Radio News?

[TheBigA]

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.

Nope. You didn't read my post. They were forced to evacuate AT THE SAME TIME as the public, and they were NOT allowed back until the general public.

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.

You started the thread, and it was related to the plane crash. No? I'm simply responding to the thread.

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?

It obviously hasn't been repealed but at the same time it hasn't been enforced in about 30 years. It has become defacto repeal. And local emergency officials have been given more far reaching powers during that time.

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

I was not a licensee. If the licensee choses to violate rules, that's their problem. Should I hold you responsible for what your bosses do? But as I point out, these are rules that haven't been enforced in a very long time.

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.

Hey...you're the one who attacked most of the stations in the area for not reporting on the crash. Not me.

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.

What kind of support do you expect them to get? These are companies that have local staffs and operations for a reason, which is so they can make those decisions without running to the corporate office every time it rains.

As for more rules, why bother? Let's start with enforcing the ones they have, which the government has chosen not to do for years. How about better integrating DHS and the FCC? I'd love to see more policies and procedures in place. I'd love to see a return to a standardized national test that all radio employees must pass, similar to a driver's license. Perhaps a return to the 3rd Class operator's permit. I'd like to see regular emergency training that all broadcast operations must take. I'd like to see a DJ's association, with a certification program, establishing standards that all announcers must attain in order to be employed.

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.

Why should they get paid more than I got when I worked that shift? I got minimum wage, and it was about 30 years ago. I didn't work for a big company either, but my station was the only one in the area on the air after dark.

So tell me how many DJs in Buffalo after 10:30 PM are qualified to be journalists? I'd like to know.

Doing this kind of work should NOT be a function of salary. As I said, unpaid volunteers are better trained for emergencies than paid radio staffers.

And just where did you derive that idea from? Where have I advocated "large news staffs" in ANY posting anywhere on Radio-Info?

In this very thread, you expressed the view that if stations like WBFO and others had larger news staffs, they would have done a better job. In this same thread, you have expressed the view that ALL stations should be staffed for disasters and news 24/7.

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

Truthfully I don't think they care. I think many there would agree that the government has, in many ways, usurped the traditional role broadcasters played in news, weather, and traffic reporting, and in other ways has neglected enforcement of their own rules. It's left broadcasters very confused about what their role exactly is. I'd love to see a college hold a conference on this issue, bringing together broadcasters, emergency officials, and the FCC to discuss all of this. The fact that it's taking place on a message board and not in a more official capacity should concern someone.

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.

I think it's obvious that my depth of knowledge exceeds yours here. I'm sure I've worked in larger markets, and in higher positions, than you ever have. And as I've said before, I have no role in corporate finance, so that's no interest of mine. The main thing is that I'm expressing a point of view you disagree with. You're confusing a disagreement with a lack of knowledge. They are not the same thing.

 

[SirRoxalot]

And, On That Note...

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.

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.

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.

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!

As I said, unpaid volunteers are better trained for emergencies than paid radio staffers.

Rox insists that all stations be staffed 24/7 with large news staffs in the event of anything that might happen.

In this very thread, you expressed the view that if stations like WBFO and others had larger news staffs, they would have done a better job. In this same thread, you have expressed the view that ALL stations should be staffed for disasters and news 24/7.

I'm comfortable allowing the readers here to judge my veracity vs. your penchant for taking statements out of context and redefining them to fit your own agenda or support your own contentions. Your attempts to redefine the rules of logic in an attempt to show that those out-of-context statements support one of your conclusions is, at best, illogical. Your affinity for hyperbole devalues any valid points that you may express.

Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion. Just as obviously, you're NOT conversant with the actual happenings in this market, which devalues that opinion as it applies to the Buffalo/Niagara discussion board. You indicate that "unqualified people" MAY be manning radio facilities (you don't really know), yet you object to taking steps to assure that "qualified people" ARE manning radio facilities.

My observations are that you're in favor of whatever costs the least, without regard to federal laws, FCC rules, regulations, or even what the NAB and others would consider "good broadcasting practice". Yet, you endlessly criticize anyone who disagrees with you, and even take their statements out of context, attempting to reframe their arguements so that you don't actually have to respond to them.

You can carry on with that. It may work on some people, but there are far too many bright, experienced broadcast professionals on THIS board who see through your bluster and prevarication.

 

[qman]

Unlike the financial status of radio thread that seemed to go on and on this thread has been both interesting and entertaining.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: And, On That Note...

I'm comfortable allowing the readers here to judge my veracity vs. your penchant for taking statements out of context and redefining them to fit your own agenda or support your own contentions.

And I guess you have no agenda? You've turned me into some corporate character (which I'm not), and then questioned my depth of knowledge (which is obviously wrong), only because you disagree. Disagreements are basic to the American way of discourse. I have a point of view you find abhorant. Deal with it!

Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion. Just as obviously, you're NOT conversant with the actual happenings in this market, which devalues that opinion as it applies to the Buffalo/Niagara discussion board.

You used the specific Buffalo plane crash as an overall criticism of radio news in general. Perhaps this discussion belongs elsewhere. But I have no problems with the discussion here, and found comments by people other than you to be fair.

You indicate that "unqualified people" MAY be manning radio facilities (you don't really know), yet you object to taking steps to assure that "qualified people" ARE manning radio facilities.

OK...you're the market rep, and I specifically asked who of the music DJs on the air after 10:30 have the qualifications to be journalists. I'm still waiting for your response. So obviously you don't know either. I DON'T object to taking steps. I specifically stated in my last post that I am in favor of a training program. But as of now, one does not exist.

My observations are that you're in favor of whatever costs the least, without regard to federal laws, FCC rules, regulations, or even what the NAB and others would consider "good broadcasting practice".

Once again, read my comments in the previous post. I want the FCC and the DHS to do a better job of enforcing existing rules, and provide better guidance to broadcasters about what is meant by the words "public interest, convenience, and necessity." That's not too much to ask.

You can carry on with that. It may work on some people, but there are far too many bright, experienced broadcast professionals on THIS board who see through your bluster and prevarication.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.

 

[theradiokid]

Quote From The Big A: “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.”

So, Big A, did you find the quote yet? Oh, wait… You were too busy arguing with Sir Roxalot. Let me tell you something if I may: I’ve been reading these boards for quite a while now, and everything Rox says, he is able to back up, either with facts, or very intelegent analysis – something I’m not seeing from you. Say, weren’t you gonna find that quote from emergency workers in Buffalo for us? (ahem, ahem, ahem, ahem… uh, anyways…) You appear to make statements that you can’t back up or explain very well, and you don’t directly answer questions or thoughts from any of the posters very well without reiterating your first few talking points over and over and over again. So, when your mind isn’t on how to challenge SirRoxalot, and you have a minute to return to planet Earth, please find that quote, and post it. Some of us want to see if you can actually find this quote… if it exists…

--The Radio Kid
(Oswego, NY.)
My email: [email protected].

 

[alw]

This thread is, much like a shop-vac, beginning to suck and blow at the same time!

I think I'll head over to the "Hits Just Keep On Coming....." thread.

See you two when you fizzle out.........bye now.

 

[TheBigA]

So, Big A, did you find the quote yet?

Sure. Here's one of them, from The Buffalo News.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/579536.html


Town officials have noted a growing number of "curiosity seekers" coming into the area.

And it goes on to describe the security problems in the area. But that's not where I heard it. It was in a TV report Friday afternoon on CNN. My point is that crowd control at disasters is an issue.

Typically, after I post quotes like this, people will parse the quotes and attempt to distract the discussion away from the main point, which I fully expect.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for Rox to respond to my request for a list of DJs on the air after 10:30 who are qualified to act as journalists. Since you say he backs everything up with facts. Let's see them.

Hey! Fair is fair, right?

 

[Mike_Saffran]

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?

By this logic, some children should be fed cookies and ice cream three meals a day—because it is what they “want.”

 

[TheBigA]

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?

By this logic, some children should be fed cookies and ice cream three meals a day—because it is what they “want.”

This isn't logic. This is fact. Radio stations and cable channels are (for the most part) organized around categories. You got your news, sports, talk, NPR, rock, etc. People know where to go for what they want. They dn't need a search engine. It's been that way for over 30 years. Am I wrong?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Op Cit

So, Big A, did you find the quote yet?

Sure. Here's one of them, from The Buffalo News.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/579536.html


Town officials have noted a growing number of "curiosity seekers" coming into the area.

And it goes on to describe the security problems in the area. But that's not where I heard it. It was in a TV report Friday afternoon on CNN. My point is that crowd control at disasters is an issue.

As is your typical modus operandi, you take a single line from the story out of context to bolster your argument. Let's look a line or two farther:

Town officials have noted a growing number of "curiosity seekers" coming into the area. Bissonette warned people that a limited state of emergency remains in effect, and that travel is restricted in a two-square-mile area.

People have been obeying police security lines, said Bissonette. But those who don't will face consequences.

So, there really isn't "a security problem". People have been cooperating, and there is no "crowd" requiring extensive control. If anything, media coverage would inform the public that the two-square-mile perimeter is still in effect, and likely to remain in effect for several days to come. Since both Goodrich Road and Clarence Center Road are among the few through roads in the area, there are likely to be as many people being turned away because they took a well-travelled route without realizing its proximity to the crash site as there are "curiosity seekers".

Not only that, but the single quote you have supplied is a far cry from the situation you originally described. Have you forgotten your own post?

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.

We're still waiting for a quote about the "clogged" area, and people "making it difficult to do their work". Anybody else out there heard anything like that? All I've heard is officials appreciative of the cooperation that they've gotten from local residents.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for Rox to respond to my request for a list of DJs on the air after 10:30 who are qualified to act as journalists. Since you say he backs everything up with facts. Let's see them.

Hey! Fair is fair, right?

Let me refresh your memory of what I've said regarding this very topic.

First, here's a paragraph from my very first post that opened this thread that you've misquoted because you either don't comprehend the meaning, or choose to ignore what's actually written:

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.

I've added italics to the lines that you've either misquoted or miscomprehended.

As far as "the list of DJs qualified to act as journalists" is concerned, my point was that MOST OF THOSE STATIONS DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE.

Once again, let's look at what I actually wrote:

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.

You went on to say:

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!

I responded with:

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.

So, there is no dearth of qualified people in this market, there is simply a dearth of people paid to perform that role at Citadel and Regent.

You even admit

This is not to say that there aren't some who have all of the above, and know what they are doing.

So, it's not a lack of capable people, it's a lack of willingness on the part of some broadcasters to fullfill their responsibilities to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

Of course, you put your own spin on that idea with your statement:

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.

I'm still waiting for you to point out where I proposed "24/7" coverage by "large news staffs".

I know, you don't believe that people should be paid for their abilities and talents. According to you:

Doing this kind of work should NOT be a function of salary. As I said, unpaid volunteers are better trained for emergencies than paid radio staffers.

You finally seem to acknowledge the problem that I cited in my very first posting. Citadel and Regent are neither willing to pay qualified people to work between 7PM and 5:30AM, nor train the people that do work during some of those hours to respond to emergency situations. Sure doesn't sound like they're interested in fullfilling the mandates required of broadcasting license holders.

Finally, you state:

People know where to go for what they want.

We agree on that. Where we disagree is on the point that those stations who don't provide regular news should still provide some notification that a major event that may impact a large number of people is taking place. Then people can make an informed decision about what they want to listen to under those circumstances.

PS - I'd also like to thank Mr. Savage, JustPastBuffalo, "theradiokid", Mr. Saffran, and others for the kind words and/or input.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Op Cit

As is your typical modus operandi, you take a single line from the story out of context to bolster your argument.

Uh huh...as I predicted:

Typically, after I post quotes like this, people will parse the quotes and attempt to distract the discussion away from the main point, which I fully expect.

Then you go on to reinterpret the article to support your agenda. Bottom line, though, is what created the curiosity in the first place? So telling them to stay home, or not to come to the site isn't working. People are curious, and they will come to a disaster site regardless of what they're told.

