Trayvon Martin Verdict & Urban Radio

[ShawtyBlack_ATL]

So, another website is reporting some stations were told not to discuss the verdict and continue playing music. I would like to know exactly what company mandated this? I find it disgusting that any company wouldn't discuss this matter with the African American audience, especially stations with Urban formats. Uggh, I'm missing Michael Baisden on the radio right about now :'(

 

[landtuna]

Told by who? Their management? That would make sense to me. If they are primarily a music station why would they branch off into ranting and raving nonsense?

And beyond that, what is there to discuss? The trial was covered in great detail and the jury made a decision. The fact that anyone disagrees with the decision is an opinion, and they are entitled to it, but it is not important necessarily to anyone else and especially the audience of a music station.

It is most likely the station(s) didn't want to become wrapped up in the hate and discontent that some people with an agenda are pushing. As an owner of a commercial business I can certainly identify with that. You run the risk of alienating some of your audience no matter which way you lean and thereby damage your ratings and possibly revenue as well.

 

[trock]

It's a serious issue that needs to be discussed. With that said, I listen to music station for escape. So I can understand music stations not wanting to get caught up in such a polarizing issue.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Told by who? Their management? That would make sense to me. If they are primarily a music station why would they branch off into ranting and raving nonsense?

And beyond that, what is there to discuss? The trial was covered in great detail and the jury made a decision. The fact that anyone disagrees with the decision is an opinion, and they are entitled to it, but it is not important necessarily to anyone else and especially the audience of a music station.

It is most likely the station(s) didn't want to become wrapped up in the hate and discontent that some people with an agenda are pushing. As an owner of a commercial business I can certainly identify with that. You run the risk of alienating some of your audience no matter which way you lean and thereby damage your ratings and possibly revenue as well.

Landtuna, landtuna, landtuna. Your persnicketyness is only bested by your oft-enthusiastic ignorance.

Ignoring your subjectives, you are talking about a news story that first got notoriety because of urban radio and viral social media awareness...back in the spring of 2012. Michael Basiden's syndicated afternoon-drive show (a music show) was the first national platform to highlight it, and it naturally spread to Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey, and countless other national/local shows aimed at mostly African-American audiences. I think its pretty safe to say that open phone lines for venting on several mainstream urban, urban AC, classic soul and gospel stations across the country? I don't think (m)any people minded the music being temporarily stopped for public conversations that the majority of urban radio listeners were having amongst friends and family.

And seeing as how thousands took to the streets in peaceful protests from Times Square to Leimert Park, any such 'keep quiet' directive would have been the height of program director incompetence...yet not quite approaching George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch capability.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Told by who? Their management? That would make sense to me. If they are primarily a music station why would they branch off into ranting and raving nonsense?

So what forum are we sitting in? URBAN/URBAN AC/R&B OLDIES. I'm not surprised you and ShawtyBlack would see this issue differently.

I spent the first 14 years of my life in a Southwestern county that may not have had a single African American resident for all I know.
Because of my father's health we moved to a Southern State community that may have had 25 African American residents, all of them living in one small neighborhood where the primary occupation was farm work and picking cotton in particular.

When the Civil Rights upheaval of the 1950s and 1960s hit, I was "doing radio" in the Mississippi Delta area, and in the mid 60's when national turmoil was really boiling and roiling, I found myself selling radio in a Midwestern city for a station that spent half a day broadcasting Urban and R&B. For a guy who "never had a dog in that fight"... I had to grow up right quick!!! Our corporate management stepped up to the plate and we did some things to meet the needs of our audience... and took our chances with our audience in other day-parts.

I then moved on to another station in the market and Eldon Campbell of Time-Life Broadcasting recruited me to serve on an industry committee and the local level on how broadcasting would respond to the issues of the day. We encouraged open dialog on a topic that had to be resolved in this country.

What the event in Florida tells us is that we haven't finished resolving civil rights issues in this country. ShawtyBlack is on target. If a corporation has chosen a programming content that obviously reaches and depends on a segment of our society, by all means do something to serve that segment!

The argument that leaves unsolved is: What does "do something" mean? What should a station serving an audience that has strong interest in the court case do? Holding your hands in the classic "See no evil, Hear no evil, Say no evil" pose is probably not the right answer. Broadcasters didn't know the exact time the verdict would come down, but they had three weeks of wall-to-wall opportunity to follow the trial and formulate a company approved response. "No Response" actually turns out to be a form of response that causes discussion.... like we are having here.

 

[landtuna]

I lived in the Deep South for four very long years and it convinced me I never will go back. That aside, why am I being lectured? I merely said I can understand why management of a music station would not want to jeopardize their audience by inserting themselves in a no-win issue. Seems black and white to me (pun intended).

The Zimmerman trial was unfortunately politicized early and often and, as expected, parasites like Al Sharpton took the opportunity to insert themselves and inflame whatever is left of common sense. Considering Zimmerman's trial only (and not race relations in the entire South or specifically in Florida) it was either that the State did not present compelling evidence that Zimmerman took Martin's life intentionally or by negligence. That is the legal bar that every such trial must pass to convict an accused. The jury heard the evidence and made the decision. They couldn't even find Zimmerman guilt of a reduced charge. Their decision is therefore very clear.

Rioting in the streets do not serve to change the verdict but they do inflame passions on both sides of the race issue and we will never solve that problem with people like Sharpton and the dozens of radio talk idiots who push the discussion just to advance their personal careers.

My original post was intended for ShawntyBlack and asked who was asking who(m) to not discuss the trial. I was both trying to understand why he was apparently concerned and also offered a possible reason why it was so. So far he has not answered so the question remains open.

Personally I would advocate for closed trials until after the verdict is reached. I have had enough of so-called legal pundits, hate radio talk show hosts and idiots off the street whose only input has been verbal snippets conjecturing about daily twists and turns in a trial. Most commoners do not understand legal procedure nor statutes and are not qualified to open their mouth. Putting these people on the air to justify a host's inflammatory position is irresponsible and should be illegal. The Zimmerman trial is enough evidence of that but if you need others consider the recent Jody Arias trial in my state and Casey Anthony trial in FL.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

My original post was intended for ShawntyBlack and asked who was asking who(m) to not discuss the trial. I was both trying to understand why he was apparently concerned and also offered a possible reason why it was so. So far he has not answered so the question remains open.

I guess I read a little more into the post by ShawtyBlack than maybe you did. I haven't met him, but I pay attention to his posts. I suspect I live about 50 or 60 miles from him. I also suspect he does not see the station in question as just "a MUSIC station".... but as a "music station" serving an Urban audience. He didn't call for them to editorialize or go into a Talk Radio format... just acknowledge that an event that hopefully we can agree is "newsworthy" in the eyes/ears of the Urban audience got at least a "mention" so those who wanted more detail could switch to another source to feed their appetite.

There is not much of anywhere we can go with this conversation that would be productive. I share your lack of enthusiasm over the way broadcasting including TV has sensationalized court proceedings. Having been News Director at a radio station a number of years back that covered court proceedings at the local level as best we could, and having serviced on a jury in a murder trial, my personal "antennae" certainly zero in on events like this, the way broadcasting deals with such events.

Sometimes I come in from yard-work and I have tangled with a limb that I pruned last year and it leaves a cut and scrape and some blood on my arm that needs to be cleaned and disinfected.... but I know that I am healthy and will likely survive. And at a time like this, I think to myself: "Is there some way I can cut back my trees and shrubs and not leave bobby-traps that grab me in the future."

The case in Florida is a bit like that. It may or may not leave a scar that is visible in future years. It's going to be painful for folks for a few months, maybe a few years. We will tend to it enough for right now to make sure that infection does not set in. But just as I think about other ways I could trim my low-hanging branches, think of all the opportunities we have now to consider the low-hanging branches. Are our gun laws where we want them to be? Are our legal doctrines on "Castle Law" and "Stand Your Ground" where we want them? Are we happy with the lighting in our residential neighborhoods? Is there something we can do in the land of "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" that can corral the media into some maturity in reporting?

It wasn't my intention to lecture YOU. My lecture is to my state, my metro area, the state of Florida. You simply posted the same thing I hear when I stop to pick a morning coffee somewhere down the street. Yeah, I guess I have this secret desire to lecture the whole bloomin' world! ;D

I think ShawtyBlack and I both feel that the station in question could have probably reached out to it's audience in some mature way and pass along the word: "Here is some news of interest to you. If you any disappointment in the news, then make up your mind that come Monday morning you will say something, do something to heal the disappointment others have, and do something to improve future outcomes."

 

[dj_kandre]

I'd like to commend the local Urban (faux Rhythmic) WCKX Power 107.5 here in Columbus, OH., who broke in during the Saturday night mix show which runs from 10p-12a (I still feel that it needs to be longer then 2 hours but baby steps I guess LOL) when the verdict happened and took calls from the listeners on their feelings (both opinions and views on the matter) and encouraged people to not go out and do anything silly. Also I'd like to commend Big Bink who stayed on the air an extra hour til 1am taking these calls from people. It was very encouraging to see this day and age a station actually broke from regular programming to talk to and allow their listeners to vent or express their frustrations as well as for people with others opinions to voice theirs as well. It really reminded me of the community minded stations of the past in my youth back in Louisiana.

I still say on a personal note longer mix shows on both Fri and Sat nights, not just 2 hours each night

 

[landtuna]

I guess I read a little more into the post by ShawtyBlack than maybe you did. I haven't met him, but I pay attention to his posts. I suspect I live about 50 or 60 miles from him. I also suspect he does not see the station in question as just "a MUSIC station".... but as a "music station" serving an Urban audience. He didn't call for them to editorialize or go into a Talk Radio format... just acknowledge that an event that hopefully we can agree is "newsworthy" in the eyes/ears of the Urban audience got at least a "mention" so those who wanted more detail could switch to another source to feed their appetite.

I agree our perceptions and interests might be very different but I simply asked him who was preventing coverage as he described. Simple question.

I can't believe in this day and age anyone who had even a passing interest in the trial couldn't find many descriptions of the going-ons on a daily basis. I usually camp out on Yahoo.com and there wasn't a single day that they didn't have multiple stories from any one of a number of sources. It might just be me but I wouldn't think of going to a station known for playing music to get news stories.

I think ShawtyBlack and I both feel that the station in question could have probably reached out to it's audience in some mature way and pass along the word: "Here is some news of interest to you. If you any disappointment in the news, then make up your mind that come Monday morning you will say something, do something to heal the disappointment others have, and do something to improve future outcomes."

I watch a certain morning show on TV each weekday morning - about an hour of it - and every morning during the news segment they post a survey which goes something like this:

Tell us what you think of the Trayvon Martin decision:
(1) You agreed with the verdict.
(2) You disagreed with the verdict.
(3) You feel the justice system in America is broken.
(4) You really don't care.

What does a poll like this do except to generate passionate, and often incorrect, feelings on both sides and further inflame hostility between (in this case) Blacks and Latinos? Actions like this came out in spades following O.J. Simpson's murder trial and none of that discussion changed anyone's mind nor did it do a thing to promote peace and understanding between people of different races.

People broadcasting on radio and TV are supposed to be professionals in some form and should be capable of doing something on-air other than inviting the missing and partially informed to rant about things they don't like. To me, it is cheap theatrics and worthless but more than that it can have the effect of polarizing those of us in the middle that heretofore haven't demonized the "others" for obvious reasons.

Two experienced lawyers discussing the merits or subtleties of the trial is one thing. Creating a lynch mob mentality in the streets is another. And I am afraid our media is, at times, very guilty of the second.