Radio News?

[SirRoxalot]

Last night's plane crash sure showed us the current state of radio news in Buffalo.

WBEN is the "go to" station for news, but I wonder how many people heard about the crash on the radio. For those that did, how many stayed with the radio, and how many immediately went to the TV because they knew that they'd get better information?

WBFO does a pretty credible job with news, but even they fed audio from Channel 7 overnight while their reporters "prepared stories for the morning". Wow, how thin is your reporting staff? Even this morning, I heard a lot more of Morning Edition than I did local reporting in the 8AM hour.

Even that was better than what I heard on WBEN. How many minutes of commercials do they run per hour? I kept going back to WBEN when I was getting other NPR features from WBFO, and every time I tuned them in they were in a freakin' commercial. I have no idea how the WBEN coverage was this morning because I didn't hear any of it. WBFO's story on laughing hyenas was preferable to vapid commercial content on WBEN.

Of course, I could have gone to any of the stations owned by Citadel or Regent, but did they even acknowledge the crash last night? Was there anybody in the building last night to at least go with network reports on the biggest national story to hit Buffalo in my memory? Imagine the thousands of people who were still without power last night, and only had a battery-powered radio as a source for news. If they weren't listening to an Entercom stations, how many knew of the situation. Imagine if this had been an event that required widespread evacuations, requiring timely notification of people who might not be listening to news.

In the event of an emergency, local officials could activate EAS, but how are people supposed to get detailed information on the causes and effects of an emergency situation when we have so few resources available?

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate what it really means to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

 

[TheBigA]

First of all, regarding EAS, when a plane crashes into a house, it's an emergency for the people in that house, and those in the immediate vicinity. This is not a situation where the city needs to be evacuated. And there was no way a radio broadcast was going to prevent the people in the house from dying.

The rest of the story is simply ambulance chasing. I can tell you that it makes for great TV. But having a live radio reporter doing Herb Morrison, crying "Oh the humanity" is a bit overly dramatic.

Having worked at several NPR stations and at NPR headquarters, I can understand the view of the WBFO people. The main goal for NPR is to get the story right, not to get it on the air. Too bad more reporters don't think that way. Getting a story right takes time. You don't just go on the air, like Shepard Smith, and just say anything, regardless if it's right or not. So the WBFO people were correct in putting together their coverage for the morning, and sharing it with the network. That way, their reportage had the maximum impact.

The reality is that when the plane hit, most people were either asleep, or watching TV. Unless you have a radio that turns on automatically when news happens, you probably found out about it today. I was at a place having lunch a few hours ago, they had the TV on showing the coverage, and a guy walked up to me and asked ,"Did that just happen?" He had no clue.

Keep in mind what actually happened, and then think in terms of the effect news reporting has. I mean, what is the effect you hope to achieve? You want people to stay home. If all radio and TV stations had switched to round the clock coverage, people would have got in their cars and rushed to the site to see what happened. How does THAT serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity? They'd simply interfere with the emergency work being done. If you talk to emergency officials, they'll tell you the LAST thing they want is a bunch of nosy reporters walking around while they're dealing with life and death issues. It's why local emergency people HATE reporters, and why they wait til the last minute to involve them.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

Well, I'm probably going to give away my identity with this posting. I'm going into my 19th hour here at WBFO. I'm tired and cranking, and frankly don't appreciate Rox's comments, as much as I usually think he's right on the money with much of his analysis about Buffalo radio. WBFO has nothing to apologize for. We have a small staff of three. One is just returning from medical leave and had to take off Thursday to deal with a serious personal matter. Yet, she came in during the middle of the night to work! I was at the station at 6am Thursday, getting blown around the roof of the building trying to clear the satellite dish of that slushy snow. After a long day, and less than two hours sleep, I get the call from NPR News in Washington about a plane crash in Clarence. So, pardon me if I'm feeling a bit thin-skinned.

The fact is, we did have local coverage overnight. We had Eileen Buckley talking with Bert Gambini live twice. We ran two briefings -- all before 5am. When we ran out of things to say, we'd go back to Channel 7. I thought that was preferable than simply running jazz. Then, we did more local coverage during the prime time 5 to 10am hours than this station has ever been done in the era of Morning Edition. Yeah, there were times when we were airing NPR material. But there's only so much three people can produce. And it's not our style to sit around and just jabber.

I am so damn proud of the work my staff did today that I just couldn't let this criticism stand. There are times when we fall a little short because of our small staff. But this was not one of those times!

 

[TheBigA]

Congratulations to Philip for all his hard work and dedication.

I'd like to know how much time Rox spent covering the plane crash last night.

I'd also like to know how much money Rox donates to WBFO.

Rox is filled with criticisms about everyone and anyone. He sees himself as the defender of the public interest. So how much of his time does he dedicate to non-commercial radio? I bet Philip could have used a hand today.

 

[alw]

We busted our b*lls at WNED too.....!

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Let's see who could have reported on the tragic events last night? Delilah? John Tesh? Kim Iverson? The person who now voice tracks 97 Rock at night? Maybe Jack FM could have replied with a canned line? The Government has allowed radio stations to go un-manned and until there are laws in place demanding live manned studios we likely won't get the news from a radio station.

 

[Element9]

I'm gonna tread carefully here.

This was a powerful day for NEWS radio; but it was far from perfect. WBEN's Barbara Burns had an exceptional interview with the woman whose home was struck by the plane, but John Zack and Susan Rose sounded uncertain and shaky in portions of morning drive. And I'm kinda disappointed in Bauerle. I expected him to blame the crash on the terrorists.

WBFO put in a good effort, but seemed stretched to the max with its limited staff. Phil's explanation puts the situation in focus. Channel 7 News can sometimes bite you in the butt and Morning Edition was caught between the Buffalo plane crash and the rancor over the stimulus package. Admittedly a tough juggling act.

I can appreciate the performance of WNED-AM, which had some good long-form interviews and scored some great analysis. I actually drove through a null and got pissed off because I was listening to a good interview. I found a lobe in a plaza, parked and listened to the interviews and coverage while checking my Crackberry.

I'll give Rox his due about Regent and Citadel though. I scanned FM in AM drive and found it extremely lacking. 97 Rock gets some props for an interview that had some emotional value. WHTT? WEDG? Didn't hear anything compelling, especially compared to WNED-AM, WBFO and WBEN. Star gets a pass because the WBEN news team propped it up. This was an AM news radio day.

A few more bodies, writers, producers, on-air news people would have helped each of those stations sound a lot better and spared a lot of dilligent news people a lot of stress and exhaustion. Of course, a NEWS DEPARTMENT would've helped Regent's WJYE, WYRK, WBLK, WBUF and Citadel's WHTT, WEDG and 97 Rock, but... yeah, money.

Channels 2, 4 and 7 did a masterful job in large measure to their field reporters: Viewers with cell phone cams, digital pix and video from You Tube. Ahh, television journalism at its finest. At least they credited their sources, including a spectacular photo from the front page of the Buffalo News. And afterall, in TV, it's all about the pictures. Brings back a time when WEBR was owned by the Courier-Express and The Buffalo EVENING News owned WBEN AM-FM-TV.

_________________________________________________

Memo to BigA. You're always right.Spare us the lectures and pontificating. Theyr'e best saved for your national board posts. We may be rubes down here on the farm, but at least we know the difference between Clarence New York, Clarence Thomas and Clarence Clemons. Right now, we're grieving a bit over this catastrophe. Seems everybody knows somebody who knew or was connected to somebody on that plane. BTW, what if Rox actually did cover the story last night... who knows, he could be a first responder, a cop or a councilman for all we know.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Congratulations to Philip for all his hard work and dedication.

Ditto. My point wasn't that the people who cover the news at WBEN, WBFO, and WNED don't work extremely hard to provide the best coverage that they can. My point is that there are not enough resources devoted to covering news, and that radio news coverage is a dim shadow of what it was before 1996. I commend Entercom, WBFO, and WNED for their efforts. I find it unconscionable that two of the three major broadcast groups in town - Citadel and Regent - don't have a single real news person on their staffs in spite of the fact that they own 7 of the top 11 stations in the market.

Of course, I could have gone to any of the stations owned by Citadel or Regent, but did they even acknowledge the crash last night? Was there anybody in the building last night to at least go with network reports on the biggest national story to hit Buffalo in my memory? Imagine the thousands of people who were still without power last night, and only had a battery-powered radio as a source for news. If they weren't listening to an Entercom station, how many knew of the situation? Imagine if this had been an event that required widespread evacuations, requiring timely notification of people who might not be listening to news.

In the event of an emergency, local officials could activate EAS, but how are people supposed to get detailed information on the causes and effects of an emergency situation when we have so few resources available?

First of all, regarding EAS, when a plane crashes into a house, it's an emergency for the people in that house, and those in the immediate vicinity. This is not a situation where the city needs to be evacuated. And there was no way a radio broadcast was going to prevent the people in the house from dying.

Once again, reading comprehension seems to be a problem for Mr. A. I clearly state "Imagine if this had been an event that required widespread evacuations, requiring timely notification of people who might not be listening to news." For your information, Mr. A, Buffalo is still a major rail center, and is one of the busiest ports of entry into the United States from Canada - a country with much less stringent policies for entry from some countries considered to be quite dangerous by the U.S. Department of State. The possibility of an emergency requiring a major evacuation is not unthinkable here. My speculation was NOT about last night's event, but about the lack of resources to get important information out to people who may not have access to TV, or may not be watching TV outside of "normal business hours". We still have significant numbers of people who work second or third shift who can't watch TV at work, but do listen to the radio. If they listen to 7 of the top 11 stations, they wouldn't have any idea that there was a problem developing until it reached the point where EAS notification were issued.

I'd like to know how much time Rox spent covering the plane crash last night.

None. Although I have had experience as both a news reporter and news director, that is not my role anymore.

I'd also like to know how much money Rox donates to WBFO.

More than you do - and likely a higher percentage of my income than you donate to your local NPR outlet. Other than that, it's really none of your business.

Rox is filled with criticisms about everyone and anyone. He sees himself as the defender of the public interest. So how much of his time does he dedicate to non-commercial radio? I bet Philip could have used a hand today.

NPR is one of the last bastions of real news coverage in radio broadcasting today. From what I've heard in a number of markets, WBFO and WNED are outstanding examples of public broadcasting, but even they are understaffed in the news department. They do the best that they can with what they have, but they need more resources. And yes, I'm aware that they're more likely to be cutting staff than adding staff with the anticipated cuts in state funding, likely decreases in corporate underwriting, and uncertainties in the level of donations from the public at large. They've been asked to take on a role that was abandoned by commercial stations because "it costs too much".

As far as how much time I "dedicate to non-commercial radio" is concerned, I have my hands pretty full thanks to the cuts in personnel where I work, and the additional duties that have been dumped on me and the dedicated people that I work with because some of the "geniuses" at corporate seriously overleveraged the company in order to acquire a large number of stations that they've demonstrated no talent for managing efficiently. Meanwhile, everyone who's left has taken a pay cut and lost both vacation and personal time off as a "thank you" from corporate for the additional duties. We won't even talk about the 401K and other benefit cuts.

There's only one thing that keeps most of these people in the business, and it's the one thing that corporate discounts the most. That one thing is THE AUDIENCE.

 

[OneDaySale]

I hate defending corporate radio, but it's not because of consolidation and corporations that there was no mention of the crash on the radio.

Seriously does anyone here really believe that the first place people are going to stay tuned for news is the EDGE!!!!....or jack fm or kiss for that matter.

You have to be kidding me the first thing a listener would do upon hearing the news...is to turn to the internet, or tv, and turn OFF the radio.

On top of that the people who don't want to hear news, and like tuning into a station that plays thier favorite music will be pissed off that the station totally strayed away from its image and got all newzy on them

Let's get real, in the event of a natural disaster people would be listening to radio, but not a plane crash in clarence

 

[SirRoxalot]

One More Thing for Mr. A

Keep in mind what actually happened, and then think in terms of the effect news reporting has. I mean, what is the effect you hope to achieve? You want people to stay home. If all radio and TV stations had switched to round the clock coverage, people would have got in their cars and rushed to the site to see what happened. How does THAT serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity? They'd simply interfere with the emergency work being done. If you talk to emergency officials, they'll tell you the LAST thing they want is a bunch of nosy reporters walking around while they're dealing with life and death issues. It's why local emergency people HATE reporters, and why they wait til the last minute to involve them.

Look, Mr. A, you're obviously NOT in the market or you'd know that the major TV stations went wall-to-wall with this story overnight, and most of them stayed with it through the morning. In fact, they're the ones that TOLD people that they wouldn't be allowed into the area, what area was cordoned off, and that it was still dangerous. Your lack of understanding about how GOOD news departments can HELP the authorities in cases like this indicates to me that your experience in this field is limited.

I'd like to apologize to the rest of the readers of the Buffalo/Niagara Falls board for inflicting your uninformed presence on their discussions. I tangled with you on national boards, and for some reason you followed me here despite your obvious lack of presence in this market, and lack of knowledge about the market. Quite frankly, you've demonstrated several times here that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to local happenings, so please take your commentary back to your home market and to the national boards. We rubes here in the sticks can actually discuss our little local happenings without your inaccurate observations from afar.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I hate defending corporate radio, but it's not because of consolidation and corporations that there was no mention of the crash on the radio.

Seriously does anyone here really believe that the first place people are going to stay tuned for news is the EDGE!!!!....or jack fm or kiss for that matter.

You have to be kidding me the first thing a listener would do upon hearing the news...is to turn to the internet, or tv, and turn OFF the radio.

On top of that the people who don't want to hear news, and like tuning into a station that plays thier favorite music will be pissed off that the station totally strayed away from its image and got all newzy on them

Let's get real, in the event of a natural disaster people would be listening to radio, but not a plane crash in clarence

I don't think that anyone is advocating that The Edge or Jack FM or Kiss go "all newzy on them", even when there's a plane crash in Clarence. However, when the last airline flight of the night from NYC to Buffalo goes down, it would be nice if listeners knew about it. It was/is a major national story. A lot of people are going to end up knowing someone who died in that crash, or knowing someone in their family who's affected by the crash. This is a BIG story here.

A minute or two of news at the top of the hour - likely provided by a network - in the case of a major national story breaking in WNY doesn't seem like too much to ask. Many people will continue listening to "their favorite music", but others may go to other sources for news because the story is important to them. To avoid mentioning the story because it might cause the station to lose listeners in the short term is another indication of how little regard that corporate has for their long-term relationship to listeners. In this case, the public really does have a right to know that there's a major breaking story that may affect them and their families. Those listeners are more likely to come back if they're comfortable that the radio station that they listen to will let them know if something of major import happens.

Of course, that means that you have to actually have someone in the building 24/7. Since we're a quite a bit bigger than Podunk, it doesn't seem that the costs are unreasonable in relation to the income derived from local stations. I'm sure that a live jock would have mentioned it since it was very big news. If we're going to be burdened with multiple voice-tracked stations from 7PM to 5:30AM, some kind of insert other than "happy talk" doesn't seem too much for listeners to ask for.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that there are not enough resources devoted to covering news, and that radio news coverage is a dim shadow of what it was before 1996.

At the same time, many other options for news have appeared since 1996. You seem to have your eyes focused at only one thing. Lots of things have changed.

I find it unconscionable that two of the three major broadcast groups in town - Citadel and Regent - don't have a single real news person on their staffs in spite of the fact that they own 7 of the top 11 stations in the market.

OK...I find it unconscionable that WBFO doesn't play Kenny Chesney music. Look, here's how it works: You want news, you go to a news station. You want country music, you go to a country music station. What's so hard to understand here? One of the most basic changes that has taken place in the media over the last 20 years is format specialization. Too bad you haven't noticed.

My speculation was NOT about last night's event, but about the lack of resources to get important information out to people who may not have access to TV, or may not be watching TV outside of "normal business hours".

That is an issue for the emergency officials to deal with. Not you. I saw numerous interviews today with emergency officials complaining about the number of spectators they had to deal with. That is not what they want. They less news coverage, the fewer the gawkers.

If they listen to 7 of the top 11 stations, they wouldn't have any idea that there was a problem developing until it reached the point where EAS notification were issued.

Which once again is an issue for the full time emergency officials, whose responsibility it is to keep the public safe. Broadcasters are not emergency officials. The roles are very clearly defined. When emergencies happen, the only role broadcasters have is to follow the instructions from those who are responsible. And that is all.

NPR is one of the last bastions of real news coverage in radio broadcasting today.

Depends on the city. As I said, I worked at NPR headquarters and I don't need a lecture from you.

They've been asked to take on a role that was abandoned by commercial stations because "it costs too much".

As you yourself and others pointed out, it hasn't been abandoned. Lots of commercial stations specialize in news coverage. And the public knows they cover the news. You for some reason choose to focus on everyone else.

As far as how much time I "dedicate to non-commercial radio" is concerned, I have my hands pretty full thanks to the cuts in personnel where I work,

Excuses excuses. You still have loads of free time to post drivel like this on web sites while hard workers like Philip work 18 hour shifts.

We rubes here in the sticks can actually discuss our little local happenings without your inaccurate observations from afar.

My observations are spot on accurate. I spent years in upstate, still have friends and relatives there, and you have no right to tell me what to say or do.

However, when the last airline flight of the night from NYC to Buffalo goes down, it would be nice if listeners knew about it.

For what purpose? Curiosity? Come on! Try to understand the purpose of reporting.

To avoid mentioning the story because it might cause the station to lose listeners in the short term is another indication of how little regard that corporate has for their long-term relationship to listeners.

What are you talking about? Are you telling me that someone at "corporate" told the local GM not to cover the story WYRK because it might offend listeners?

I'm sure that a live jock would have mentioned it since it was very big news.

What, pray tell, is a JOCK going to say? What kind of knowledge or training does he have that qualifies him to say ANYTHING of value with regards to public safety? You might as well get your car mechanic to perform emergency brain surgery!

Once again, I ask you to spend TEN MINUTES with a local emergency official, and ask him what role he'd like local media to play in things like this. Someone who is actually trained in disasters, and someone who has responsibility for public safety. You might be surprised.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Once again, I ask you to spend TEN MINUTES with a local emergency official, and ask him what role he'd like local media to play in things like this. Someone who is actually trained in disasters, and someone who has responsibility for public safety. You might be surprised.

You've obviously never spent ten minutes with a local emergency official. I've spent a LOT more time than that with emergency officials, police, fire, and others actually trained in disasters on the local, regional, and national levels. One of their primary responsibilities is to get correct information to the public in a timely fashion to avoid panic, and to advise people of areas from which the public is excluded. I don't know a single emergency official who ever expressed that local media should be excluded from having a role in helping to direct the public in an emergency situation.

In return for licensed access to the airwaves that are owned by the PUBLIC, broadcasters PROMISE to act in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". Providing information in the event of a major event that goes beyond EAS announcements would seem to fall under that provision. In fact, that has been a traditional part of radio's role since the inception of radio service.

As far as "station specialization" is concerned, that doesn't exclude a station from completely abandoning their public service role. One of radio's biggest advantages is the fact that it has nearly ubiquitous in reach. What you're apparently not aware of - since you're NOT in this community - is that Buffalo experience high winds and areas with a fair amount of snow Wednesday night. The result was that there were thousands of customers without power. In fact, some people were still without power today. Their only link to the media was their battery powered radio. If they were listening to 7 of the top 11 stations in Buffalo, they had no idea that there was a major event happening, and that there were areas closed to the public.

As far as your comment about "jocks" is concerned:

What, pray tell, is a JOCK going to say? What kind of knowledge or training does he have that qualifies him to say ANYTHING of value with regards to public safety? You might as well get your car mechanic to perform emergency brain surgery!

In THIS market, "jocks" - or more correctly air personalities - are professional broadcasters who understand their role in the media when it comes to getting information to listeners during emergency situations. You've repeatedly indicated in your posts that you consider air personalities to be lazy, overpaid narcissists. In fact, most of the people who are successful in this market are broadcast professionals who have both college degrees in journalism, communications, or related fields, and years of experience in the business of communications. They have knowledge, training, and experience in getting information to the public during events ranging from the Blizzard of '77, the Thanksgiving Storm of 1996, the tornado of 2006, and the October Storm of 2006. What they don't have if they work for Citadel or Regent is any semblance of a news department to back them up.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

What, pray tell, is a JOCK going to say? What kind of knowledge or training does he have that qualifies him to say ANYTHING of value with regards to public safety? You might as well get your car mechanic to perform emergency brain surgery!

Once again, I ask you to spend TEN MINUTES with a local emergency official, and ask him what role he'd like local media to play in things like this. Someone who is actually trained in disasters, and someone who has responsibility for public safety. You might be surprised.

You really didn't mean to say this, did you. The 'mechanic-brain surgery' analogy is over the top.

You've done a disservice to many of the jocks (air personalities) in Buffalo and Western New York who are first responders, auxiliary sheriffs deputies or policemen and active in their communities, Joe Chille, Carl Russo, Craig Matthews, Sal Penessa and a few others.

And as SirRoxalot notes, many of the air personalities in WNY are established, college-educated and well-versed in journalism, news gathering and editing; more than capable of writing news and seeking answers to difficult questions. In short, they're capable of acting as journalists.

WNED-AM, WBFO, WBEN and even WECK put forth a noble effort in covering the community tragedy that occured late Thursday and their staffs are to be commended. That they are, in many cases, short-staffed and continued to provide extensive coverage is even more commendable.

BigA writes that he's "visited 'upstate New York' and has friends who live there." Well, I have many friends in the Carolinas and have often visited, but I wouldn't pretend to know the lay of the land in those parts.

One more thing: As an observation, it's generally known that the only people who refer to Buffalo, Rochester and Niagara Falls as "upstate" are those who live south of Newburgh or Middletown, or completely out of the area. Locals are likely to use the words, "Western New York" or the beloved two syllable, "BUFF-low." And heaven help you if you don't correctly pronounce 'Rochester,' the locals there will know you're from BUFF-low.

 

[Desert Pete]

Meanwhile, in ROCHESTER, two commercial radio stations (that I'm aware of) covered the crash from the time information started coming in and stayed with the story throughout the morning. WHAM (working with their news partner, channel 13), and WBEE (working with their news partner, channel 8), kept their audiences informed. This is because both stations are staffed overnight. A staff of one each probably, but a "body-in-building", "overnight General Manager", or whatever you want to call 'em, is still a staff. As long as they can crack the mike, it counts.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know a single emergency official who ever expressed that local media should be excluded from having a role in helping to direct the public in an emergency situation.

Local emergency officials in Texas specifically excluded radio people from assisting the public this past summer. Radio personnel were forced to evacuate, and not allowed to return until the general public was also allowed to return.

In return for licensed access to the airwaves that are owned by the PUBLIC, broadcasters PROMISE to act in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". Providing information in the event of a major event that goes beyond EAS announcements would seem to fall under that provision. In fact, that has been a traditional part of radio's role since the inception of radio service.

That is absolutely not true. It is up to local emergency officials to determine the role radio plays.

Back in the early days of radio, local emergency services were limited, and in some areas, non-existant. But in the years following World War 2, the government stepped up funding of local emergency organizations. That was stepped up even further with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Broadcasters' role with DHS is limited to EAS operations.

As I said in my first post in this thread, this was a plane crash into a specific house. It was not a regional emergency. Reporting on this story does not constitute an emergency service that requires the public be informed.

As far as "station specialization" is concerned, that doesn't exclude a station from completely abandoning their public service role.

First of all, as I've pointed out in previous posts, some radio stations "abandoned their public service role" over 40 years ago. And even in the days when the FCC was more vigilant, nothing was done. I worked at numerous radio stations in upstate New York that had no news staffs, and did no public service programming.

In THIS market, "jocks" - or more correctly air personalities - are professional broadcasters who understand their role in the media when it comes to getting information to listeners during emergency situations.

I'd like to know what kind of special training they receive that qualify them for this? How do they distinguish between an actual emergency and a hoax? How do they report a story in such a way that doesn't lead to panic? Even unpaid volunteers are given more training and more preparation for dealing with emergencies from community service agencies than on-air staffers at radio stations. There are no professional standards for them. No tests they must complete, and no certification or college degrees required. Come on! You know what I'm saying is true.

This is not to say that there aren't some who have all of the above, and know what they are doing. But the fact is that you are placing responsibilities and obligations on people who are, for the most part, simply untrained for the responsibilities you're giving them, especially in the light of changes in government's role. It's not a function of ownership, because I can tell you stations owned by Citadel and Regent that have news staffs and provide primary EAS services in their markets.

You really didn't mean to say this, did you. The 'mechanic-brain surgery' analogy is over the top.

Of course it is! But without ANY form of training, placing this kind of responsibility on DJs, given the level of training required, isn't very responsible.

And as SirRoxalot notes, many of the air personalities in WNY are established, college-educated and well-versed in journalism, news gathering and editing; more than capable of writing news and seeking answers to difficult questions. In they're capable of acting as journalists.

Really? How about the ones on the air at 10:30 PM when the plane crashed? I might agree with you regarding morning or mid day people. But not necessarily those after 10. When I got my first radio job, I was the only person in the building after the 10PM news, and I was a teenager.

WNED-AM, WBFO, WBEN and even WECK put forth a noble effort in covering the community tragedy that occured late Thursday and their staffs are to be commended. That they are, in many cases, short-staffed and continued to provide extensive coverage is even more commendable.

I agree and in previous posts I have applauded their work. That isn't the issue. Rox insists that all stations be staffed 24/7 with large news staffs in the event of anything that might happen. I say that's impractical and unnecessary.

BigA writes that he's "visited 'upstate New York' and has friends who live there." Well, I have many friends in the Carolinas and have often visited, but I wouldn't pretend to know the lay of the land in those parts.

I've also said in previous posts that I lived, worked, and went to college there.

 

[Savage]

Ahem. Make that THREE Rochester radio stations which covered the plane crash, including 'WYSL, working with their news partner WHEC-TV News10 NBC."

Interestingly, Rochester's WHEC-TV is the station which partnered up with the Today Show (in lieu of NBC's Buffalo affiliate) with reports from Clarence Center contributed from 10NBC Reporter Catherine Varnum, appearing live with Matt Lauer "in boxes."

What was that you said, BigA? People hear about a disaster like a plane crash over the radio, then jump, zombie-like, into their cars to immediately drive to....the CRASH scene?

On which planet does this actually occur?

Of course there are nitwits everywhere who can't resist gawking at natural and manmade disasters. Guess what? They all have public-service band scanners. Many, they hook to their belts. The accident-freaks don't get their "tips" from broadcast radio. And NORMAL people hear about these tragedies and have the common sense and class to stay the hell away.

 

[TheBigA]

What was that you said, BigA? People hear about a disaster like a plane crash over the radio, then jump, zombie-like, into their cars to immediately drive to....the CRASH scene?

On which planet does this actually occur?

According to emergency officials who spoke to reporters, it was a problem in Buffalo. I'll find the actual quote for you if you like, but they said that onlookers clogged the area, making it difficult for them to do their work.

People like to see. They rubberneck on interstates when accidents occur. I was in NYC during 9/11, and after the immediate danger passed, lots of people wanted to go to ground zero to see the damage. Fortunately, the police set up a perimeter at Houston Street, which was about a half mile away. I also remember that the area was clogged with satellite trucks and remote trucks. Everyone wanted to broadcast on location with a view of the destruction in the camera shot. Meanwhile, huge trucks were trying to cart the debris away, and ended up using barges across the river rather than the streets, because the area was simply to crowded.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Local emergency officials in Texas specifically excluded radio people from assisting the public this past summer. Radio personnel were forced to evacuate, and not allowed to return until the general public was also allowed to return.

Gee, how did those people know that there was a mandatory evacuation order if it wasn't for the MEDIA. Sounds to me like a case of cooperation between the media and emergency officials. Nobody advocated that radio, any other media personnel, or even emergency personnel put themselves in immediate danger to aid the public. They certainly didn't evacuate the media people until the deadline, and the media people were certainly among the first people back in when the immediate danger had passed.

In return for licensed access to the airwaves that are owned by the PUBLIC, broadcasters PROMISE to act in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity". Providing information in the event of a major event that goes beyond EAS announcements would seem to fall under that provision. In fact, that has been a traditional part of radio's role since the inception of radio service.

That is absolutely not true. It is up to local emergency officials to determine the role radio plays.

Back in the early days of radio, local emergency services were limited, and in some areas, non-existant. But in the years following World War 2, the government stepped up funding of local emergency organizations. That was stepped up even further with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Broadcasters' role with DHS is limited to EAS operations.

As I said in my first post in this thread, this was a plane crash into a specific house. It was not a regional emergency. Reporting on this story does not constitute an emergency service that requires the public be informed.

In my original post, I said:

Imagine if this had been an event that required widespread evacuations, requiring timely notification of people who might not be listening to news.

In the event of an emergency, local officials could activate EAS, but how are people supposed to get detailed information on the causes and effects of an emergency situation when we have so few resources available?

You are either incapable of fully comprehending what you're reading, or deliberately obtuse when you insist on relating this discussion solely to the plane crash Thursday night.

Can you please direct us to the repeal of the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" clause in the Telecommunications Act of 1934, or any subsequent modification in the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Perhaps you can direct us to your source that states that a "Broadcasters' role with DHS is limited to EAS operations."

First of all, as I've pointed out in previous posts, some radio stations "abandoned their public service role" over 40 years ago. And even in the days when the FCC was more vigilant, nothing was done. I worked at numerous radio stations in upstate New York that had no news staffs, and did no public service programming.

So you admit to violating FCC rules. I guess this demonstrates your commitment to responsible broadcast operations.

In THIS market, "jocks" - or more correctly air personalities - are professional broadcasters who understand their role in the media when it comes to getting information to listeners during emergency situations.

I'd like to know what kind of special training they receive that qualify them for this? How do they distinguish between an actual emergency and a hoax? How do they report a story in such a way that doesn't lead to panic? Even unpaid volunteers are given more training and more preparation for dealing with emergencies from community service agencies than on-air staffers at radio stations. There are no professional standards for them. No tests they must complete, and no certification or college degrees required. Come on! You know what I'm saying is true.

Your disdain for the professional abilities of air personalities is exceeded only by your lack of understanding of the roles that they have played and - when available - continue to play in this market. I wouldn't pretend to know if this is true in other markets, but anybody on this board can tell you for a fact that there is a dedicated group of professional broadcasters in this market who do a very good job of informing the public, helping to get resources to people in trouble, and helping to prevent panic in emergency situations. Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about this market in particular, and, I suspect, many, many other markets in general.

This is not to say that there aren't some who have all of the above, and know what they are doing. But the fact is that you are placing responsibilities and obligations on people who are, for the most part, simply untrained for the responsibilities you're giving them, especially in the light of changes in government's role. It's not a function of ownership, because I can tell you stations owned by Citadel and Regent that have news staffs and provide primary EAS services in their markets.

If you go all the way back to my original post, I say:

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate what it really means to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity".

Perhaps it's time reinstitute rules requiring broadcast companies who own stations that reach a certain level of audience to have the resources and "trained personnel" available in an emergency situation. Currently, people at Citadel and Regent provide that information in spite of the fact that they get no support from the company.

And as SirRoxalot notes, many of the air personalities in WNY are established, college-educated and well-versed in journalism, news gathering and editing; more than capable of writing news and seeking answers to difficult questions. In they're capable of acting as journalists.

Really? How about the ones on the air at 10:30 PM when the plane crashed? I might agree with you regarding morning or mid day people. But not necessarily those after 10. When I got my first radio job, I was the only person in the building after the 10PM news, and I was a teenager.

You also didn't get your first radio job in Buffalo, NY. Perhaps it's time that owners who are given access to the PUBLIC airwaves had some responsibility to staff their buildings - note that I didn't say individual stations - with someone who IS qualified to deliver important information in the case of an emergency. Yeah, they'd probably have to pay them more than $8.15 an hour. Gee, that might cut into Farid's or Lew's or the Mays Boys' bonus.

I agree and in previous posts I have applauded their work. That isn't the issue. Rox insists that all stations be staffed 24/7 with large news staffs in the event of anything that might happen. I say that's impractical and unnecessary.

And just where did you derive that idea from? Where have I advocated "large news staffs" in ANY posting anywhere on Radio-Info? Put up the link, please. Having a body in the building qualified to put a network news feed on-air in the event of an emergency, or capable of relating more detailed information than would be afforded by EAS in a responsible way, or even informing the public that there IS an emergency situation and that those who may be affected might want to tune into someone who DOES supply news and information doesn't require a "large news staff". It does require a RESPONSIBLE body in the building. Perhaps this might be an undue burden in much smaller markets, but it certainly is NOT unreasonable for facilities that routinely garner top ratings in a top 100 market.

According to emergency officials who spoke to reporters, it was a problem in Buffalo. I'll find the actual quote for you if you like, but they said that onlookers clogged the area, making it difficult for them to do their work.

Yes, I'd love to have you find the actual quote. Considering the fact that the local media advised people that a mile-square area had been cordoned off, and that there was a large and timely emergency response to the event, I'd have to guess that any "onlookers" were local residents who arrived on foot in an attempt to determine what happened, and what the level of danger was to their loved ones, homes, and property. The area was secured in short order according to all the media reports that I'm familiar with. A command post was set up quickly, and media were directed to that command post, or kept outside the cordon, within half an hour of the crash. The number of reporters, photogs, and videographers available for duty at that time of night would hardly "clog" any area. The role of the media in both providing coverage and advising people NOT to go to the site very likely prevented more people from going to the scene.

I've also said in previous posts that I lived, worked, and went to college there.

I suspect that your alumni association would be proud to see the views that you've expressed here.

You demonstrate the same depth of knowledge regarding the role of the media, and radio in particular, that corporate broadcasting has demonstrated in the programming and financial areas of broadcasting.

BTW, it's just possible that having a news department might have a POSITIVE effect on the bottom line. Entercom is the only major group of commercial broadcasters with a real news department in Buffalo. Last I looked, they were also crushing their competition in revenue, despite the fact that they have fewer stations in the group, and rely heavily on AM radio (which you've essentially written off as dead in many of your posts) to bring in significant income. Entercom, for all its flaws, is far superior in commercial broadcasting as both an operator and employer in this market at this time.

 

[Savage]

Emergency workers have a curious perspective on dealing with accident scenes. They are of course focused on providing compassionate on-scene first-response aid, which one would expect, but I haven't ever known one who didn't complain that if the disaster scene were devoid of any onlookers their job would be easier. This is human nature. It's also unrealistic.

It's also human nature to rubberneck as one encounters a crash scene on the highway; that's an example of the curiosity of regular folks. But those motorists are already on the scene. That's vastly different from suggesting they'll rush to the site just because they heard about it on the radio or TV.

9/11 was an unprecedented terror attack within our borders. Of course people wanted to see it, and the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville, PA. They wanted to witness the outrage as part of the healing process as well as to resolve that as a nation, we would never permit this kind of thing in the future. People also go to the Pearl Harbor memorial and to Civil War battlefields and to the Johnstown, PA Flood Memorial. They do it to learn, and grow, and be better citizens. That's different than ambulance-chasing.