They don't have to run the stations to get their content on those stations.
NPR is an independent company. VOA is owned by the government. Two different things. The president doesn't pick the CEO of NPR. He just picked the CEO of USAGM.
-
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
Kari Lake previews her plans for Voice of America in the next Administration.
- Thread starter Bill Betten
- Start date
They don't have to run the stations to get their content on those stations.
NPR is an independent company. VOA is owned by the government. Two different things. The president doesn't pick the CEO of NPR. He just picked the CEO of USAGM.
In any case, the whole VOA system is set up to provide content about the US to the world. It is not structured in any way to cover anything local. Changing the entire infrastructure would take the better part of a 4-year term.
And the Trump campaign demonstrated that they are not very interested in OTA radio and TV.
That is why I said "intervene".
That's what I foresee VOA will do. They will offer their version of Sputnik to US radio stations, and there are a lot of boat anchor AMs that will run it.
They don't have to "cover anything local." There are news services in this country right now that have no local reporters, and simply report stories they see on the internet. The reason you hire someone like Kari Lake is she's actually worked in commercial news and knows how to do it so it looks and sounds like commercial news.
The way things are set up, it's very easy to completely change the direction of VOA. They've been thinking about it for four years. They have a blueprint in Project 2025.
Last edited:
Of course, because it's never been used by the government towards its own people. My view is that is about to change.
We have an administration that understands the media. The man in change was a reality TV star. He knows how to manipulate. Get ready to see him in action.
A couple of things:
One of the reason NBC's NIS failed was the impracticality of trying to run a wall-to-wall network on the same single telco circuit that fed regular NBC (non-NIS) affiliates. There were other reasons, as well, but operationally it was a night mare.
VOA could just make news bites available for stations to download. There are probably a good number of stations that would happily repeat Trump's or the GOP's stuff.
One of the reason NBC's NIS failed was the impracticality of trying to run a wall-to-wall network on the same single telco circuit that fed regular NBC (non-NIS) affiliates. There were other reasons, as well, but operationally it was a night mare.
VOA could just make news bites available for stations to download. There are probably a good number of stations that would happily repeat Trump's or the GOP's stuff.
Especially if it's free and without any commercial inventory. Paid for by the taxpayers, who have no say in its content.
... most of which nobody listens to. I think the Trump advisors who steered his campaign away from traditional media would say "waste of time".
If that was true, why did he do interviews with every fleabag AM radio talk show host in the country? But he didn't spend money on them. Instead the campaign connected the stations with sympathetic sponsors who would pay them for the time. The stars NEVER pay for anything using their own money. They make appearances that attract money from other sources. That's what you get when a celebrity runs for political office. Now that he's president, he can use taxpayer money to promote himself. They've had four years to plan this. That's why he's able to do everything quickly.
He already controls Twitter and Truth. Now he will make them government contractors. Musk already knows how to do that.
He was a reality TV star, but (from my understanding) he was not the brains behind the show, and despite producer credit, he was saved by the editors who took the chaos and made it presentable. I knew someone who was on the show and she said the version that hit the air was quite a bit different from what happened.
Does he know how to manipulate? Yes. He knows what moves the needle, which is why he's sometimes all over the place (like trying to ban TikTok and now trying to "save" it), and he does surround himself with people who know how to grift. Carnival barkers is the closest analogy I can think of.
While I don't think the VOA is the vessel of choice (for reasons that have other been covered) but be prepared for the full force of the federal government to be used to flood the airwaves and intertubes with propaganda that will make Pravda look like a bunch of pikers.
With the myriad of other apps, websites, podcasts and yes, even radio stations...who's going to be "forced" into listening to this even if it does happen? Especially if it's conservative/right wing stuff. There's plenty of that already and if moderate voters aren't listening to it now, why would they all of a sudden be converted? We certainly know the liberals won't listen to it. A bigger question is why the left has, with very few exceptions and NPR, failed at talk radio? Probably because you're only going to get a limited audience/TSL when all you do every day is bash the other side. What happened to each side presenting their ideas and trying to win the public to their view? And I'm not at all defending this or any other previous administrations. Both sides have been pushing their agenda in various media sources and it's been going on ever since the 24 hour news cycle and talk radio boom began.
Nobody. That's not the point. Nobody is "forced" to listen to anything. They willingly listen to crap all the time.
That's not what they're going to do. They have leverage over all commercial media with the FCC. They have leverage over public radio with CPB. They now control the federal government, and they have a well-thought-out plan. Anyone who isn't on board will be shown to be corrupt and fake. What happens when everyone rolls over the way Facebook and Amazon did last week? Don't say you weren't warned.
His people were ahead of the game on the shift from traditional media. Trump credits his young son Barron for opening his eyes to the popularity and power of podcasts. Look for the administration to fully explore and exploit that medium. For a party and movement that are reactionary, they have been visionary when it comes to getting their message out.
The BBC World Service is constantly promoting their various podcasts, so at least they understand where new media is going as their shortwave output continues to be reduced.
For the millionth time, NPR isn’t “left”. It aims to be down the middle and gets excoriated by people on both sides so I’d say it generally meets that aim.
When you believe in facts, not propaganda, and you attempt to present those facts to other fair-minded news consumers, the people who have an agenda work overtime to discredit you because you don't fit in with their plans for domination. In fact, you become an active threat to those folks and you must be neutralized. Just ask any current or former resident of an authoritarian regime, regardless of whether it's "left" or "right" wing.
(Care to weigh in, David?)
(Care to weigh in, David?)
I think a source of confusion is the presence of decidedly liberal/progressive programs like "Democracy Now!" on stations that also take NPR programming. Uninformed listeners don't notice the source of the programs they hear and just assume they all are produced by NPR and reflect NPR's "bias."
Why bother to feed VOA to local audiences? Aside from it being illegal (as David has already noted), it would also be redundant. Because its not as if there aren't already a zillion outlets in the U.S. who are feeding right-wing and pro-Trump propaganda to those who wish to consume such stuff.
No, I expect that the goal is to sell this stuff to people in other countries. Since it will likely be quite heavy-handed, the only likely impact is that it will kill the credibility of VOA, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to counter propaganda from countries such as Russia.
NPR is not "liberal talk radio."
Most liberals I know find it smart, good at news, but not really "entertainment" in the way people often use talk radio.
As to a limited audience with only bashing one side all day...might I introduce you to pretty much all of talk radio for the past few decades. And it's practically all conservative, so you answered your own question. That worked, as liberal hosts either retired or got canned, they didn't hire or develop new liberal talent.
(yes, they tried with Air America, there were a myriad of issues there - lack of actual talent development, the demand that affiliates carry the entire schedule, and the financial mismanagement.)
Emmis tried to plan for the post-Limbaugh era by developing local hosts that were more centrist to left, they had a very successful one in Jeff Ward (who actually wasn't a liberal, just a no nonsense libertarian who didn't buy the hot air) and Dale Dudley who started to gain traction in his time slot, and was even asked to consider expanding his show, before he kind of imploded for personal reasons and didn't want to keep doing it) and then, Sinclair and Waterloo took over and basically made all the non-Trump fans in the building shut up about politics.
So now they're riding that conservative talk horse till it faints. I know some of it was business, some of it was money, but some of it was bias. Why would you want to develop local hosts that would question the conservatives when Fox News has proven that the audience wants a steady diet of their own views? They're not coming to the church to be convicted, they're coming for the pep rally. Even Fox took fire for daring to have Shepherd Smith and Chris Wallace not toe the line. There's too many headaches and not enough guaranteed revenue in an uncertain time so this is what we get.
Personally, I loved the format in the 90s when you'd get conservatives, libertarians and liberals, all bouncing off of each other and taking calls, doing lively radio. WLS, WSB, KFI, they all did this. But times change and consolidation happened, and frankly, businesses are ultimately conservative. If it's a risk, it costs money and you're catching heat from the audience for daring to have someone on air even questioning Trump (Ask Joe Walsh and Michael Medved how welcome they are at Salem) then why would you do it just to give someone airtime who's going to want to raise your taxes and have businesses regulated? There's nothing in it for them.
I respect what Charlamagne does a lot, but he's a general show on a music station, not a daily current events political show. And he's in a format that has a tradition of taking on community issues in a way that your average classic rocker or country outlet doesn't. So it works there.
But for talk, you're basically left with:
1. Conservative talk (most AM (and FM) talk outlets)
2. NPR (center to vaguely culturally left and ultra proper, not really entertainment)
3. Podcasts and streaming (if you're liberal or non-Trump conservative)
The existence of a daily, entertainment first (think Jon Stewart) live talk radio show hosted by a liberal who isn't too "proper" on commercial radio, to my knowledge does not exist on commercial radio in the United States at any significant scale or rating. Sure, Stephanie Miller is still on a few stations but the days of Jay Marvin, Mike Malloy, and others are done. I'm a fan of KMBZ in Kansas City, and used to enjoy their afternoon team bantering on current events. Dana Wright was the liberal, Scott Parks was a non-Trump old school Republican. They got so sick of the hate texts and calls they leaned into local and are doing fine, but their insights and friendly but spirited debate on current politics was enjoyable. If I want "liberal" talk that isn't prim and proper, I have to tune into LBC in London and get it from James O'Brien who isn't afraid to take on callers with some bite.