• 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

Oops

Lee Rust said:
Our peak years of prosperity and economic surplus in the mid-1960's gave us public radio and TV, but the coming lean years may yet take them away from us unless fundamental operational changes are made. The recent NPR fundraising scandal exposes an organization that is struggling to maintain a high-dollar status-quo even to the extent that ethical standards may have been discarded in pursuit of large donations.
Click to expand...

A bit of perspective here: I think it's very important to note that in the end, ethical standards were not discarded. Even with $5 million being dangled in front of it, NPR did not move forward with accepting the fraudulent donation; PBS, for its part, apparently did its homework even more diligently and cut off the conversation at an earlier point.

How many commercial broadcasters would turn down a $5 million buy, regardless of the source of the money?

At least in regards to broadcasting, the concept of what 'public' means may have to adjust along with everything else, moving on down the dial to a position somewhat further from 'national' and quite a bit closer to 'local'.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 envisioned, anyway. We have had opportunities at several junctures in our nation's broadcast history to create a national public broadcasting system like the CBC or the BBC, and we have consistently chosen not to go in that direction. The lion's share of CPB money goes to local stations, each of which has its own local leadership and the freedom to decide on its own programming and business policies. On the TV side, nearly all the programming seen on public television still enters the system under the auspices of local stations. On the radio side, more national programming has evolved (but again, at the behest of and with the strong support of those local stations). But at its base, it's still a local system, and very different in that respect from the "state" broadcasters found in most other nations.
 
I don't see, Bob, how simply providing cold numbers is a cheap shot. Facts are facts. You were making the case that there was not a big audience in Rochester for classical music. I'll concede you didn't say WXXI-FM had 12 listeners. You were referring to past commercial stations where you were involved in format changes. And even then I'm sure you were exaggerating just a bit. But I came away from your post with the understanding that you don't think classical music can compete in the marketplace of radio station formats in Rochester. So, I was simply pointing out that the free marketplace in Rochester would seem to prefer WXXI-FM to WYSL. Agreed, 12+ numbers don't matter. And the fact that your station, licensed outside of the immediate Rochester area in Avon, is getting an 0.8 in the Rochester book is something to be proud of. As I said, I was always pulling for you when I used to read Mark Giardina's postings that he couldn't understand why WYSL wasn't getting a rating in the Rochester book. And now you are. You're providing a service to your listeners and your advertisers. As I read in another thread today, you are a programmer running a radio station. That's a good thing. You know radio programming as opposed to GMs and owners who arrive at their positions from the sales side. I'm just defending public radio here. You talk about letting the free market decide. Well, the Rochester market has spoken here. And they ARE listening to WXXI AM and FM. They find value in the programming. And I'm sorry. You can argue to the contrary. But in reading your various posts both here and in other threads, I have come to the conclusion that you don't find value in or the need for public broadcasting. If I'm wrong in that conclusion, then there is no disagreement between us.
 
The interesting thing to me about this discussion, and I also saw it in the Radio Ink commentary some of you may have received, is the lack of knowledge people have about public broadcasting. Alls they know is they don't want their taxes increased, and cutting this appropriation is a way to lower taxes, they're for it. There's also this misconception that the government somehow controls the programming, which isn't true. What this points out to me is the need for finding a way to help non-members or non-listeners better understand the system. Because I find when people understand why things are, they're less likely to say "no."
 
"we match or exceed the fiscal and audience performance of all market AMs except WHAM"

Ummm, doesn't our 3 share and 75,000 cume on AM 1370 count for something?
 
Miscellany: "how many commercial broadcasters would turn down a $5 million buy?" One would. That would be WYSL, if the money was coming from Muslim extremists.

Phillip: your comment was a cheap shot, and you know it. Nobody was discussing WYSL, and in fact even WXXI is tangential to the discussion, which was really about the viability of specialty formats. And for the Nth time, I'm not denigrating WXXI or its programming, so there's no need to "defend public broadcasting" (although apparently there is a recent need to "defend NPR.") On the other hand, you are denigrating WYSL....repeatedly. That's not a very good reflection on your arguments. This thread has nothing to do with my station.

Scott: ethical standards weren't discarded? Really? Schiller wasn't the only ranking NPR person present in this ugly episode. Did Betsey Liley, Director of Institutional Giving, speak up and decry Schiller's pandering? Did she try to intercede? Did she get up and walk away from the table in protest? I didn't see that on the video. I think that unless she can offer evidence that she tried to resist this debacle in tangible terms, she should be fired.

Okay, okay. I've used the 2 wood and the 9 iron on this hornet's nest, and I had better put away the putter and call it a day now, leaving the smoldering ruins of the Buffalo-Rochester board with a jaunty wave. I've done enough damage. Great discussion. Thanks, all, and best wishes!
 
First Mr. Savage, I’ll dissociate myself from any swipes at your station. You have picked your format and, unlike stations owned by the big boys, you execute it as if your heart is in it, which it obviously is. I believe that if all commercial stations were run that way, the commercial sector would not be ailing, it would provide more choice for the audience and who knows, maybe public radio would not be necessary. But that’s not the real world.

You’re entitled to your opinion that there should be no government funding of the media, but that's where we differ. Public broadcasting fills a gaping need which the free market either can't or won't take care of. The feds have historically supported communications, starting with the Post Office which in its early days provided the only network for mass communication. As specifically intended, it played a major part in the growth of an educated and literate populace which solidified the foundations of the nation. For all I know, some people may have objected to the whole idea in principle but, if so, their objections were not significant enough to make it into the history books.

Savage said:
Mass media are the only line of defense we have against government which inexorably moves in shark-like fashion to accumulate intrusive power and oppress the people. If we sell out with our only means of giving the public unfettered opinion and information, we'll live to regret it.
Click to expand...

If there’s any part of our national life that “inexorably moves in shark-like fashion to accumulate intrusive power and oppress the people”, it’s the mega-corporate sector. Right now, we have more and more mass communication channels in fewer and fewer hands providing us with less and less news - as opposed to fluff - and an ever shrinking exposure to a broad spectrum of opinion. We are not even close to the “unfettered opinion and information” that you refer to. Such concentration is a natural consequence of the unfettered free market – or hadn’t you noticed?
 
Y'know Bob, sitting in the jurors box for much of this, I gotta say, tonally and contextually, I didn't take Phil's mention of WYSL's share as a cheap shot. Reading and notating (which although prohibited for jurors in NYS, is acceptable here), it seemed the mention of ratings was simply a broad based comparison not intended to demean or harm the reputation of WYSL, which as most of us know, speaks for itself. Hey! Put down the Big Bertha and come to the 19th hole for a refreshment.
 
Savage said:
I think that unless she can offer evidence that she tried to resist this debacle in tangible terms, she should be fired.
Click to expand...

So this is what we've come to. Someone sees a short video, edited to make a point, and decides, based on that obviously biased presentation, that everyone involved should be fired. This is what happens when we live our lives around reality TV, getting people cast off the island, sent home with nothing, and fired from their job. Where's our humanity?

She was under no obligation to protest. He hung himself. That's fine. There's no requirement that anyone else present must protest, or else be fired. I don't think that would hold up in a court of law.
 
Savage said:
Did Betsey Liley, Director of Institutional Giving, speak up and decry Schiller's pandering?
Click to expand...

Just so you know, the New York Times is reporting that Ms. Liley has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.
 
I'm really getting tired of the spin that has been placed on this whole thing. It is not about whether he took the $5 Million dollars....the real issue here is what he had to say about American citizens he is politically opposed to. I've heard too many people say to me, "I don't know why this is a big deal...nothing he said wasn't true." So I have to ask, "Like what?" Them: "All the Tea Party members are racist!". Me: "Huh?...they are?" Well sure they are because the media said they are, right? Although none of the folks that have made that claim can give me a single instance that could indict an entire group of people, they use the perverbial broad brush to discredit nearly half of the population.

Now believe it or not, although I am a socially conservative individual, I do not want NPR to go down...and I am not opposed to a couple of bucks a year being sent to CPB to keep public media afloat. However, I do expect the folks that constantly harp on us to be inclusive and open-minded practice what they preach.
 
jim 8230 said:
However, I do expect the folks that constantly harp on us to be inclusive and open-minded practice what they preach.
Click to expand...

I think you're giving this person way too much credit. He's an idiot. No one has stepped up to defend him or what he said. Let's just leave it at that.
 
Excellent post, jim 8230.

A footnote for Bob1370: Roberto, I didn't include WXXI-AM in my comparison because even though yours is a commercial FCC authorization (or it was last time I looked) it's run like a noncomm. Norm Silverstein explained to me once that it's an organizational stricture of the Public Broadcasting Council, which prevents you from running "commercials" even though the Commission would let you.

Since "underwriting announcements" aren't precisely the same as paid commercials on private stations, the comparison is a little apples-and-oranges, but if you want to share the numbers for what WXXI 1370 "bills" for paid content, I'll be happy to revise that statement.

Man, I've gotta tell you guys. This morning in the parking lot, I got hit over the head with a Moet and Chandon; I got pelted with Kruggerrands. Then some guy in a Bentley tried to run me down.
You public broadcasting guys get feisty when cornered! ;) :D

Happy day, all! ;D
 
"Man, I've gotta tell you guys. This morning in the parking lot, I got hit over the head with a Moet and Chandon; I got pelted with Kruggerrands. Then some guy in a Bentley tried to run me down. You public broadcasting guys get feisty when cornered!"

Nawww, the folks from over at Clear Channel must have been visiting. Around here, old Chevys are more like it.....
 
Mark_Giardina said:
Being the troublemaker I am, let me add more fuel to this controversial fire with an op-ed written by Juan Williams.
Click to expand...

So that means Juan is now in familiar territory at Fox.
 
Thanks to Mark G. for adding the fuel to the fire.....

Just a quick comment about the Juan Williams article: I was pretty much with him until the dreaded racial aspect came up. I guess he is riding the tide of the over-the-top, "I was fired, passed over for a promotion, arrested, not given a raise, not hired, investigated, etc.....because of the color of my skin!" Come on Juan, that just ruined what little credibilty you had. In 2011 at an outfit like NPR, you almost have to get caught on video committing a murder to get fired. And I will bet NPR had some sort of dossier on this guy anyway...the commentary on Fox was an excuse to let him go legally...without a lawsuit.

He IS right about the intolerance of opposing opinions in this business.....I live it 5 days / 40 hours a week.
 
Well, I'd say it cuts both ways. Imagine being around Beach, Bauerle and 'BEN all day if you're not a fan of guns, gutting unions and the GOP.

And only as a matter of consideration, why has the mainstream media not made mention of James O'Keefe having a criminal record and history of being a serial liar. As Casey Stengel would say, "You can look it up." Instead, we've seen plenty of old ACORN "pimp and Ho" b-roll which O'Keefe heavily and dishonestly edited.

Watching Brian Williams a few nights back, the NBC correspondent also "forgot" to mention that NPR turned down the $5M offer from the scary Muslims and that the NPR fund raiser, Ron Schiller, who made the stupid remarks about the Tea Party (along with all of the staffers whose job it is to solicit donations) has zero input on NPR content. Instead we're more likely to hear GOP congressmen yucking it up about how much fun it will be to defund NPR.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom