• 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

KPCC Rebrands as LAist 89.3

Weiserguy said:
It's a question of proportion, Mike. Using your example, there are trans kids, but they are not, by any means, the majority of kids in the current (or any) cohort. But if I am to go by the number of stories I see or hear, the coverage verses the true size of the problem, "trans" has become a major problem in this country. The treatment of trans kids (or trans adults) is real, but coverage of it needs to be in some rough proportion to the actual size of the actual problem, and I think a lot of the pushback comes from the feeling that this is not anywhere as big as problem as some media attempts to make it seem, and that it's being shoved down everyone else's throat.
Click to expand...

Is it a “problem”, though?

As with gays and Blacks and Jews (and a hundred years ago, the Irish) isn’t the story not so much that trans people exist or in what numbers but the challenges they face in a country where supposedly all are created equal?

Do we really do a re-set so that mainstream journalism speaks only to the concerns of white middle-class or wealthy heterosexual cisgender people born in the U.S.?
 
Weiserguy said:
I think a lot of the pushback comes from the feeling that this is not anywhere as big as problem as some media attempts to make it seem, and that it's being shoved down everyone else's throat.
Click to expand...

Except that state legislatures are the ones blowing it out of proportion, by passing unconstitutional laws targeting them.

This is not a problem caused by the media, but by religious-based politicians who are legislating morality.
 
Weiserguy said:
It's a question of proportion, Mike. Using your example, there are trans kids, but they are not, by any means, the majority of kids in the current (or any) cohort. But if I am to go by the number of stories I see or hear, the coverage verses the true size of the problem, "trans" has become a major problem in this country. The treatment of trans kids (or trans adults) is real, but coverage of it needs to be in some rough proportion to the actual size of the actual problem, and I think a lot of the pushback comes from the feeling that this is not anywhere as big as problem as some media attempts to make it seem, and that it's being shoved down everyone else's throat.
Click to expand...
Go talk to the politicians who are attempting to exploit the issue for their own gain. Exhibit A: That so-called education commissioner in Oklahoma. Exhibit B: Pretty much the entire Republican political establishment in Iowa. They are picking on far less powerful people struggling with real problems. Why is that not a story?
 
michael hagerty said:
Is it a “problem”, though?

As with gays and Blacks and Jews (and a hundred years ago, the Irish) isn’t the story not so much that trans people exist or in what numbers but the challenges they face in a country where supposedly all are created equal?

Do we really do a re-set so that mainstream journalism speaks only to the concerns of white middle-class or wealthy heterosexual cisgender people born in the U.S.?
Click to expand...
I use the word "problem" as a catch-all for all this controversy. Not everything is a problem, but if the "journalist" doesn't have a problem, s/he doesn't have the foundation for a story. The "hook", if you will.

Again, proportionality. If you are gay, you want "your" media to blanket-cover stories of interest to you and your community (and the most important of them being picked up by the general media to inform everyone else). Same if you are trans, or Black, of or Latino, or Jewish, or Irish, or whomever. But that's special-interest media. I don't follow the Irish* press, and I doubt you follow the Jewish press. But neither of us would feel comfortable if the NY Times or WaPo devoted a disproportionately high number of column inches to the internal problems of either community, to the point that everyone else felt our problems were being rammed down their throats. That is a prescription for backlash, just like we're currently seeing from some of those white middle-class wealthy heterosexual cisgender native-born Americans you alluded to.

(* I made an assumption here for illustration purposes; no offense intended if I've guessed incorrectly.)
 
Getting back to the DCist story, I was wondering exactly what was at stake here. In other words, how much did it cost to buy DCist in the first place? Apparently the funding came from two anonymous donations:

www.washingtonian.com

WAMU Buys DCist - Washingtonian

The DC-area public broadcaster WAMU has acquired the assets of local-news site DCist, which abruptly shut down last November. It intends to begin operating the publication anew at some point this spring, separately from the station's main newsroom at first but with plans to integrate the...
www.washingtonian.com www.washingtonian.com

In reading the article, at the time, the staffing was just 3 people. By the time they shut it down, it was up to 15. That could be part of the problem.
 
TheBigA said:
Getting back to the DCist story, I was wondering exactly what was at stake here. In other words, how much did it cost to buy DCist in the first place? Apparently the funding came from two anonymous donations:

www.washingtonian.com

WAMU Buys DCist - Washingtonian

The DC-area public broadcaster WAMU has acquired the assets of local-news site DCist, which abruptly shut down last November. It intends to begin operating the publication anew at some point this spring, separately from the station's main newsroom at first but with plans to integrate the...
www.washingtonian.com www.washingtonian.com

In reading the article, at the time, the staffing was just 3 people. By the time they shut it down, it was up to 15. That could be part of the problem.
Click to expand...
When you're sloshing around in money, it takes a lot of self-control not to waste it on frivolous purchases.
 
Weiserguy said:
When you're sloshing around in money, it takes a lot of self-control not to waste it on frivolous purchases.
Click to expand...

That's kind of inherent in the operation of a non-profit. You have to spend all revenue. But it could also have been caused by the union.

The reason DCist shut down the first time was because the staff wanted to unionize. Once combined with WAMU, they did.
 
Weiserguy said:
I use the word "problem" as a catch-all for all this controversy. Not everything is a problem, but if the "journalist" doesn't have a problem, s/he doesn't have the foundation for a story. The "hook", if you will.

Again, proportionality. If you are gay, you want "your" media to blanket-cover stories of interest to you and your community (and the most important of them being picked up by the general media to inform everyone else). Same if you are trans, or Black, of or Latino, or Jewish, or Irish, or whomever. But that's special-interest media. I don't follow the Irish* press, and I doubt you follow the Jewish press. But neither of us would feel comfortable if the NY Times or WaPo devoted a disproportionately high number of column inches to the internal problems of either community, to the point that everyone else felt our problems were being rammed down their throats. That is a prescription for backlash, just like we're currently seeing from some of those white middle-class wealthy heterosexual cisgender native-born Americans you alluded to.
Click to expand...
Not buying it.

If a governmental body is targeting a group of people for adverse action, it would be an absolute dereliction of journalistic duty to not cover that targeted group. It's a story.

In Denver, the migrant story is a constant. There's a reason for that. Texas is targeting Denver because it declared itself a sanctuary city several years ago, and that state's cynical governor is using it as a dumping ground in order to raise his own political profile. It's not comfortable to hear about. The city has already spent so much money on accommodating the new arrivals that budget cuts are being made to city services. What if the local media decided not to cover it? Would it make the migrants with squeegees at Colfax & Colorado go away? Would it make the need for housing go away? Again, it's a story. Even KOA tries to halfway cover it.
 
Weiserguy said:
I use the word "problem" as a catch-all for all this controversy. Not everything is a problem, but if the "journalist" doesn't have a problem, s/he doesn't have the foundation for a story. The "hook", if you will.

Again, proportionality. If you are gay, you want "your" media to blanket-cover stories of interest to you and your community (and the most important of them being picked up by the general media to inform everyone else). Same if you are trans, or Black, of or Latino, or Jewish, or Irish, or whomever. But that's special-interest media. I don't follow the Irish* press, and I doubt you follow the Jewish press.
Click to expand...

You and I appear to have different definitions of “community”. Mine includes all those people as Americans with whom I share not just a land, but rights and protections. If any of them get fewer of those rights and protections than I do, then something’s wrong, and that’s news.

Weiserguy said:
But neither of us would feel comfortable if the NY Times or WaPo devoted a disproportionately high number of column inches to the internal problems of either community, to the point that everyone else felt our problems were being rammed down their throats.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t feel the least bit uncomfortable. Newspapers have never been stories that are all about people just like me, and I’ve always been free to not read a story that doesn’t interest me—-or more likely, stop reading after I’ve decided it doesn’t interest me. I’ve actually learned a lot from stories I began reading with low expectations.

Weiserguy said:
That is a prescription for backlash, just like we're currently seeing from some of those white middle-class wealthy heterosexual cisgender native-born Americans you alluded to.
Click to expand...

You could have made the same argument against coverage of slavery, anti-semitism, the Civil Rights movement, gay rights and several other important issues directly affecting people entitled to equal treatment under law.

If you’re suggesting that “backlash” is justifiable when the news covers a story Ward and June Cleaver would rather not read, that’s a lousy argument in a pluralistic society.
 
michael hagerty said:
I’m gonna stun everyone and (largely) agree with Flip.

A lot of that list is content, not journalism, and disposable content at that.

Having checked the stories, though, the Proud Boys baptism piece is a solid story about the current wave of Christian Nationalism.
Nex Benedict died after a beating at school and it appears the school may have failed to render adequate aid before sending them home to die.
Five major oil companies are reporting record profits because of price hikes in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Solid story, click-bait headline.
I can’t imagine what it must be like to be a queer Palestinian in exile, but the story is again pretty solid.

Bedside lamps? Edibles? Soup dumplings? Those are product pieces, not journalism. And how to get a drug that’s not legal anywhere in America for free is just irresponsible journalism that could get your readers arrested for possession.

Vice was clearly aiming at readers younger than Flip and I (I’m thinking 35 and under). What they failed to understand is that the clickbait stuff would eventually brand them as lightweight and non-essential even among their target audience.
Click to expand...

The way you summarized those first four articles are much more appealing to me than their gross clickbait-y headlines. I would never click anything with those headlines but would consider reading those four stories. I'm over 35 year old for the record.
 
Weiserguy said:
The treatment of trans kids (or trans adults) is real, but coverage of it needs to be in some rough proportion to the actual size of the actual problem, and I think a lot of the pushback comes from the feeling that this is not anywhere as big as problem as some media attempts to make it seem, and that it's being shoved down everyone else's throat.
Click to expand...
Which is why so many traditional-media news listeners (and viewers) are voting with their off buttons. And that obviously reduces ad revenue. Stations should follow the advice of the old cliche: if you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging.
 
Signal Geek said:
Which is why so many traditional-media news listeners (and viewers) are voting with their off buttons. And that obviously reduces ad revenue. Stations should follow the advice of the old cliche: if you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do is stop digging.
Click to expand...
If you want to be ignorant and badly informed, that's your business, but don't drag the rest of us down to that level.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom