Doubling the cost of radio to subsidize liberal talk

[DaytonRadio]

Private broadcasters must rely on ADVERTISING revenues to pay their bills. In our rural market, the revenues are tapped out, expenses have been pared to the bone, and any additional expenses would need to be directly offset by staff reductions. Government bureaucrats have no understanding of the costs and risks of running a business.

I've visited a number of NPR affiliates over the past 20 years; they ALL have much nicer, newer equipment than I could ever afford.

EXACTLY! Localism may look good to some on paper but there's just no money to pay someone talented at this point.. I work in a pretty big market in the south for a news/talker (that is syndicated outside of morning drive) as well as a couple music stations.. all three are in the top 5 in the 12+ and number one or two in their targets.. Im lucky enough to be full time and paid fairly well but advertising is so slow right now that im one of the lucky few to have a full time position because the money just isn't there.. the music stations rely heavily on voice tracking and the news/talk, as i said, is almost completely syndicated.. forcing stations to put someone in the studio live 24/7 and have local talk shows would either cause MORE downsizing or just run a lot of stations (especially in rural areas) out of business.. after the economy bounces back it may be a different story but right now, it would be a horrendous idea..

besides, radio is a business.. and my opinion is that government should have no say in how that business is run.. if syndicated shows didn't attract an audience no one would put them on the air.. period dot the end.

And, btw, Bill Wolfenbarger is right about NPR stations.. I got the chance to visit WMNF in Tampa, FL a few years back.. VERY nice digs.

 

[justareporter]

One of the nice things about being older is having history on your side. There was a time before consolidators ruined almost all of what is radio when stations had a variety of points of view and made money based on that variety.

They really did.

Bucketloads of it.

Now we have consolidated stations with lots of middle managers and in-house consultants and not nearly enough salesmen and plenty of order takers.

Radio is a business...but it operates in the public interest. Most of the corporate owners have forgotten that and consequently ony look at the bottom line failing to remember why and for what reason they are allowed to operate.

They have no right to operate...the FCC allows them to license the use of the airways.

If all you can do is provide syndicated programming I think (as do many) that you should lose that license. What, pray tell, are you doing to serve your public?

 

[TheBigA]

One of the nice things about being older is having history on your side. There was a time before consolidators ruined almost all of what is radio when stations had a variety of points of view and made money based on that variety.

I think you're romanticizing the truth. They absolutely didn't put all points of view on the air, because, as my GM told me, there was always one more point of view we didn't know about that would crawl out of the woodwork looking for free airtime. And we didn't make money from variety. Putting points of view on the air COST money. Which is why we ran it at bad times of the day.

Format radio, as we know it, came about at the end of the 1950s. It created a station sound so that you ncould tune in at any time of day and know which station you were listening to. The sameness in radio began in the 60s, as owners found a successful format, and tried to copy it everywhere.

They have no right to operate...the FCC allows them to license the use of the airways.

But the FCC also doesn't police those airwaves very well, except in the case of obsenity. Anything else is just fine. The government licenses highways, yet people break the law every day. If there isn't a policemen around, they won't get caught. The airwaves are no different. The government made a big mistake in the 80's, long before deregulation. They over-licensed the spectrum. Too many radio stations for them to regulate. So one by one, they eliminated the laws that kept control, starting with the 3rd Class license. The airwaves have become highways with no enforcement. It has nothing to do with consolidation. The previous owners did the exact same thing. They ran automated stations with reel to reel tapes from syndicators, and network shows from New York.

The "serve the public" line is 1920s language that applied to all public utilities, including water and gas, Over the years, owners found all kinds of ways to serve the public off the air, in community service, fundraisers, and public service announcements. I knew of one owner in the 1970s who ran an automated format on his FM, and did absolutely nothing but the occasional PSA, and that qualified as public service.

It's nice to suggest operators be forced to do what you want under the threat of losing their license. But it's an empty threat, and everyone knows it. The government lacks the courage to enforce the laws, and they know they're in a weak position after 25 years of neglect to enforce laws that they allowed to be ignored. Then they have a bigger problem that no one who's replace the current owners would do a better job, and the government simply has no money to do the job themselves. So it is what it is.

 

[gr8oldies]

If there is an audience that likes that syndicated programming, listens to that syndicated programming, and advertisers suport that syndicated programming there is no way said programming is not "serving the public interest" unless your definition is "programming the public has absolutely no interest in". I could care less, fo rxample, about listening to some local guy discuss Dayton, Ohio politics. Radio people hate EMF (the K-Love folks) and say that they can't possibly be serving the public. However, substantial numbers of members of the public not only listen, but write checks from their very own checking account so this programming will stay on the air in their area. How is that "not serving the public" when the public is writing checks to support it?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

.... there is no way said programming is not "serving the public interest" unless your definition is "programming the public has absolutely no interest in".

I'm having trouble accepting this "dumb act" on your part.... someone of your expertise and experience has to know that "The Public Interest" used in the context we are using it is a term with legal meaning and legislative meaning. It is like the term "Public Policy" which also a bit of speech which has currency when used in legislative debate and in courts of law.

It would appear that a significant part of the public has an interest in purchasing and viewing pornography. Pornography however does not meet the definition of "in the public interest".

The public has demonstrated an interest in purchasing various illicit narcotics, but there is no way that someone can make the point the 'peddling dope' is considered to be "in the public interest".

What are some things today that are "in the public interest"? Encouraging children to pursue their education so they will be part of our civilization in the future is "in the public interest". Having a non-corrupt, well trained police force is "in the public interest". Having legislated standards that assure us the medicines we buy at the pharmacy are pure is "in the public interest".

Once upon a time when radio was new and first stations were scarce, and then later as the station population increased, frequencies were scarce, it was "public policy" in this nation that by law we would ration out this scarce commodity only to licensees who understood they were to do a reasonable amount of things that were contributions to the concept of "in the public interest".

When I read your arguments about "public interest" you make it sound like that broadcasters today should be expected to be about as useful to society as porn publishers, dope peddlers, houses of prostitution. After all, if that is what the public is interest in, that is what we have to give them.

Please tell me I am misunderstanding what it is you are trying to sell us as the role of broadcasting in our country.

The auto industry is expected to serve the public interest by producing vehicles that provide gas economy and safety. The airlines are expected to service the public interest by providing transportation that is safe and reliable. Is there NOTHING you expect of the broadcasters that "serves the public interest" in sense of the terminology?

 

[gr8oldies]

The auto industry has to produce vehicles that are safe, and at the same time produce vehicles that people will buy? The auto companies could have all the good intentions in the world to build some super-green vehicle, but if no one buys it, there is no "public interest" being served.

No, I don't believe radio stations should be forced to abandon programming that audiences will listen to in favor of programming that they will not listen to. Do you really believe that a syndicated Contemporary Christian format is the same as pornography. I guess you woud rather tell that audiecne that sorry, the programming you like and suport with your dollasrs must now leave the air because this license must be turned over to someone who will talk about potholes on Main Street in Troy.

Problam is, yes, you can define "in the public interesT" as demanding that music formats be interrupted for long news blocks "sorry, audience. We don't care that you don't want news on your rock station you're going to get it anyway", programs about road construction on I-75 or the latest Dayton political scandal, but what you can't do is make anyone listen to it. They can plug in a CD or an iPod much quicker than you can say "public interst, convenience and neccesity". WHIO is Johnny-on-the-spot with news, weather and traffic bulletins, even in the middle of syndicated programming, but what you seem to want is the entire schedule scrapped and a bunch of guys who will sit in a chair on Wilmington Avenue and talk about urban sprawl 24/7. Doesn't matter that the station would go from a 12 share to a one, as long as there's a butt in the chair. In fact, I would go so far as to say that maybe the programming WHIO carries is a public service as it's the only voice that has the slightest opposition to the Annointed One. The only way you're going to have your vision of "public service programming" is to have Congress legislate it and micromanage every station in America. By the way, is it you who speaks for "the public"? How arrogant.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

In my last message I didn't make any argument for or against radio stations being required to do any kind of public service".

I didn't define anything I thought would meet the definition today of "in the public interest".

By inference I was asking a question: Does radio today have any obligation to operate radio stations in such a way that it would be thought of as operating "in the public interest". (as a legal and lelgislative term.)

If you are going to do porno, you need to make it interesting. But that doesn't make it "in the public interest".

If you are going to do religions, you need to make it interesting, but that doesn't make it "in the public interest".

If you are going to do news/talk, you need to make it interesting, that doesn't automatically make it "in the public interest".

If you are going to do music, you need to make it interesting, that may or may not make it "in the public interest".

"Listeners finding programming to be interesting" does not signal that the programming "serves the public interest".

I would suggest that the day we as a country all come to an agreement that broadcasting no longer has any requirement to operate "in the public interest" you can look for significant fees to be assessed based on business volume much like those to remove minerals from public lands pay royalties. That, if it happens, will not be a happy day.

 

[gr8oldies]

Goat, problem is, who defines "public interest" and who speaks for the "public". It would seem that your and Dayton's definition would include a requirement to air programming that no one has any interest in, and eliminating programming that audiences have an interest in. So what does that mean, how do you create a legal definition that will do more that make work for attorneys, and specifically what programming do you ish to require. If it's a "live and local" standard for music stations, how often and long is a DJ required to talk and what is he or she required to say?

There's talk on this board about consolodators going bankrupt and smaller operators (who presumably are going to hire everyone back) buying stations gain. Why in the world would they want all the headaches of trying to run their business with the FCC, or some "board" trying to micromanage them from afar, assuring that all programming draw no audience whatsoever exccept for a handful of activists..

 

[TheBigA]

Goat, problem is, who defines "public interest" and who speaks for the "public".

One would hope that kind of definition would come from the public's representative, namely the government. But they have prefered to remain vague about that kind of thing, and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever brought an owner to court on charges of not serving the public interest. So we have no precident to work from.

What I have gathered after spending years studying the last 50 years of broadcast law is that the gov't has very limited regulatory interests in broadcasting, and they really have refrained from directing broadcasters exactly how to serve their community. And as I said earlier, broadcasters have been creative in the ways they do it. Most of it has been off the air.

To the Goat, my answer to your question, based on the last 50 years of broadcast law, is no. The law has taken all community obligations out of the hands of local broadcasters and placed them in the hands of elected officials and various community agencies. Broadcasters merely are expected to do what they're told during designated emergencies. Otherwise, the air signal is theirs. If anyone has any specific legal experiences that prove otherwise, tell me. But I found none in my research.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Excellent essay and analysis, BigA.

A similar analysis of the United States going back to the Revolutionary Era would show that we have always had difficulty defining and codifying into law certain traditions and systems. Every little town that has a Lions Club, a Rotary Club, etc. etc sees people banding together to accomplish things that "are in the Public Interest". It's not legislated. It's not funded (Though a club may instigate some function or facility that on it's own does qualify for public finding or grants... such as a battered women's shelter.

Go back and review an NAB Handbook for broadcasters from 50 or 60 years ago and read the SELF IMPOSED Code of Ethics that broadcasters then felt was part of their mandate, their obligation, their opportunity.

Fast forward to today. For the most part we live in LARGE metro areas. What used to be observed as something that needed to be fixed, we see today as a problem to be abolished. Social Workers and Psychologists have a modern day term: Greyhound Therapy. Round up the homeless, ask them where they could be happier, buy them a bus ticket to the place of their dreams. Problem solved? No problem ignored and abolished.

Many early broadcasters invested in the business in part because they recognized a communication conduit to keep volunteerism healthy in their community, in their neighborhood. And it worked pretty well for a couple of generations. Alas, some of us, both as fans of the concept of broadcasting, and as citizens who long for a civilized society, are finding it hard to walk away from that concept and accept the idea that broadcasting has decided to become something that is as useful to society as the coin operated scale in the men's room, or the ball washer-and-scrubber at the 10th tee.

I think I shall rewrite my will today. I will spell out what should be chiseled upon my grave marker: "He cried the day he realized the entire broadcast industry had become less relevant to society than the $24.95 mp3 player."

 

[smedge2006]

It isn't necessary to argue that localism and being something other than a satellite repeater is required by the public interest. Plain old private interest is ill-served by the depopulation and deprofessionalization of the airwaves. Not just employees but shareholders and lenders have been shafted. Plain old greed and filthy lucre will eventually dictate that the current state of affairs cannot continue. Unfortunately, because of the time it has taken for reality to breach radio's technological and economic moats, the clock may run out before the cavalry can arrive to save the medium from itself.

To the fellow who said rural areas can't support local radio, there are thousands of exceptions all over the country. Your defense of becoming a satellator reminds me of an old poem, which I'll alter for this discussion...

First they came for the overnighter, and I didn't care because I worked days.

Then they came for the news reporter, and I didn't care because I wasn't one.

Then they came for the evening shift, and I didn't care because I worked middays.

Then they came for middays, and I didn't care because I worked afternoons.

Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to care -- on either side of the speaker.

 

[gr8oldies]

What I think we are getting into is the old argument that radio should not provide what audiences want, but what they should have instead. Which would be fine if the population did not have as many options to turn your programming off, high minded as it might be. Top 40 stations ran talk shows at 11pm. Would anyone argue that modern day CHRs should do likewise? As far as our local representatives being in charge of what's on the public airwaves, I don't know how you work that. The center of my city is solidly Democratic and the suburbs are solidly Republican. Which group gets their way?

So in the cae of KLove, you would argue that the audience that likes and supports that format should not have the option to listen to Contemporary Christian music on the radio, despite the fact that the local operators have no interest in doin the format locally.(I have friends who check the website every time they travel to find out where they can get it when they are away). The greater good is prersumably served if that audience loses that format and someone talks about potholes on that facility instead.

Rural areas certainly can and do support local radio (but even most of them use some satellite or syndicated programming). Bedroom communities, where there is no real division between city and suburb, generally can't. Very few people, for example, live, work, play and shop entirely within the confines of say, Englewood, Ohio or Danville, IN. People have moved there over the years because it's a nice place essentially within the metro area, not because they know the school's fight song by heart.

If government is presumably going to micromanage all local programming decision, decide who gets hired and fired, decise what music radio stations aree going to play, and what DJs are supposed to say on the air, I don't know how governmnet manages that. And is local in and of itself going to make people listen. There are those who argue that local is always good and syndicated is always bad, but I don't believe people who don't ave skin in the game (make the big bad coroprate owner hire me) care.

 

[smedge2006]

So in the cae of KLove, you would argue that the audience that likes and supports that format should not have the option to listen to Contemporary Christian music on the radio, despite the fact that the local operators have no interest in doin the format locally.(I have friends who check the website every time they travel to find out where they can get it when they are away).

I would argue that small audiences nationwide are better served by satellite radio, internet streaming and mobilephone apps. Radio that is licensed to serve a certain geographic confine is better off doing things that those technologies can't. Or just turning off the transmitter and turning in the license. Or selling for a buck. If the price is low enough, somebody who can put content on that transmitter will come in. And to return to the original topic, what about those small audiences in places like Ponce, Oklahoma and Dalhart, Texas that want to hear liberal talk radio? Surely they are as entitled to satellators as the K-Love fans.

 

[gr8oldies]

If someone wants to buy a satellator in a small town in Oklahoma and run liberal talk on it, I don't have an objection. K-Love's audience isn't top 10, but they certainly have a loyal audience. My original point was that if the station has listeners who are actually paying money out of their own pockets to keep the format on the air, I don;t see how it's not "Serving the public". The posters brought up pornography, etc. So the bottom line is, no one should have the ability to hear any national talent or format on terrestrial radio, period. You like ESPN Radio? better get used to listening to two guys at the local bar and not Dan Patrick. You would also say if that station can't afford two guys at the bar the signal should go off the air.

Makes me wonder, ar you folks really interested in listening to the "local, public interest programming" you say you want, or do you just figure somehow the government will make the big, bad corporate radio guy let you talk on their radio station?