We’re seeing saturation of information going on and plenty of free product to chose from. Unfortunately IMHO, good integrity based journalism is getting kicked in the shorts.
-
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
LAist faces a budget shortfall in the next 2 years between $4-5 million
- Thread starter DarrenVision
- Start date
Maybe so, but a lot of exceedingly biased advocates who cloak themselves in the veneer of journalism are getting exactly what they deserve. Either deliver a fair and balanced product to your audience, or make sure you are preaching to your own personal choir, but you can't do both.
Who is the judge of what is ''fair & balanced?''
Nobody is LAist or KPCC is complaining about this situation. They're simply reacting and adjusting to the budgetary realities, the same way commercial music stations are.
The market. These are matket responses to market conditions. I join them in not complaining about it.
What we see is that people want content, news and otherwise, for free. The LA Times has a paywall, and they've been laying off staff as well.
The other complaint from radio listeners is the number of commercials on music stations. If listeners don't want commercials, there's non-commercial radio. But if people don't donate to non-commercial radio, there's no choice other than cut back on expenses and staffing.
Again, no complaints. Market working as intended.
We used to pay for the LA Times. Their news coverage has always been subpar, but we paid for the decent sports page. When that went away about 20 years ago, we stopped subscribing period. Virtually nothing worth paying for. As you can see, we are not the only ones.
But my point is that the cutbacks have nothing to do with bias or anything like that, because they're affecting everyone, including those who don't do news.
With logic like that the cuts will just keep on coming.
At some point self-awareness on the part of these organizations will kick in, but not for a good while yet. In the meantime, keep rockin' in the free world.
I'm just making an observation. Not saying they share my view. They may stop covering politics completely if it affects their fundraising.
Cutting political coverage in an election year could be problematic.
Just announced: A new CEO for LAist:
www.insideradio.com
The previous one is retiring.
Southern California Public Radio Recruits Alejandra Santamaria As President/CEO.
Alejandra Santamaria has been named President/CEO of non-commercial news/talk “LAist” KPCC Los Angeles and Southern California Public Radio, which operates the radio station, the LAist.com website, and the podcast division
The previous one is retiring.
My recommendation for her first task is to carefully review and revise the budget (See my detailed analysis of their financials at the top of this thread).Just announced: A new CEO for LAist:
Southern California Public Radio Recruits Alejandra Santamaria As President/CEO.
Alejandra Santamaria has been named President/CEO of non-commercial news/talk “LAist” KPCC Los Angeles and Southern California Public Radio, which operates the radio station, the LAist.com website, and the podcast division
The previous one is retiring.
Here's what you said:
BTW That follows similar drops in underwriting at other public stations. In other words, the members still renew.
When I saw her resume, I think what she brings is a connection to the LA business community, which is something they will need to improve underwriting. She seems to be a traditional sales person, which is what this station needs.
Very stealthy editing there. I clearly identified the problem as being one of out-of-control costs, not revenue.
Sorry I missed that. Yes you did:
I would bet that, coming from the commercial media world, she isn't used to seeing budgets that big for a company that doesn't own a TV station.
I wonder if these layoffs were done with the expectation of her being hired as CEO.
My take is that it's fine to increase expenses when revenues are going up. Since revenues aren't going up, then it's time to cut costs. Which is what they're doing. I would think she'd want to work on the revenue side, since that's what her salary will be based on.
It's a poor name. Even without the "-ist" issue, they've named a station whose programming is mostly national after a city. If I tune to something called LAist, I'd expect to hear something about LA, not ATC or BBC World News.
- Status