• 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

Is AM Already Doomed? Or Can It Be Saved?

Does the spectrum have a use after it all dies. Can it be repurposed into another level of the

Grandkids will force older people to discover streaming.
A recurring theme here for decades has been "we need live and local! We need a DJ in a chair downtown!" then "but I only listen to Spotify, and so does everyone I know".That seems to defeat the previous argument.

Although if you don't like the FCC, wait until all audio content is delivered by AT&TVerizonCharterTMobileCast
 
A recurring theme here for decades has been "we need live and local! We need a DJ in a chair downtown!" then "but I only listen to Spotify, and so does everyone I know".That seems to defeat the previous argument.

Although if you don't like the FCC, wait until all audio content is delivered by AT&TVerizonCharterTMobileCast
Isn't a lot of it already delivered over fiber?
 
60 and above.
(oh, this is gonna be fun)

I'm 67 years old. I've been online for 31 years, am 12 years into carrying a cell phone that "has the internet", on which I stream news, radio stations, podcasts, my entire album library and an extensive collection of airchecks.

My wife, who turns 60 this weekend, does the same (minus the airchecks).

When we're covered in afghans, in our rocking chairs, watching that nice young Mark Harmon on NCIS....

Yeah, f&*% that. Network TV in our house amounts to Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers, so since the writers' strike started, no network TV.

Cable? Yeah. Rachel Maddow once a week.

Everything else we watch is streaming. BARRY, SUCCESSION, SEVERANCE, TED LASSO, BETTER CALL SAUL, THE AFTERPARTY, JURY DUTY, PARTY DOWN, WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS, THE CROWN, THE HANDMAID'S TALE....

Don't know how to break it to you, Don, but the number you're looking for is 80 or 85, not 60.
 
Do you stream all of your music or listen to the radio.
Neither do people between 27 and 42. If they did, there would be NO radio listening in the 25-49 demo. And if you look at the ratings, there are clearly a great number of radio stations getting ratings and making enviable revenue from that demo.
 
Neither do people between 27 and 42. If they did, there would be NO radio listening in the 25-49 demo. And if you look at the ratings, there are clearly a great number of radio stations getting ratings and making enviable revenue from that demo.
The ratings system as a whole is not accurate. Who really knows who is listening to what. Streamers can tell down the the second who listened to what. Radio not so much.
 
I'm gonna say that's unfair. The vast majority of broadcast journalists never even flirted with print. Nobody knew whether they could do it or not. It takes a completely different skill set. And even the best writers owe a ton to their editors (true in the broadcast shops, as well).

I spent 48 years writing for broadcast before people started paying me to write for print. I can do both. But if you'll notice, what I write here is broadcast style. That's my natural default---clear (hopefully), concise (can't prove it by my posts, though) and conversational (I think I can defend that one).
I appreciate good broadcast writing. What I'm referring to is writing by TV people that's thrown onto station websites practically raw, as in the two examples I've attached, which are strewn with police jargon, unnatural phrasing and unnecessary verbiage. But that's most likely a product of the removal of editors -- especially editors concerned with language -- from the news process. As a copy editor, I dealt with a few reporters who turned in copy like this, almost always while covering the police/fire beat.


 
(oh, this is gonna be fun)

I'm 67 years old. I've been online for 31 years, am 12 years into carrying a cell phone that "has the internet", on which I stream news, radio stations, podcasts, my entire album library and an extensive collection of airchecks.

My wife, who turns 60 this weekend, does the same (minus the airchecks).

When we're covered in afghans, in our rocking chairs, watching that nice young Mark Harmon on NCIS....

Yeah, f&*% that. Network TV in our house amounts to Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers, so since the writers' strike started, no network TV.

Cable? Yeah. Rachel Maddow once a week.

Everything else we watch is streaming. BARRY, SUCCESSION, SEVERANCE, TED LASSO, BETTER CALL SAUL, THE AFTERPARTY, JURY DUTY, PARTY DOWN, WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS, THE CROWN, THE HANDMAID'S TALE....

Don't know how to break it to you, Don, but the number you're looking for is 80 or 85, not 60.
Maybe it's higher. Lets the say the older you get the more simplistic you want things to be. Turn on the TV and not have to find the input, or look for the Sat Radio in the car.
 
I appreciate good broadcast writing. What I'm referring to is writing by TV people that's thrown onto station websites practically raw, as in the two examples I've attached, which are strewn with police jargon, unnatural phrasing and unnecessary verbiage. But that's most likely a product of the removal of editors -- especially editors concerned with language -- from the news process. As a copy editor, I dealt with a few reporters who turned in copy like this, almost always while covering the police/fire beat.



I think I know what's going on there. TV stations have never quite figured out how to monetize their websites---broadcast dollars vs digital dimes. A lot of them either use interns to post stuff like that---often just copy-and-pastes of official news releases. Those that do have a dedicated web person tend to pay them poorly compared to the rest of staff, because there's a very limited return.

I worked for Scripps 14 years ago when there was a huge investment in the web division. In fact, I believe our lead web guy wound up being News Director after I left. It's not like that anymore, and I doubt anyone writing copy for air wrote those two stories.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom