Live now on WBEN

[TheBigA]

The confluence of all these things has led us here, where people of all ilks gather in their own corners, creating and believing their own "facts", truth be damned. Our information institutions are still THE most trustworthy, but there's a whole faction of voters that now use confirmation bias as their rule of thumb.

I believe it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better. The people have to recognize that this is a problem first, and from what I've seen, they don't think it is yet. This problem is way bigger than radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The media is not immune from criticism. Most media no longer has reporters, they have "story-tellers". We have "news personalities", who seek to offer "context" - which used to be known as bias. We have media owners who have a point of view - not unlike Horace Greeley or William Randolph Hearst. With the "yellow" journalists, it was a once-a-day delivery of slanted outrage. Now, we have a constant barrage - and I can't name a single source of unbiased journalism. EVERYBODY has a "point of view". Fox News is no more slanted toward the right than the New York Times - yes, the great "Grey Lady" - is biased to the left according to most media bias rankings.

To get the "real" picture, you have to take more than one source into account, and draw conclusions based on the facts you can glean from multiple sources. That takes work, and an educated populace willing to consider "inconvenient" truths. As we've seen here, some people are unwilling to do the work, or consider any point of view other than their own preconceived notions. What information they have is constantly reinforced by a barrage of blather from the same political point of view. The chamber echoes with multiple voices all saying the same thing - so it must be true.

So, what does radio do? It services a particular audience with a particular point of view in order to gather numbers it can sell to advertisers. If you can get the right 10% of the audience to listen, you're a media powerhouse. 90% of the audience or more may think you're spewing bilge (some listen just to "know the enemy"), but you'll be billing big and selling cemetery and rehab services. Most corporations feel far more responsibility to the stockholders than they do to the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

Each generation believes less and less in "mainstream media". You've seen the videos. Young people not only don't know history, they don't care. They simply don't believe anything outside of their personal experience. They're a lot less interested in the "why" and "how" than they are promises of "free tuition" or "loan forgiveness."

As Pogo said (for those of you old enough to remember the old possum), "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

 

[TheBigA]

Most corporations feel far more responsibility to the stockholders than they do to the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

The phrase "public interest, convenience, and necessity" was used by the government in all public utilities, such as gas, electric, and water. If the public paid for radio in the way it pays for those utilities, then owners would cater to the customers. That's not the system that ultimately was created. Somebody has to pay for free media. Those who pay get what they want. That's the system.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Radio owners determine how customers pay for their services, not the government. The phrase "public interest, convenience, and necessity" refers to the right of way that is extended to public utilities - just as the airwaves are licensed to broadcasters. You're right - somebody has to pay for free media. The system in place has advertisers pay for access to an audience. Without the audience, there's no value. When you cease to deliver content that interests people, advertisers will go where that audience is. Noticed the shift of ad dollars to digital media? Guess where advertisers think that the audience is - or at least where the best bang for their buck is? Whether they're right or wrong doesn't matter. What "those who pay" want is an audience engaged enough to hear their message. Advertisers - and investors - aren't betting on radio these days.

 

[TheBigA]

Guess where advertisers think that the audience is - or at least where the best bang for their buck is? Whether they're right or wrong doesn't matter. What "those who pay" want is an audience engaged enough to hear their message. Advertisers - and investors - aren't betting on radio these days.

It depends. Internet advertising is a fraction of on-air advertising, as you yourself have said. Internet radio is unable to sustain itself through advertising. Pandora is over $100 million in debt right now, Spotify has delayed its IPO several times, and royalty rates have been going up steadily, making streaming very unprofitable. OTA radio as an industry is far more stable than internet. CBS Radio will be doing an IPO very soon, and I expect investors to be very excited about that opportunity. OTA radio listening has stayed about the same for the past 20 years, and the revenues have stayed stable for the last 6 or 7 years.

Radio IS delivering the content the audience wants to hear. That's why WBEN gets a 9 share. That has nothing to do with "public interest, convenience, and necessity." People listen to WBEN because it's convenient, and because they're interested.

I don't see OTA or the internet as a "one or the other" thing. Radio stations are very involved in the internet. You only have to look at what Townsquare is doing to see the synergy. WYRK gets an 11 share in Buffalo, and the Taste of Country website reaches over 1 million page views a month. It's one of the biggest country music web sites in the world. So advertisers get the best of both worlds that way.