Trump Country" that reflect a pro-Trump point of view on zero fingers. The whole concept of NPR has been outdated for at least 30 years and it really should be defunded. If listeners want to hear that kind of programming, they can fund it themselves.

 

[TheBigA]

If listeners want to hear that kind of programming, they can fund it themselves.

They do. No government funding was used to build the new KCRW office. The fact is these are community stations, supported primarily by the community. They qualify for certain types of federal funding in the way that all non-profits do. But they don't use the federal funding for news programming. It's mostly used for infrastructure or certain targeted staffing programs. As I said, donations are down. People have to choose between paying for radio or paying the rent. So KCRW is laying off staff.

The fact is that Congress has been faced with defunding NPR many times, especially when there was a Republican majority in both houses, and they never got enough votes. The concept of public broadcasting is even more current today, as profit making radio corporations cut programming and staff, especially in the area of news and the arts. There would be no classical or jazz or AAA music in LA if it wasn't for public radio.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

They do. No government funding was used to build the new KCRW office. The fact is these are community stations, supported primarily by the community. They qualify for certain types of federal funding in the way that all non-profits do. But they don't use the federal funding for news programming. It's mostly used for infrastructure or certain targeted staffing programs. As I said, donations are down. People have to choose between paying for radio or paying the rent. So KCRW is laying off staff.

The fact is that Congress has been faced with defunding NPR many times, especially when there was a Republican majority in both houses, and they never got enough votes. The concept of public broadcasting is even more current today, as profit making radio corporations cut programming and staff, especially in the area of news and the arts. There would be no classical or jazz or AAA music in LA if it wasn't for public radio.

You can tell how much government funding they do get by how much they squawk when someone even mentions defunding them. The idea that government aid is "mostly used for infrastructure or certain targeted staffing programs" is a talking point that is often used to mislead the masses. Those who know that money is actually fungible and that supporting one area is inextricably linked to supporting an organization's entire operations know better.

I always get a kick out of the fact that in conversations like these, the line is "government funding is really only a very small percentage of the total, most funds are raised by local stations through private donations". And then when the idea of truly taking them off the government tete comes up it is "removing government funding would leave so many stations without adequate funding that would require a significant reduction in service if not outright shutdowns of the stations". Most people can't have it both ways, but because NPR is some sort of sacred cow, they can and do.

And please cut it out with the "If public radio didn't do it (play jazz, AAA, classical, etc.) nobody would" That is more pablum that may work for the masses but won't here. Just right here in LA I am pretty sure Saul would see to it that most if not all of those formats got on the air. He did it for years even competing against (government subsidized) public radio.

 

[TheBigA]

Those who know that money is actually fungible and that supporting one area is inextricably linked to supporting an organization's entire operations know better.

I'm one of "those who know." I filled out those grant forms myself when I was at a station. They are NOT vague or "fungible." They are very specific. When you get money from the government, they want to know exactly where it will be used, and how the money will serve the purpose for which it was given. Most of the funding comes in the form of "community service grants." It's matching money based on the amount the station raises locally.

Just right here in LA I am pretty sure Saul would see to it that most if not all of those formats got on the air. He did it for years even competing against (government subsidized) public radio.

A few things about Saul. His daughter is involved in running KKJZ in Long Beach. She fills out the government funding paperwork and she raises sponsorship money for the station. So now he and his family are part of the public radio community. They were among the people who looked at running KCSN.

As I said, the idea of defunding public broadcasting he been on the table for years. In fact it was in the 2020 white house budget proposal. But it wasn't passed.

 

[CTListener]

And please cut it out with the "If public radio didn't do it (play jazz, AAA, classical, etc.) nobody would" That is more pablum that may work for the masses but won't here. Just right here in LA I am pretty sure Saul would see to it that most if not all of those formats got on the air. He did it for years even competing against (government subsidized) public radio.

Do you really think every market has a sugar daddy for fringe formats like Saul? Can you name even one more? There's Ed Perry (oldies) and Bob Bittner (beautiful music) in Boston, but even they're not doing jazz, AAA or classical. Public radio covers AAA and classical in Boston, but no one is doing jazz as a full-time format.

 

[davideduardo]

I always get a kick out of the fact that in conversations like these, the line is "government funding is really only a very small percentage of the total, most funds are raised by local stations through private donations". And then when the idea of truly taking them off the government tete comes up it is "removing government funding would leave so many stations without adequate funding that would require a significant reduction in service if not outright shutdowns of the stations". Most people can't have it both ways, but because NPR is some sort of sacred cow, they can and do.

What you forget is that if even 15% or 20% of a non-profit organization's funding is eliminated (whether via lower donations or less government funding) major internal changes will occur. A station will have many fixed costs, such as office and transmitter sites, engineering, insurance and the like which can't be cut. So the victim of a cut is generally programming.

Even trying to cut management pay is dangerous, as the top people are their for their fund raising skills and if they make less they will simply leave and the station will begin a downward spiral in major donations.

And please cut it out with the "If public radio didn't do it (play jazz, AAA, classical, etc.) nobody would" That is more pablum that may work for the masses but won't here. Just right here in LA I am pretty sure Saul would see to it that most if not all of those formats got on the air. He did it for years even competing against (government subsidized) public radio.

Saul is unique. But he is a businessman, too. He picks formats that are viable economically. Classical ceased to be viable for a commercial stations, and then so did jazz and he moved to an abandoned niche commercial format and runs it very economically.

Because he personally likes jazz and classical, he supports those genres where he can, even when not his and non-commercial.

 

[davideduardo]

I am pretty sure I can count the NPR affiliates in "Trump Country" that reflect a pro-Trump point of view on zero fingers. The whole concept of NPR has been outdated for at least 30 years and it really should be defunded. If listeners want to hear that kind of programming, they can fund it themselves.

If you look at most of the world, even underdeveloped nations support national radio. In some cases, the purpose is purely informational but in many it is to provide services neglected by commercial radio where there is no existing profit potential.

Government supported systems run from the BBC and CBC that mirror commercial propositions but with strong news and information content, to ones that are purely classical music such as seen in places like Mexico or even pure tango AM & FM in Argentina. France, Germany, Spain and nearly all the former Soviet nations have strong government funded broadcast operations. Countries like Perú and Colombia have national radio on superior technical facilities, and they are principally cultural and informational. Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan are other large or developed nations with strong government funded broadcast entities.

The idea that a relatively neutral government broadcast service is outdated is just not correct if you look at the rest of the world. In fact, one could arguably say that the places with strong government supported broadcasting are also among the more notable nations of the world. The US is, by far, behind most all the world's developed nations in this respect.

 

[TheBigA]

It should be pointed out that not all stations that receive federal funding run NPR programming. Quite a few are "CPB qualified" stations, in terms of staffing and operations, and therefore qualify for CPB funds. One of them is KCSN.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Do you really think every market has a sugar daddy for fringe formats like Saul? Can you name even one more? There's Ed Perry (oldies) and Bob Bittner (beautiful music) in Boston, but even they're not doing jazz, AAA or classical. Public radio covers AAA and classical in Boston, but no one is doing jazz as a full-time format.

Sugar Daddy is not required. These may be fringe formats, but they are not formats that require taxpayer money to exist. The market hates a vacuum, and eventually someone will come along and find a way to profitably program to them. And Saul was no sugar daddy. He earned his money for years playing jazz and classical as a for-profit venture on KKGO/KMZT.

 

[TheBigA]

These may be fringe formats, but they are not formats that require taxpayer money to exist.

The formats require and receive membership money to exist. The federal money is so the station exists.

It's not fringe formats, you're pushing a fringe ideology. Most Republicans don't agree with you. Especially those from states where public radio is owned by the state, such as South Carolina and Mississippi. There, the governors need the federal money. The head of the CPB is a Trump appointee and a lifelong Republican.

 

[louis_p]

If you look at most of the world, even underdeveloped nations support national radio. In some cases, the purpose is purely informational but in many it is to provide services neglected by commercial radio where there is no existing profit potential.

The idea that a relatively neutral government broadcast service is outdated is just not correct if you look at the rest of the world. In fact, one could arguably say that the places with strong government supported broadcasting are also among the more notable nations of the world. The US is, by far, behind most all the world's developed nations in this respect.

In many countries, public radio is considered as a critical service for information, outlet for arts and intellectual content, and a social “glue” that binds society together. In the US, there seem to be two major controversies around funding a national public broadcaster. One is that politicians could use it as a propaganda tool (similar to how Trump is influencing VOA). Another argument is that this demand should be served by the private market instead of the government.

However, we’ve seen how both of those arguments are easily debunked today. Politicians can use private networks as propaganda distribution networks just as easily as Viktor Orbán can use the Hungarian state broadcaster to promote his agenda.

With commercial radio, there’s almost no news, investigative reporting, documentaries, personal advice, or any programming that advances the intellectual enlightenment of society. Talk radio provided some of this during the days of Bruce Williams before it evolved into the neo right wing platform that we have today.

Commercial radio is in a race to the bottom and public radio is a lifeline for audiences that otherwise wouldn’t have access to that content, especially in rural areas and outside of the major markets.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The idea that a relatively neutral government broadcast service is outdated is just not correct if you look at the rest of the world.

The idea that the US has a "relatively neutral government broadcast service" represents nothing more than delusional fantasy on the part of you and Big A among others, that you have been peddling without success for years . Makes one think you both may have a personal stake in all of this.

 

[TheBigA]

The idea that the US has a "relatively neutral government broadcast service" represents nothing more than delusional fantasy on the part of you and Big A among others, that you have been peddling without success for years . Makes one think you both may have a personal stake in all of this.

I wouldn't call it a "government broadcast service." That aspect of it was removed by Ronald Reagan in 1983. NPR and PBS are independent non-commercial broadcasters that receive some government funding through a quasi-government agency. The government has no control or input in anything done at NPR or PBS. They gave that up when they pulled the plug on direct funding. Employees do not qualify for any government benefits, nor is their pay based on any government standards. There are lots of non-profit companies in the US that qualify for government funding that are also independent of the federal government.

Here's how NPR describes itself at NPR.org:

NPR is an independent, nonprofit media organization that was founded on a mission to create a more informed public. Every day, NPR connects with millions of Americans on the air, online, and in person to explore the news, ideas, and what it means to be human. Through its network of member stations, NPR makes local stories national, national stories local, and global stories personal.

Sometimes a little education is a good thing.