• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

AAR's new "News Director" sez...

M

mwebster

Guest
The New York Daily News' usually excellent radio columnist David Hinkley published a "puff piece" interview this morning with political activist Felipe Luciano, recently hired as Air America Radio's "News Director:"
<blockquote>Felipe Luciano becomes vice president of news for the progressive radio network Air America (WLIB, 1190 AM) with several premises. First, "All those years of talk about a 'liberal bias' in the media has pushed our national media to a right-wing slant. "What was once an independent voice has become afraid to take a stand. Everyone is afraid what happened to Dan Rather will happen to them. That's why we see almost no investigative journalism."</blockquote>
AAR's news broadcasts are carried on WLIB, New York and a handful of other (mostly smaller market) stations. Most progressive talk stations using AAR programs take news from CNN or ABC Radio. The interview suggests Luciano is having trouble figuring out whether he's running a local news operation or "the beginning of the new CNN." This same schizophrenia is at the root of much of AAR's problems - especially in New York.

Among Luciano's comments:

"What was once an independent voice has become afraid to take a stand. Everyone is afraid what happened to Dan Rather will happen to them. That's why we see almost no investigative journalism."

We see no investigative journalism in radio because (1) It takes time - personnel time and (2) It costs money. On top of the that, it is useless to attempt to keep a true investigative piece to under 40 seconds and the consultants say (possibly with some justification) that listeners aren't interested anyway.

Among the things he's after in the news department, he says, are "important stories neglected in the major media" and "subjective objectivity," meaning accurate information "with a point of view. When you see the bias of Fox News commentators, why shouldn't we have a balance?"

Luciano used to work at Fox. Apparently he has studied the Gospel According to Ailes and learned his lessons well. He calls what Fox does "bias" and proposes to do the same thing (only from his point of view) and calls that "an independent voice," "subjective objectivity" and "balance." His use of the word "balance" again shows Ailes taught him well. Like most political activists (as opposed to bona fide journalists), his opinions are THE TRUTH; other opinions are bias.

"We're working on big plans," he says. "We'd like to have a speakers' bureau. ..."

That's an original idea - not! A typical small market, no cost promotional ploy. Luciano will go speak at meetings of liberal groups for free. I worked for a guy who did this. It was sort of like therapy for him. He hit every retirement home (and high school) in the area and little old ladies told him how wonderful he was.
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

> Luciano used to work at Fox. Apparently he has studied the
> Gospel According to Ailes and learned his lessons well. He
> calls what Fox does "bias" and proposes to do the same thing
> (only from his point of view) and calls that "an independent
> voice," "subjective objectivity" and "balance." His use of
> the word "balance" again shows Ailes taught him well. Like
> most political activists (as opposed to bona fide
> journalists), his opinions are THE TRUTH; other opinions are
> bias.

Luciano is full of crap. The reason I don't listen to Fox is that they look for stories to prove their talking points. The reason I don't listen to AAR News is that they look for stories to prove their talking points too.

I don't want biased newscasts, and neither do listeners. Smart radio stations flee AAR's junkcasts and go with CNN or better yet AP. Stupid radio stations owned by CC trash their reputation by kissing off CBS Radio for the trash that passes for news from Fox.

The place for "subjective objectivity" and "balance" is not during a five minute newscast. I don't want every story "balanced" by spokestrash on the right and spokeslies on the left. I want the reporter to just report the story and leave it at that. I don't want massaged newscasts that cover stories I think I want the choir to hear. I can listen to AAR and hear three minutes of Al Gore which was ignored by the rest of the media or listen to Fox News Radio which actually ran one newscast with the Swift Boat trash being put out against John Murtha. Or I can be smart (as I am) and change the dial to real news at the top of the hour.

> "We're working on big plans," he says. "We'd like to have a
> speakers' bureau. ..."

What the hell does a speakers bureau have to do with running a news department?

What in the world is going on in this business? Did Walter Cronkite's boss consider running a speakers bureau?

ARGH!!!!
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

I am happy you are not unwilling to take issue with AAR from time to time.

I agree with your basic points, however, I do think there is a place for Point of View in radio news. No, not what Fox does, which is presenting bias under the cloak of "fair and balanced." I'm talking about what radio used to do - before anchorpeople, and even before newscasters.

From the 30's through the 60's, the national networks (excluding CBS) had commentators offering a "spectrum" (ABC's term) of viewpoints. These commentators made no pretense to being "fair and balanced" individually. Each offered his perspective, his judgement of what news was significant (as opposed to the vanilla choice of stories from the AP wire summaries), and his unique style of writing, presentation and delivery. Only one of them is still around: Paul Harvey (who started on ABC's WENR, Chicago in 1945 and went on the network in 1950). But there were others: Edward P. Morgan, Quincy Howe, Raymond Gram Swing, Fulton Lewis, Jr. and Fulton Lewis III, Elmer Davis and more. Add to this list the analysts, people like Edward R. Murrow, H V Kalternborn, Eric Sevareid and William L Shirer - they offered expertise, and they might lead the audience to the point of a conclusion but they did not cross the line and draw a conclusion themselves.

Two significant differences between radio news than and now: Commentary was labelled commentary. And radio news then was about the spoken word - good writing, good delivery, good story-telling. Of course, this is not what Luciano is proposing to do. It sounds more like he wants to take AAR's current dry recitation of wire copy, add his own spin and call it "investigative reporting."

CBS may not have had a speaker's bureau as such but they did encourage Cronkite, Murrow and Murrow's Boys, and other news celebrities to go on speaking engagements. For several years, CBS called in its star correspondents for a year in review round-table broadcast and then had them take the show on the road for in person appearances in major cities.
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

> I don't want biased newscasts, and neither do listeners. Smart radio stations
> flee AAR's junkcasts and go with CNN or better yet AP. Stupid radio stations
> owned by CC trash their reputation by kissing off CBS Radio for the trash that
> passes for news from Fox.

I'll bet that the number one determining factor on whether a station goes with Fox, CBS or ABC is not lack of bias but network compensation!<P ID="signature">______________
"On average, drug prisoners spend more time in federal prison than rapists, who often get out on early release because of the overcrowding in prison caused by the Drug War."-Michael Badnarik</P>
 
As a matter of fact, Cronkite's boss DID have a speakers' bureau...

> What in the world is going on in this business? Did Walter
> Cronkite's boss consider running a speakers bureau?
>
> ARGH!!!!
>

Beginning in the late 1940's, according to various sources including the book "Out of Thin Air" by Reuven Frank, Edward R. Murrow
would bring the CBS correspondents from around the world to New York at the end of the year to opine on world events, then send them around the country on a speaking tour. CBS correspondents often did this earlier than the late 40s on a freelance basis. Frank's book mentions this because the NBC brass decided to do something similar -- in the early 60's! So this "speaker's bureau" stuff has been around a long time. But I can't figure who'd want to hear the Air America news anchors as speakers...
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

I don't know how much "bias" you can squeeze into 3 minutes anyway. And one person's "straight down the middle" is someone else's extreme left or right wing bias.<P ID="signature">______________
Have a Happy New Year!
http://www.thebig8.net/have_a_happy_new_year_with_cklw.mp3</P>
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

> Stupid radio stations owned by CC trash
> their reputation by kissing off CBS Radio for the trash that
> passes for news from Fox.

Trash their reputations by picking Fox News Radio?

Hardly--their reputations were trashed well before that.
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

>
> I'll bet that the number one determining factor on whether a
> station goes with Fox, CBS or ABC is not lack of bias but
> network compensation!
>

Is there such a thing as network compensation anymore? Most network affiliation costs stations money these days. CBS is several hundred dollars a month.
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

> Is there such a thing as network compensation anymore? Most network affiliation > costs stations money these days. CBS is several hundred dollars a month.

It's probably not what it used to be but I know it's still there and very much a factor. <P ID="signature">______________
"On average, drug prisoners spend more time in federal prison than rapists, who often get out on early release because of the overcrowding in prison caused by the Drug War."-Michael Badnarik</P>
 
Re: Biased Newscasts

I have heard Fox News and AAR news and found them to be so quick and simple that bias seems secondary. AAR news covered the Hannity verus Spitzer bit a week back or so and sounded like Fox News. Same is true for their coverage of the Transit workers strike. You would never have known they were supposed to be left-leaning.

If AAR actually produced a good newscast that had slant I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it produces something so pedestrian and low quality and do people really, honestly, care about the top of the hour top stories blurb? The hosts can comment til the cows come home on the subject matter after the blurb. By far CBS is much better as is AP. There is really no excuse to keep playing AAR news unless they can bring in some good readers and some good copy to read. Slant isn't the problem, but it isn't the solution either.

> > Luciano used to work at Fox. Apparently he has studied
> the
> > Gospel According to Ailes and learned his lessons well.
> He
> > calls what Fox does "bias" and proposes to do the same
> thing
> > (only from his point of view) and calls that "an
> independent
> > voice," "subjective objectivity" and "balance." His use
> of
> > the word "balance" again shows Ailes taught him well.
> Like
> > most political activists (as opposed to bona fide
> > journalists), his opinions are THE TRUTH; other opinions
> are
> > bias.
>
> Luciano is full of crap. The reason I don't listen to Fox
> is that they look for stories to prove their talking points.
> The reason I don't listen to AAR News is that they look for
> stories to prove their talking points too.
>
> I don't want biased newscasts, and neither do listeners.
> Smart radio stations flee AAR's junkcasts and go with CNN or
> better yet AP. Stupid radio stations owned by CC trash
> their reputation by kissing off CBS Radio for the trash that
> passes for news from Fox.
>
> The place for "subjective objectivity" and "balance" is not
> during a five minute newscast. I don't want every story
> "balanced" by spokestrash on the right and spokeslies on the
> left. I want the reporter to just report the story and
> leave it at that. I don't want massaged newscasts that
> cover stories I think I want the choir to hear. I can
> listen to AAR and hear three minutes of Al Gore which was
> ignored by the rest of the media or listen to Fox News Radio
> which actually ran one newscast with the Swift Boat trash
> being put out against John Murtha. Or I can be smart (as I
> am) and change the dial to real news at the top of the hour.
>
>
> > "We're working on big plans," he says. "We'd like to have
> a
> > speakers' bureau. ..."
>
> What the hell does a speakers bureau have to do with running
> a news department?
>
> What in the world is going on in this business? Did Walter
> Cronkite's boss consider running a speakers bureau?
>
> ARGH!!!!
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom