• 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 radio news relevant in today's changing environment?

With the proliferation of formats, there is less demand for everyone to have a news department. Very few want 5 minute top of the hour newscasts every hour on the Smooth Jazz or rock station.<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>
 
> Check out this study on radio news/journalism, courtesy of
> the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
>
http://www.stat> eofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_radio_intro.asp?cat=1&media=8
>
>
> Especially pay attention to these sections:
>
http://www.stateofthemed> ia.org/2005/narrative_radio_newsinvestment.asp?cat=6&media=8
>
>
http://www.state> ofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_radio_guest.asp?media=8&cat=10
>
>
> Comments? Questions?
>
With the arrival of commercial free satellite radio, some local radio stations would be wise to resume real radio news. Full service AC anyone? If you have an HD signal, why not put a service heavy version of your adult station on one channel, and a music intensive version on the other?
 
> With the proliferation of formats, there is less demand for
> everyone to have a news department. Very few want 5 minute
> top of the hour newscasts every hour on the Smooth Jazz or
> rock station.
>

Yeah, but what's going to happen when HD Radio takes off within the next 5-10 years?
 
> With the arrival of commercial free satellite radio, some
> local radio stations would be wise to resume real radio
> news. Full service AC anyone? If you have an HD signal, why
> not put a service heavy version of your adult station on one
> channel, and a music intensive version on the other?
>

Why not? Maybe it'll give the Clear Channel's of the world a chance to use common sense for once, and not fall back on the same old "bottom line" crap. Also, maybe HD Radio will increase the number of jobs for people who want to get radio.
 
If anyone does a news-heavy presentation, it won't be WJR in 1968, it'll be a news channel in conjunction with the market's radio news leader or a TV station. I don't know that anyone would listen to full-service A/C.<P ID="signature">______________
Did the Corinthians ever write back?</P>
 
> If anyone does a news-heavy presentation, it won't be WJR in
> 1968, it'll be a news channel in conjunction with the
> market's radio news leader or a TV station. I don't know
> that anyone would listen to full-service A/C.
>
Well, check out New Jersey 101.5.
True, it is all talk Monday through Friday, but all weekend it plays music with top of the hour news every hour on the hour, traffic and weather several times an hour.
If your market already has a strong all-newser or news-talk station, then the full service presentation would only be of interest in weekday drive times.
However, if your market has pretty much lost its news on the radio, I think a full service AC (with all-talk in some dayparts) would be at least worth a try.
Here's another reason: Getting people who currently listen to FM radio to listen to AM radio is almost impossible. But people 25+ do look for news, whether it's on TV or online. If a news presentation could be developed for the 25-54 audience on FM, why not try that instead of being the third or fourth pop, hip-hop or rock station in the market?
 
> If anyone does a news-heavy presentation, it won't be WJR in
> 1968, it'll be a news channel in conjunction with the
> market's radio news leader or a TV station. I don't know
> that anyone would listen to full-service A/C.

I'd listen to a modern-day equivalent of WJR in 1968. For sure. <P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
 
Not going to say it isn't being done anywhere, but the odds of it succeeding today with all the other choices out there is doubtful. WTPI signed on in Indianapolis in 1985 as a full service A/C (FM version of WIBC at the time) with a full news staff and it never caught on. I have my doubts it would work now. If I want music, I know where to go. If I want news and talk, I also know where to go.<P ID="signature">______________
Did the Corinthians ever write back?</P>
 
> Why not? Maybe it'll give the Clear Channel's of the world
> a chance to use common sense for once, and not fall back on
> the same old "bottom line" crap. Also, maybe HD Radio will
> increase the number of jobs for people who want to get
> radio.

Clear Channel's fixation on "The Bottom Line" is not unique to them, or to radio for that matter. It's a function of being a publicly held company. Note the boss at The LA Times quit about a week ago because he couldn't take the budget cutting anymore.

"The Bottom Line" and Good Radio are compatible. In fact, Good Radio should enhance the bottom line. The problem is that Wall Street doesn't accept long investment horizons unless the company is in what they believe to be in a growth industry ie Google. And to be fair to investors, you could invest for the long term and be wrong. But Clear Channel's bed was made the day they went public. It has nothing to do with current management.

Back to the original point. I would think that with more and more distribution channels opening up, radio needs more investment in content so news departments would be important. This whole "Jack" movement seems to be the opposite of what the doctor ordered. But again, I'd be skittish about investing in content too. Even if I got more listeners, I'd have no confidence in Arbitron to give me credit.

<P ID="signature">______________
<a href="http://saltydog.5gigs.com/myths.html">
The Salty Dog</P>
 
> > With the proliferation of formats, there is less demand
> for
> > everyone to have a news department. Very few want 5 minute
>
> > top of the hour newscasts every hour on the Smooth Jazz or
>
> > rock station.
> >

The biggest threat to radio news is not corporate radio, investors, technology or a proliferation of formats. It's a shrinking audience.
Your typical radio news listener is older. Probably grew up before television news. Definitely grew up before 24 hour news channels. They got their news from the radio...(and newspapers.)

Upcoming generations barely realize there's an AM band. If they want news, they get it from CNN, or the Internet.
What's going to draw them to listening to radio news? I can't think of anything really enticing. Younger radio listeners tend to think of your local AM news/talker as the station their parents and/or grandparents listen to.
Radio used to have an advantage over television in that it was easier to break in to programming to cover a breaking story. But, with CNN and FNC, radio lost that edge.
It used to be easier for us to report "live from the scene." All we had to do was find a pay phone, or later, carry a cell. But with sat trucks and satellite phones...

And as for the supply side of the equation:
Talk to your local college/university. See how many students they have who show an interest in radio news. It's probably dwarfed by the number of tv news students. Who's going to be around to broadcast the news on the radio in 20, 30 years?

Trust me...I'd love to see someone prove I'm wrong.
 
> The biggest threat to radio news is not corporate radio,
> investors, technology or a proliferation of formats. It's a
> shrinking audience.

Agreed. There are so many more choices as far as media now. The only reason people listen to news on the radio is if the listener is on the road, and there's no TV to watch.

> Your typical radio news listener is older. Probably grew
> up before television news. Definitely grew up before 24
> hour news channels. They got their news from the
> radio...(and newspapers.)

Got the facts to back that up?

> Upcoming generations barely realize there's an AM band.
> If they want news, they get it from CNN, or the Internet.
> What's going to draw them to listening to radio news? I
> can't think of anything really enticing. Younger radio
> listeners tend to think of your local AM news/talker as the
> station their parents and/or grandparents listen to.

Maybe HD Radio could draw them as much as maybe a blueprint. Also, I think the only stations that'll do news on the radio will be those in areas where TV reception is lousy.

> Radio used to have an advantage over television in that it
> was easier to break in to programming to cover a breaking
> story. But, with CNN and FNC, radio lost that edge.
> It used to be easier for us to report "live from the
> scene." All we had to do was find a pay phone, or later,
> carry a cell. But with sat trucks and satellite phones...
>

I hate to say this, but you can't get CNN and FNC in your car. Not unless you have satellite radio.

> And as for the supply side of the equation:
> Talk to your local college/university. See how many
> students they have who show an interest in radio news. It's
> probably dwarfed by the number of tv news students. Who's
> going to be around to broadcast the news on the radio in 20,
> 30 years?

I definitely agree on that point. How many broadcast majors in college even have an interest in radio these days, period?

Trust me...I'd love to see someone prove I'm wrong.
>
Same here.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 08/05/05 02:06 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> The biggest threat to radio news is not corporate radio,
> investors, technology or a proliferation of formats. It's a
> shrinking audience.
> Your typical radio news listener is older. Probably grew
> up before television news. Definitely grew up before 24
> hour news channels. They got their news from the
> radio...(and newspapers.)
>
> Upcoming generations barely realize there's an AM band.
> If they want news, they get it from CNN, or the Internet.

Fox more than CNN these days, but many of them don't really seem to be interested in news at all.

> What's going to draw them to listening to radio news? I
> can't think of anything really enticing. Younger radio
> listeners tend to think of your local AM news/talker as the
> station their parents and/or grandparents listen to.

Sports talk is bringing younger listeners to AM, but other than headlines,
there isn't much news on most sports stations.

> Radio used to have an advantage over television in that it
> was easier to break in to programming to cover a breaking
> story. But, with CNN and FNC, radio lost that edge.

And with reduced radio staffs, there often isn't anyone around to go the scene.

> It used to be easier for us to report "live from the
> scene." All we had to do was find a pay phone, or later,
> carry a cell. But with sat trucks and satellite phones...
>
> And as for the supply side of the equation:
> Talk to your local college/university. See how many
> students they have who show an interest in radio news. It's
> probably dwarfed by the number of tv news students. Who's
> going to be around to broadcast the news on the radio in 20,
> 30 years?
>
Our local small university has a 6kw commercial FM running an alternative format with quite a few students as DJs. But almost none of them are interested in radio as a career, much less news. They actually did away with their radio classes due to lack of interest, although the TV and print classes continue.

At least at our small market station, the new dj hires in recent years got into radio because of their desire to do play-by-play. Little interest in news, which some of them look at only as a necessary evil for our stations. Yet news outbills any other single program element. There is still a demand for radio news in small markets where there's no local TV station. But not much anywhere else.



> Trust me...I'd love to see someone prove I'm wrong.
>
 
> And as for the supply side of the equation:
> Talk to your local college/university. See how many
> students they have who show an interest in radio news. It's
> probably dwarfed by the number of tv news students. Who's
> going to be around to broadcast the news on the radio in 20,
> 30 years?
>
> Trust me...I'd love to see someone prove I'm wrong.

Well... at my university (no I am not in that department) they don't do degrees in Radio or TV. They do a degree in Journalism and Mass Communication. They give radio and TV equal weight in their course. Of course, students want to be on TV more than radio - who wouldn't?

The way forward is for a merging of the media. The BBC already does this, as its TV news reporters often do a separate report for radio and it gets transcribed for the website as well. Depending on the news item, they are often repeating themselves, reporting to different BBC arms - BBC 1 news, News 24, BBC World TV news, Radio 4 & Five Live, BBC Local Radio and BBC World Service. If radio news is to expand locally, expect to see it being ran by the news operation of a local or national TV station.

Mark.
 
As we all know news is the most expensive format there is. And with the number of stations looking at the bottom line I for one don’t see an increase in the number of radio operations offering more local news in the future. If anything some stations currently offering news might cut back even further by either having their morning team read headlines out of the paper, or have some service, like Metro Network, do the same thing.

Remember it’s not just salaries that company pencil-pushers look at. It’s health care and medical insurance and, if they provide it, retirement plans. Also don’t forget vacation and sick time.

Another factor to consider is that at stations that do provide news, most reporters and anchors’ average in age somewhere in their 40s of 50s because younger people are not interested in a career in radio news, unless one can hook up with a public radio station and then, most of the time, you end up working for peanuts. Who can blame a college graduate, having to pay off student loans, for refusing a job that averages $18,000 to $20,000 a year?

What is the future of radio news? I have no idea. But from what I’ve experienced in the 30 years I was in the business I have to be a realist and say I just don’t see a resurgence forthcoming. The days of a number of radio stations offering local news 24/7 are over. Competition for news has been replaced with improving the bottom line. And what is even sadder is I don’t think the listening audience cares anymore.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
 
> The way forward is for a merging of the media. The BBC
> already does this, as its TV news reporters often do a
> separate report for radio and it gets transcribed for the
> website as well. Depending on the news item, they are often
> repeating themselves, reporting to different BBC arms - BBC
> 1 news, News 24, BBC World TV news, Radio 4 & Five Live, BBC
> Local Radio and BBC World Service. If radio news is to
> expand locally, expect to see it being ran by the news
> operation of a local or national TV station.
>
> Mark.
>

As much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right. In fact, it's already happening in several markets. In two Georgia markets, Cumulus has an agreement to share news from two separate TV stations, while in another, Clear Channel has a deal with an ABC affiliate. Still, it's all about the bottom line, and not about the average listener.
 
> As we all know news is the most expensive format there is.
> And with the number of stations looking at the bottom line I
> for one don’t see an increase in the number of radio
> operations offering more local news in the future. If
> anything some stations currently offering news might cut
> back even further by either having their morning team read
> headlines out of the paper, or have some service, like Metro
> Network, do the same thing.

That's how a lot of news goes on the air these days. Just simply rewrite what was printed in yesterday's paper.


> Remember it’s not just salaries that company pencil-pushers
> look at. It’s health care and medical insurance and, if they
> provide it, retirement plans. Also don’t forget vacation and
> sick time.

Obviously, that has to be a factor in the lower salaries among radio news people. Apparently, there must be only so much money in the budget to go around.

> Another factor to consider is that at stations that do
> provide news, most reporters and anchors’ average in age
> somewhere in their 40s of 50s because younger people are not
> interested in a career in radio news, unless one can hook up
> with a public radio station and then, most of the time, you
> end up working for peanuts. Who can blame a college
> graduate, having to pay off student loans, for refusing a
> job that averages $18,000 to $20,000 a year?

That explains why a lot of news directors at certain stations stick around for 10 years or more, with almost no turnover within that span. After all, what's the use of being the news director at a "hometown" radio station when you can barely pay your rent, or even buy groceries, much less pay back student loans.


> What is the future of radio news? I have no idea. But from
> what I’ve experienced in the 30 years I was in the business
> I have to be a realist and say I just don’t see a resurgence
> forthcoming. The days of a number of radio stations offering
> local news 24/7 are over. Competition for news has been
> replaced with improving the bottom line. And what is even
> sadder is I don’t think the listening audience cares
> anymore.

Agreed. If it weren't for the "bottom line", i.e., the desire to please every Tom, Dick, and Harry on Wall Street, terrestrial commercial radio's outlook wouldn't be as bleak as it is now.
 
> Competition for news has been replaced with improving the bottom line. And what > is even sadder is I don’t think the listening audience cares anymore.

I think you made several good points but your conclusion seems to be worded a bit backwards.

If the listening audience cared, then it would be good for the bottom line.
Maybe not good enough to justify the investment, but better nonetheless.

I really don't believe the downturn in radio news was driven by anything so much as the lack of sufficient listener interest & accompanying advertiser interest. Absent those, any format/programming element becomes a questionable decision at best, a station killer at worst.
 
> And as for the supply side of the equation:
> Talk to your local college/university. See how many
> students they have who show an interest in radio news. It's
> probably dwarfed by the number of tv news students. Who's
> going to be around to broadcast the news on the radio in 20,
> 30 years?


As a Gen Xer, and someone who currently works for a radio news provider, I think Gen Xers, are interested in radio news - but just not "mainstream stenography-type news" - they find this stenography boring, for good reason!

I have worked in college and noncommercial radio in the past, and I find my generation is very intersted in sports news, liberal and conservative news and talk, and investigative journalism. When I worked for the college radio station a few years ago - sports news was very popular and time slots were competitive.

In addition, news/talk programs on both sides of the equation were popular at the college radio station - the "liberal" students had a news show and a talk show. Similarly, some "conservative" students had a news/talk show.

Currently, I work for a radio news provider - and 9/10 ths of our workforce are 30 and under, excluding our Executive Director - only one producer is not in Generation X.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom