Does Increased Coverage Area Justify Duplication?

[Improv]

Yes, this is inspired by the WGBH jazz debate, but I think it deserves separating as a thread.

My question is: Can a public radio station justify carrying programming already airing in its primary contour, because its larger signal reaches secondary markets (which may also be carrying that program from other public radio stations in those markets). If this can be a justification, why hasn't WGBH been specific about it? If it can't be, why shouldn't the station be confronted about it?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Blackroc]

WGBH been specific about it?

If you're talking about specific points in their charter, I would doubt there's anything saying what programming they must include.
Or under what conditions are they allowed to drop programming.

Nobody brought up the fact that when Callie Crossley was hired it put jazz programming in a precarious position. Eric was no longer the key Af-Am with a daily show.
While this didn't make him expendable per se, it did mute some criticism which likely would have followed.
http://www.baystatebanner.com/local11-2012-06-28

 

[Eli Polonsky]

My question is: Can a public radio station justify carrying programming already airing in its primary contour, because its larger signal reaches secondary markets (which may also be carrying that program from other public radio stations in those markets). If this can be a justification, why hasn't WGBH been specific about it? If it can't be, why shouldn't the station be confronted about it?

Because I don't think that's the case here. My guess is that they're not very interested in secondary markets. I think that they're interested in this market.

 

[Improv]

If you're talking about specific points in their charter, I would doubt there's anything saying what programming they must include. Or under what conditions are they allowed to drop programming.

No, I certainly didn't think such specific criteria could ever be appiied...When you bring up the Crossley program expansion, it hard to believe WGBH would consider that a possible ploy to dampen criticism in the black community. All it speaks to is tokenism. On the other hand, I would consider their PR handling of all this has been inept.

Because I don't think that's the case here. My guess is that they're not very interested in secondary markets. I think that they're interested in this market.

Does that mean you think the question I asked about duplication is irrelevant?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Because I don't think that's the case here. My guess is that they're not very interested in secondary markets. I think that they're interested in this market.

Does that mean you think the question I asked about duplication is irrelevant?

It's a valid question in general, but my answer is why I don't think that the station has addressed it in this case.

 

[fybush]

I'm still trying to understand Improv's original question.

I think it's a roundabout way of asking, "Can WGBH justify carrying a news-talk format because 89.7 reaches some areas in central Massachusetts, northeast Connecticut, and bits and pieces of southern New Hampshire where WBUR doesn't reach quite as well?" And if that is indeed the question, then I'd tend to agree with Eli that it's probably not much of a justification. There's not that much duplication of actual programming, for one thing: I'd bet that a minute-by-minute comparison during Morning Edition would find somewhere under 50% of the same content airing on WGBH (mostly the national feed) and WBUR (as much local cutaway as I've heard on any NPR outlet anywhere in my travels), and there's a fair amount of WBUR local cutaway going on during All Things Considered - and outside of those hours, there's no other time during the day when 89.7 and 90.9 are carrying the same program and only a handful of programs (Marketplace, one hour of Diane Rehm) that air on both stations at different times.

And assuming I've correctly understood Improv's question, I think it would have had a different answer a couple of decades ago, when WGBH was the de facto NPR outlet for most of Rhode Island and all of Cape Cod. The arrival of WRNI/RI NPR and the expansion of new public radio service to the Cape and Islands have changed the equation pretty dramatically on the southern edge of WGBH's coverage, and to a lesser extent NHPR's signal expansion into Nashua has changed the picture to the north. So what's really left that's outside the core Boston market but still largely dependent on 89.7 as its sole public radio service?

 

[aaronread]

Nobody brought up the fact that when Callie Crossley was hired it put jazz programming in a precarious position. Eric was no longer the key Af-Am with a daily show.

It can be dicey reading too much into skin pigmentation in a picture, but I'm pretty sure Eric Jackson is white. Not african-american.

Having worked in public radio, off and on (currently on again) for 15 years, I am thoroughly puzzled by the duplication argument. Nobody bitches about WODS going Top 40 because it's duplicating a format already in place in the Boston market. They consider it two different stations having a format war. That's exactly what's happening with WGBH and WBUR, too. What frickin' difference does it make that they're both airing "public radio" programming? They are COMPETITORS at each other's throats. They are most definitely not trying to cooperate with each other. Either would gleefully dance with joy if the other went out of business. They won't admit it publicly, of course...public radio has a genteel image to maintain. But it's wholly true...you think those of us at RIPR *want* people to listen to WGBH's "fringe" signal down here in Rhode Island? Hell no! We want them to listen to RIPR!!

And as Scott rightly points out, the actual level of true "duplication" of programming between WGBH and WBUR is quite small. The same program at a different time reaches a different audience. This is not rocket science. And while WGBH mostly airs the national stuff, WBUR is well-known for running local inserts for 40-60% of the hour in both Morning Edition and All Things Considered...the only two shows both run at the same times. (during the week, at least)

 

[TheBigA]

My question is: Can a public radio station justify carrying programming already airing in its primary contour, because its larger signal reaches secondary markets

Are you asking a legal question, in terms of FCC Rules? There are none.

A public station can justify carrying any kind of programming its members will support. Pure and simple.

A lot of other people have discussed this subject, but after 35 years of narrow-format radio, it's clear that block programming is finally dead in public radio. It took a long time to die, but it's really done. People want to hear a certain specific format when they tune in a station, not hodge podge lodge. What's happening in Boston is happening in major cities across the country, including Houston, San Francisco, and even Buffalo. Jazz is becoming a harder format to support.

But why should public stations have to justify something when there are lots of commercial stations duplicating the same songs or talking about the same subjects? Duplication is a side-aspect of competition. When you have several stations that are CPB qualified, it's likely you'll have duplication. It's going on right now in several major markets.

We all hear that competition is supposed to be good for broadcasting. MY question is: Well IS it?

 

[Improv]

Yes, that was my question. Sorry it seemed to be so badly presented.

The responses that put this completely on a competitive standard of evaluation show that people aren't willing to consider the difference in _intent_ between commercial and public stations. To them it is an open and shut case, but as far as I'm concerned there is, shall we say, mission-defined wiggle room that should be taken into account (not by the FCC). Airing a show on one station at 6 and the same show on another at 6:30 is redundancy. A half hour, an hour, two hours of the same show programmed at slightly different times is redundancy (much like these last 2 sentences).

 

[TheBigA]

Airing a show on one station at 6 and the same show on another at 6:30 is redundancy.

But so what? A long time ago, it was decided that there would be no market exclusivity in NPR programming. If there are five CPB qualified stations in a market, all five could air the exact same shows. This is a very different system from commercial radio networks or syndicators, who all work on a market exclusive basis. Redundancy doesn't matter. Reaching an audience with quality content does. Different stations have different audiences, even when they sometimes air the same shows. Neither station have anything to "justify" They're both qualified to carry those shows, and they both make them available to their audiences. End of discussion.

I grew up in a town where there were multiple Catholic Churches. I found it interesting that some people attended churches based on things other than geography. In other words, they didn't simply attend a particular church because it was closer. There were lots of other factors, including family heritage, long-standing friendships, or simply personal personal preference. They knew they'd basically get the same mass regardless of which church they attended. But there was a particular kind of loyalty to one specific church. I'd suggest the same logic applies in public radio. Sure, it would be more "efficient" to limit the most popular NPR programs to one station per market. But efficiency doesn't really matter in public radio. That's not part of the "mission." Reaching people is, and the way you reach people is with quality programming, even if it duplicates what someone else is doing.

The responses that put this completely on a competitive standard of evaluation show that people aren't willing to consider the difference in _intent_ between commercial and public stations.

You make it sound like there’s no competition between non-profits. That’s not true. As others point out, there’s competition for members and donors. And that competition is pretty intense.

 

[Improv]

End of discussion.

Sure. Whatever you say. Arrogance always shuts me up.

I guess you think your expression "reaching an audience with quality content" completely and adequately defines the concept of "public service;" end of discussion. No. Even your sledgehammer does not make everything else into a nail.

People can listen to any damn station they want to, just as they can go to any church they want to. And that's about as far as I'm willing to take a church/radio analogy.

Stations may, as you suggest, do as they please. EXCEPT, non-commercial stations are not beholden to stockholders. They are supposed to be guided by a board of directors. This board is supposed to be composed of representatives of the station and members of the community. If such a board believes that its _only_ mission is to maximize a station's competitiveness in a given market, it is misguided. There is ample language in the Articles of Confederation of any non-profit that proposes other considerations be given weight. And although there may not be explicit 501-c-3 language (except to avoid engaging in overt political activity), it is the EDUCATIONAL mission of a non-profit that allows it to have a special tax relationship to the US and state governments.

 

[TheBigA]

And although there may not be explicit 501-c-3 language (except to avoid engaging in overt political activity), it is the EDUCATIONAL mission of a non-profit that allows it to have a special tax relationship to the US and state governments.

What does any of this have to do with two stations in the same market carrying All Things Considered?

 

[fybush]

More to the point, what does it have to do with Improv's original question? It was premised on the idea that WGBH is somehow justifying "duplication" (and we can argue about what that means all we want) on the grounds that 89.7 provides service to some area that's not adequately served by WBUR, WRNI, NHPR or the Cape signals. Has anyone identified what those areas are (western Worcester county?) or introduced any evidence that WGBH management actually used that as a justification?

I guess I'm still not sure what you're getting at in the larger picture, Improv, beyond the sense that WGBH ought to be doing something other than what it's doing. WGBH does have a board of directors, and presumably that board has signed off (in at least a broad sense) on the programming decisions that have been made. I would guess that the board can make a pretty good case that what's airing now, in particular the increased emphasis on the "Boston Public Radio" block of programming, has just as much of an educational mission as playing jazz for four hours a night did.

 

[Improv]

I would guess that the board can make a pretty good case that what's airing now, in particular the increased emphasis on the "Boston Public Radio" block of programming, has just as much of an educational mission as playing jazz for four hours a night did.
Yes; or, at least those programs that can't already be heard on other Boston stations. But the question of redundancy aside, it is reasonable that the jazz constituency demonstrate its case publicly and allow the listening public to decide whether it thinks WGBH has a responsibility to listen to the case, and, if so, whether or not it has responded appropriately to the concerns raised. There is at least the potential for a level of accountability here; one which is, of course, still about "power," but which is not strictly based in numbers.

 

[TheBigA]

it is reasonable that the jazz constituency demonstrate its case publicly and allow the listening public to decide whether it thinks WGBH has a responsibility to listen to the case,

When I ran a public station that played jazz, we told the audience that their membership dollars determined the fate of jazz on the radio. The more dollars the format raised, the more likely it would continue. At the time, that was a pretty convincing argument, and we made it after the market had already lost a jazz outlet. That's how the jazz constituency should make its case.

I think the next step for the jazz constituency is to seek out another non-commercial outlet, and make the case there. WHRB plays a lot of jazz already, and a case might be made to expand their commitment now that WGBH has opted out. But it's been my experience that once a station makes a decision, they've already considered the alternatives and the potential negatives. The reason they bought WCRB was to make WGBH a single format station. This change seems to complete that process.

 

[HHH]

it is reasonable that the jazz constituency demonstrate its case publicly and allow the listening public to decide whether it thinks WGBH has a responsibility to listen to the case,

When I ran a public station that played jazz, we told the audience that their membership dollars determined the fate of jazz on the radio. The more dollars the format raised, the more likely it would continue. At the time, that was a pretty convincing argument, and we made it after the market had already lost a jazz outlet. That's how the jazz constituency should make its case.

I think the next step for the jazz constituency is to seek out another non-commercial outlet, and make the case there. WHRB plays a lot of jazz already, and a case might be made to expand their commitment now that WGBH has opted out. But it's been my experience that once a station makes a decision, they've already considered the alternatives and the potential negatives. The reason they bought WCRB was to make WGBH a single format station. This change seems to complete that process.

WHRB should expand jazz coverage beyond the 5AM to 1PM period which they currently program.

Possibly eliminating "Afternoon Concert" (classical) and running jazz through until 7 on weekdays. Then Classical from 7 to 10 (already in part of that time slot). Then, their cutting edge rock/electronica ("The Record Hospital") at 10 (where it is now). Just a suggestion.

WHRB has a huge jazz library and has been programming significant hours of jazz for many years, so it seems like a natural for that station to pick up some of the slack.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Can Boston support two 24/7 NPR news/information stations??

I point that out because for many years, Washington's WAMU-88.5 (with the exception of a few hours of bluegrass music, jazz, and old-time radio programs on weekends) has been 24/7 news and information.

Some years back, WETA-90.9 dropped it's previous all-classical format to challenge WAMU as a 24/7 NPR new/information station, with much of the programming schedules of both stations being the same NPR programs.

In the end, WETA didn't find much of an audience (or listener donations) for 24/7 NPR news/information and was forced to go back to 24/7 classical music (except for a simulcast of the audio of the PBS "Newshour" for an hour weekday evenings).

Personally, had I been running radio at WGBH-89.7, I would not have dumped music completely after acquiring WCRB-99.5. I actually would have dumped NPR news/information programming and would have gone 24/7 jazz to complement the 24/7 classical format of WCRB.

Let WBUR have the 24/7 NPR news audience.

 

[TheBigA]

Personally, had I been running radio at WGBH-89.7, I would not have dumped music completely after acquiring WCRB-99.5. I actually would have dumped NPR news/information programming and would have gone 24/7 jazz to complement the 24/7 classical format of WCRB.

You wouldn't have done it if you'd seen the comparative financial support for jazz vs. classical.

WETA was a heritage classical music station. When the commercial classical station flipped to all-news, they donated their library and some talent to WETA. That's why they went back to classical. The classical music audience in DC is huge. Almost as big as the news audience. The jazz audience in DC and Boston is very small.

 

[aaronread]

Airing a show on one station at 6 and the same show on another at 6:30 is redundancy. A half hour, an hour, two hours of the same show programmed at slightly different times is redundancy (much like these last 2 sentences).

Steve, I've been told...and seen it myself...that there's quite a lot of audience research for public radio that refutes that claim. Airing the same show at a different time (and especially on a different station) very much reaches a different audience. It's not redundant. It FEELS like it is to us radio nerds because we care about this sort of thing waaaaay more than the average listener does.

WHRB should expand jazz coverage beyond the 5AM to 1PM period which they currently program.

I do wonder about that. I'm hesitant to say that WHRB "should" be doing anything different since what they do seems to work pretty well for them and their audience. It's a niche audience, but it's pretty loyal. OTOH it does seem like WHRB is missing a prime opportunity here by going more jazz and less everything else.

OTOOH, I know of several classical fans that hate WGBH's classical offerings on WCRB/WGBH-HD2 (and this is irrespective of the signal issues; they don't like the content itself) and they REALLY hated the old WCRB 102.5 too...and a lot of them really liked the classical that WHRB provided. (shrugs)

 

[carmen]

I know of several classical fans that hate WGBH's classical offerings on WCRB/WGBH-HD2 (and this is irrespective of the signal issues; they don't like the content itself) and they REALLY hated the old WCRB 102.5 too...and a lot of them really liked the classical that WHRB provided. (shrugs)

i get classical on 107.5 WFCC in Quincy, Dorchester, and Southie - 24/7, so i don't think its exotic ducting