We're still waiting for a quote about the "clogged" area, and people "making it difficult to do their work". Anybody else out there heard anything like that? All I've heard is officials appreciative of the cooperation that they've gotten from local residents.

I think I addressed that when I wrote that I saw a televised story on CNN. Maybe you missed that in your cut and paste, so here it is:

But that's not where I heard it. It was in a TV report Friday afternoon on CNN. My point is that crowd control at disasters is an issue.

And it IS an issue, as indicated in the story. Now if it makes you feel better, I'll withdraw the one quote from my point.

As far as "the list of DJs qualified to act as journalists" is concerned, my point was that MOST OF THOSE STATIONS DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE.

Not exactly true. They have people there, just no one qualified to provide emergency information. Which was my point. They haven't been trained to go on the air and tell people how to react. Then again, those stations are not primary EAS stations. If an actual emergency occured they'd pull out the information, and tell people to tune in to the primary station. So that is the proper procedure. Right?

So, it's not a lack of capable people, it's a lack of willingness on the part of some broadcasters to fullfill their responsibilities to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

No it's the lack of capable people. Particularly at 10:30 PM, when this accident happened. As for fullfilling their responsibilities, let me know the minute someone in a position of authority clearly defines exactly what they are. Just because YOU have a definition doesn't mean we all have to agree.

You finally seem to acknowledge the problem that I cited in my very first posting. Citadel and Regent are neither willing to pay qualified people to work between 7PM and 5:30AM, nor train the people that do work during some of those hours to respond to emergency situations. Sure doesn't sound like they're interested in fullfilling the mandates required of broadcasting license holders.

I'm not sure it's their obligation to train them in emergency procedures beyond EAS. What specifically does the mandate require them to do? You tell me. If you'd like to challenge their license, I can fill you in on the procedure. I've done it myself many times. But based on my experience, I don't think it will be a useful use of your time.

Where we disagree is on the point that those stations who don't provide regular news should still provide some notification that a major event that may impact a large number of people is taking place. Then people can make an informed decision about what they want to listen to under those circumstances.

Maybe they did and you missed it, as you missed the local reports on WBFO. Here's what Philip posted: 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.

Or maybe the problem is your interpretation of what a "major event" is. The incredible part of this story is that a place crashed into a house and basically the one house was affected. When the same thing happened in Long Island a couple years ago, it affected more people and a bigger area.

The point I'm making is that sometimes saying the wrong thing in a disaster is worse than saying nothing. Unless you lived in the house hit by the plane, there's not a whole lot you can do, and there's not a big point in you knowing, except for the curiosity factor.

If this is as big an issue as you seem to think it is, perhaps you can motivate someone in government to do something about it. They have this huge DHS bureacracy that has doled out billions so local police departments can buy all kinds of fun gadgets. No one thought that it might be a good idea to train the broadcasters in the process.

 

[aaronread]

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.

FWIW, this is something I think most NPR stations usually pick up on: when there's a major news event happening, usually there's only so much hard information about it. Especially in the early hours of the story. Anything else starts becoming wild speculation or shameless grief pandering.

TV news channels rarely have any problem with going to...one might say "wallowing in" the wild speculation or grief pandering...and they have the advantage of being able to fill some time with "on the scene" video shots, and fill a lot of time by interviewing local witnesses and neighbors ad nauseum. Radio often can't get away with that as much...and NPR usually explicitly tries to avoid it. Granted, NPR isn't the only radio news outlet that explicitly tries to avoid it, but they're the only one I can think of that always (almost always?) tries to avoid it.

So I don't begrudge WBFO for actually having national NPR news on the air inbetween updates about the plane crash. Frankly, even if I lived in Buffalo, I think I could know pretty much all I needed to know within about five, maybe ten, minutes of reporting. After that, I'd like to know what's going on in the rest of the world, thank you very much. Certainly at the moment, when there's quite a bit going on in DC and overseas.

By the way, I don't know if anyone noticed, but today officials announced that the flight recorders indicated the plane almost literally fell out of the sky, due to a severe stall. That contradicts a lot of TV "man on the street" reports I saw that had local folks swearing they saw the plane nosedive into the house, and that it was already on fire. As someone who runs a news station, I'd much rather avoid the "wall to wall" and get the correct facts out. Rather than just fill the time by pandering to the audience with "if it bleeds, it leads" speculation.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Op Cit

But that's not where I heard it. It was in a TV report Friday afternoon on CNN. My point is that crowd control at disasters is an issue.

And it IS an issue, as indicated in the story. Now if it makes you feel better, I'll withdraw the one quote from my point.

Whew, we almost got an admission from TheBigA that he overstated the case.

As far as "the list of DJs qualified to act as journalists" is concerned, my point was that MOST OF THOSE STATIONS DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE.

Not exactly true. They have people there, just no one qualified to provide emergency information. Which was my point. They haven't been trained to go on the air and tell people how to react. Then again, those stations are not primary EAS stations. If an actual emergency occured they'd pull out the information, and tell people to tune in to the primary station. So that is the proper procedure. Right?

You're showing your lack of local knowledge again. I checked with a friend, and he revealed that at least one of the major players has NOBODY in the building from 8PM until after Midnight. Here's a clue. It's a group that issued a corporate edict firing nearly all their 7-Midnight talent without regard to ratingsor revenue during that daypart.

So, it's not a lack of capable people, it's a lack of willingness on the part of some broadcasters to fullfill their responsibilities to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

No it's the lack of capable people. Particularly at 10:30 PM, when this accident happened. As for fullfilling their responsibilities, let me know the minute someone in a position of authority clearly defines exactly what they are. Just because YOU have a definition doesn't mean we all have to agree.

This is what's known in rhetoric as a "red herring". How qualified does someone have to be to pick up the phone and call the Program Director and ask "A plane crashed in Clarence. It's all over the TV, scanner, and national news. Our traffic software shows a large area has been closed to traffic. Should we run the network news at the top of the hour?

I assume that you'd agree that a Program Director SHOULD be qualified to make that call. If you work for Citadel or Regent, there is no News Director to call.

Where we disagree is on the point that those stations who don't provide regular news should still provide some notification that a major event that may impact a large number of people is taking place. Then people can make an informed decision about what they want to listen to under those circumstances.

Maybe they did and you missed it, as you missed the local reports on WBFO. Here's what Philip posted: 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.

Hard to "miss it" if there's nobody in the building to respond to a major event.

Or maybe the problem is your interpretation of what a "major event" is. The incredible part of this story is that a place crashed into a house and basically the one house was affected. When the same thing happened in Long Island a couple years ago, it affected more people and a bigger area.

The point I'm making is that sometimes saying the wrong thing in a disaster is worse than saying nothing. Unless you lived in the house hit by the plane, there's not a whole lot you can do, and there's not a big point in you knowing, except for the curiosity factor.

First of all, a large number of people ARE going to know about it. The number of people called out for a disaster of this sort ripples through the entire community.

Secondly, I specifically said in my very first post that I was talking about an event that would directly affect a larger number of people than Thursday night's plane crash. You constantly ignore the line "Imagine if this had been an event that required widespread evacuations, requiring timely notification of people who might not be listening to news."

If this is as big an issue as you seem to think it is, perhaps you can motivate someone in government to do something about it. They have this huge DHS bureacracy that has doled out billions so local police departments can buy all kinds of fun gadgets. No one thought that it might be a good idea to train the broadcasters in the process.

No additional legislation is needed. The Communications Act of 1934 clearly spells out that broadcasters have a responsibility to act in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Perhaps the DHS didn't anticipate that corporate broadcasters who own a large number of radio stations would abandon their responsibilities. Plenty of laws and rules for broadcasters already exist that cover this area. It IS up to the broadcasting companies to assure that their employees are aware of the rules and regulations governing broadcasting.

Corporate makes sure that you get sexual harassment training and payola training. Maybe that additional layer of paper shufflers could get around to making sure that the people tasked with control over multiple radio stations understand their responsibility to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity - or at least know that they should make a phone call when the spam hits the fan.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: Op Cit

No additional legislation is needed. The Communications Act of 1934 clearly spells out that broadcasters have a responsibility to act in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

The problem with that is interpretation and enforcement. There has been no definitive interpretation of what it means, and there has been no enforcement from the FCC to the best of my knowledge for over 50 years. And the last 25 years, they've specifically removed regulations that dealt with those kinds of responsibilities. What message does that send?

Corporate makes sure that you get sexual harassment training and payola training.

Those are great examples of what I'm talking about. In both of those cases, there are clear definitions of what constitutes sexual harrassment and payola, and there have been loads of recent cases where breaking the law has led to prosecution. But as I said, neither exists with regard to the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" line.


On another subject, I agree with the comments that a lot of this discussion belongs in the national boards, and I appreciate the readers of this board (and the moderators) for allowing this discussion to continue.

 

[OttoM]

Wow, what a thread. A good way to while away a Sunday morning. Overall I have to give the edge to Rox - quite honestly, he did a better job articulating his points. Plus he's one of us - a WNYer.

 

[John C]

I thought I had made it all the way through Rox Vs A when another argument flared up on Mike Saffran's post. Sigh. I need a break from this. Back to the stiffs thread for me.

PS- Keep up the good work, Rox!

 

[Radknowski]

Wow, what a thread. A good way to while away a Sunday morning. Overall I have to give the edge to Rox - quite honestly, he did a better job articulating his points. Plus he's one of us - a WNYer.

Rox picked up more points on his Salchow jump, even though the East German judges seemed unappreciative. BigA, although getting very good elevation, had a rough landing on his Double Axel. It may be better to hold off scoring until after the Synchronized Skating later this evening.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The Big Finish

Radio stations are licensed to broadcasting companies with the expectation that they will operate within the laws, rules, and regulations of the United States. In fact, broadcasting companies PROMISE to do just that. In delivering on that promise, broadcasting companies expect their employees work within the myriad FCC rules and regulations regarding decency, profanity, operating within correct parameters for power and frequency, and countless other issues, yet TheBigA considers them incapable of determining when an incident might require them to call a Program Director for guidance on getting information out to the public.

If they're responsible enough to watch over 2, 3, 4, or more radio stations, shouldn't they be capable of making that determination?

Imagine if an event like 9-11 happened after 7PM. Doesn't the public at large deserve something more than pre-recorded happy talk voice tracks?

Many major broadcasting companies have abdicated their responsibility to the public simply to save a few - and I do mean a few - dollars. One or two additional commercials PER DAY would pay the salary of a live broadcaster to cover the hours that now go completely automated. When you own 2, 3, 4, or more radio stations, you might think that there might be a way to sell that extra commercial or two on one of your stations by offering something that can't be delivered by VT or iPod. Even having an off-air live body answer the phone to take contest entries or record comments, requests, or memories solicited by the VT could likely be sold for enough to cover the costs.

It's about commitment to the listener. There is overwhelming evidence that listeners don't feel the connection to radio that they once had. It has nothing to do with "new technology". It has everything to do with the failure of corporate programming to connect to listeners, and corporate radio's abdication of their legal responsibilities.

 

[TheBigA]

I really feel I've said everything I can possibly say in this thread. I'm happy to see other people commenting and expressing their views, because this is a very basic radio issue, and the timing is right for people in Buffalo to talk about this.

Please allow me a couple more responses:

Radio stations are licensed to broadcasting companies with the expectation that they will operate within the laws, rules, and regulations of the United States. In fact, broadcasting companies PROMISE to do just that.

I don't think anyone questions that. But let me point out that practically every adult citizen in this country ALSO receives a license from the government to use public facilities. I'm talking about a drivers license. And if you read the fine print, when you receive a license, you promise to follow all the local laws of the road. Yet, how many citizens break the law every minute of every day? Drive without seat belts, exceed the speed limit, make an illegal turn, or anything else. Quite often, drivers don't get caught. BUT they've abdicated their responsibility as license holders to uphold the law. How many politicians have we seen take oaths of office, place their hand on the Bible and swear to God that they will uphold the law...only to get caught with their hand in the till.

The difference between those two examples and broadcasters is the police are out looking to catch drivers who break the law. But the FCC, the agency charged with regulating broadcasting, has not held broadcasters to follow the law. For the past eight years, the main issue on their radar was indecency. They ran a crusade against DJs and musicians, fining broadcasting companies millions of dollars for allowing a bad word on the radio. Yet in all their zeal, not one fine was issued against a broadcasting company for not reporting the news. NOT ONE FINE!!!! Congress called Clear Channel to Washington after the Minot case, and even they did not issue a fine. NOT ONE FINE!!!! Imagine if you could drive your car down any road and know you were not going to get a ticket. What would you do?

It's convenient to blame broadcasters. They're an easy target. They're the bad guys. They're firing people and ignoring the law. But what is the point of having a law when there are no consequences? I'm reading comments from Rox and the lengthy report by Mike Saffrin, both of whom are calling for new regulations to control big bad broadcasting. My question to them is: Why bother? The government doesn't enforce the regulations it currently has. And hasn't for over 25 years. This isn't a political issue because NEITHER party has made a difference. For years, Michael Copps has railed about big bad broadcasters. Now he's Chairman of the FCC, and the only thing he's concerned about is the conversion to digital TV.

I was watching the SEC hearings this past week over the Madoff scandal. It really was great TV. One of the Congressment took the SEC guys to task for not doing their job. So will they get fired? Will they be charged with crimes? Will they do time or pay fines? Probably not. What's the point?

As I said, it's all fine and nice to blame the broadcasters. But shouldn't the agency that represents the people, the ones who supposedly own the airwaves, actually was out there doing something about it? Is that too much to ask?

It's about commitment to the listener. There is overwhelming evidence that listeners don't feel the connection to radio that they once had. It has nothing to do with "new technology". It has everything to do with the failure of corporate programming to connect to listeners, and corporate radio's abdication of their legal responsibilities.

The only problem with that is those mean nasty corporate baddies you're complaining about are responsible for a minority of radio stations in this country. Clear Channel, CBS, Citadel, Cumulus and the other big companies own less than 25% of all radio stations in this country. If what you're saying is true, why aren't listeners flocking in large numbers to the indie stations? The ones owned by small local owners. Shouldn't they be more responsive? How is Galaxy doing as an owner? How responsive are they? How much local news did WOUR do this year? You tell me. Mike Saffrin wants more LPFM stations. OK...how are they doing with listener involvement and responsiveness to the audience? How much local news coverage do they do? You tell me. And I understand that Buffalo is mainly a corporate town, but Regent is much smaller than CBS. Did things get better or worse for those stations when they were sold? I'd really like to know.

My point here is that these are very simplistic solutions to very complex problems. Broadcasting is not just public responsibility, and it's not just a business, it's both. It's easy to pick on the big guys. They're big targets and everyone knows them. It's a lot harder to apply the same rules to the alternatives. As I've said throughout this thread, I worked in Upstate New York. I know there were stations 30 years ago that also did no local news, did no local programming, and weren't owned by big out of state companies. I've named them. And I've done even more: I challenged their licenses in court and lost. How many who read these boards have EVER challenged a radio station license? It's not easy. Before you throw around all the simplistic jargon about "corporate is bad," I ask you to look around at the alternatives. Are they better off? Or are you throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you enact new rules that force current owners to divest, it could just as easily lead to the exact same situation or worse. There is no guarantee that enacting new regulations will lead to improved localism, public service, or even more creativity in radio. Remember all this as you drive down the highway at 15 mph above the speed limit and make an ellgal left hand turn.

 

[SSSKub]

Like it was said earlier... I don't think anyone in the market really turns to "The Edge" for news...


But, in their defense, did anyone hear The Shredd and Ragan Show Friday afternoon? Tom Ragan showed he IS one of the few people who can turn on that "journalist" switch and they provided an informative and compelling show Friday afternoon... Kudos