• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Wasn't this tried before?

What Rox said...well, except maybe the "estimable" part... ;)

I think Lee, who truly is estimable, is on to something with the direction in which he's trying to steer this herd of cats into a productive discussion: no question that the mission and the business model of "public broadcasting" has shifted dramatically over the last generation. The same is true, to a somewhat lesser degree, of commercial radio and TV.

The equally estimable Savage quite correctly observes that the shift (for all the reasons Rox cites) has put at least some public broadcasters in some degree of conflict with commercial broadcasters when it comes to the pursuit of advertising and/or underwriting.

So the question I'd ask: are we ready to have a serious conversation (if not as a nation, then at least as an insignificant message board) about what we want our public media to look like, if we're to have a public media at all?

Let me see if I can stake out the extremes - at one end, I think we have at least some Americans who'd argue that if a radio or TV station can't succeed in some form of free-market enterprise (be it soliciting advertising or donations from listeners), there should be zero government support, either because we just can't afford it or (at the far end of the dialogue) because they believe that's not something government should be doing at all.

At the other extreme, I think, would be those who would argue that what we really need is a public media completely free of market pressures, free of underwriting, free of pledge drives, and thus completely funded by the government to a much larger extent than the current hybrid funding model. In the political world of the US in 2011, this position looks extreme as well, though it represents the existing model in some other parts of the world (the BBC, at least for now) and it represents a model that existed in some parts of the country for at least a while, at the state level. ("9XM Talking," Randall Davidson's fascinating history of 9XM/WHA in Madison, Wisconsin, is instructive reading for a look at what might have been and why it didn't turn out that way.)

The reality is going to end up somewhere between those two extremes. I think it's worth having a dialogue about what that reality might look like. Anyone want to join me?
 
Bob Savage (who we all respect as a broadcaster) says something with which many of us familiar with the situation would argue..."This whole discussion is an attempt to divert the discussion away from the point: the money which is being lavished on public broadcasting. I think this is particularly troubling given the political agenda often apparent in the final product."

Actually this issue of alleged bias has been addressed by both objective content analysis and surveys of thousands of radio listeners nationwide. The verdict on public radio and bias; a conclusive NOT GUILTY. Content analysts by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed that NPR programming was MORE inclusive of ALL points of view and MORE free of bias than any other national news medium, with only PBS news and documentary programming coming close and all commercial networks lagging far behind. And again this year the Roper organization found that listeners regarded NPR programming as more fair and unbiased than any other broadcast outlet.

It's one thing to claim to be "fair and balanced"--it's something else when objective outsiders without an interest in the outcome analyze and gauge the work, and prove it.
 
I too find NPR programming to be much better balanced, and much more tolerant of diverse viewpoints than commercial broadcasting. Are there moments - or shows - that make me grit my teeth? Yes. Is the discussion much more civil - and productive - than the ranting on commercial talk radio? Yes.

Could some of the "vegetable" services be delivered via Internet instead of public airwaves? Yes. Particular the niche formats, or informational programming targeted at smaller audiences. Unfortunately, that means that thos audiences need to have broadband Internet access, and computers or other information appliances to view that content. So, the alternative to public broadcasting is publicly supported Internet access and publicly supported computers/information appliances. Tell me, which is cheaper?

The Obama administration is proposing lots of spending on expanding Internet access. The dollars going to the CPB pale in comparison. Which way will real people get the most bang for their buck?
 
Bob1370 said:
Actually this issue of alleged bias has been addressed by both objective content analysis and surveys of thousands of radio listeners nationwide. The verdict on public radio and bias; a conclusive NOT GUILTY. Content analysts by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed that NPR programming was MORE inclusive of ALL points of view and MORE free of bias than any other national news medium, with only PBS news and documentary programming coming close and all commercial networks lagging far behind. And again this year the Roper organization found that listeners regarded NPR programming as more fair and unbiased than any other broadcast outlet.

It's one thing to claim to be "fair and balanced"--it's something else when objective outsiders without an interest in the outcome analyze and gauge the work, and prove it. 
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob1370, for sharing this.  That's why I get so hot and bothered when people criticize NPR for its alleged bias.  I don't know about you, Bob, but I've been involved in what can only be described as very scrupulous editing sessions for reports I produced for NPR News programs.  It seems every word was parsed to make sure I was not putting anything into the report that was not properly attributed or supported by the facts.  I'd revise my copy and then go through a second edit.  In the end, the report was much better, and I learned a lot from working with NPR editors.  In fact, I've been reading a spirited debate on a public radio list-serve that I belong to about the practice of news people doing fundraising on the air because of its potential impact on credibility.  Believe me when I say that pub radio journalists take their responsibilties pretty seriously when it comes to objectivity.  
 
Thank you Bob Savage for your comments.

Here is a person who spent his own hard earned money to build a radio station from scratch without being subsided with any government funding.

As for the critics of the programming he airs; may I remind these individuals that for many years WYSL ran AP news.

Unfortunately AP decided to end their 24 hour news radio news operation a few years ago forcing stations like WYSL to find other means of programming. Mr. Savage decided that instead of going with Air America, which I'm sure he figured out from the start wasn't going to make it, instead went with what is described as conservative talk.

WYSL is now operating on 1040AM, with 20 kw, plus 92.1 is the only FM talk radio in the Rochester market.

A note of interest: I bet many of you are not aware that WYSL was the first local radio station that brought Rush Limbaugh to the Rochester market. The reason WHAM got Limbaugh was because they had that flamethrower 50kw signal.

Anyways getting back to my original point, Bob Savage has every right to express his views about government funding for public radio and television because he never got on the air and begged people to donate money. He, and his staff, went out and sought advertising the old fashion way.

I have no idea what Mr. Savage makes when it comes to a salary, but I know from people who are familiar with him say that he doesn't spend his most of his time sitting being a plush desk in a building paid for with taxpayer's money, attends wine and cheese fundraisers, or drives around in a company-paid for SUV. Nope he actually works for a living!

Remember this. Bob Savage built something with his own hands. He didn't walk into an established station and managed to triple his salary in just a few years while forcing good employees to leave because he was impossible to work for. From what I've been told Bob's staff is the same group that has been there for years. That right there says something about the man as an owner.
 
"Remember this. Bob Savage built something with his own hands. He didn't walk into an established station and managed to triple his salary in just a few years while forcing good employees to leave because he was impossible to work for. From what I've been told Bob's staff is the same group that has been there for years. That right there says something about the man as an owner."

And God bless him for it, he is one of the few of his kind left. Many of us once worked for men like him (Larry Levite at WBEN was and is one such man, and while he's living well and prospering in semi-retirement, he is much missed in the broadcasting industry). But "Voice of Reason" then spoils his argument with a dig at another individual, whom he does not name, and implies incorrectly and inaccurately that noncommercial radio is run by people who don't work for a living. "Voice of Reason", please have the courtesy not to clutter this board with false arguments driven by apparent personal grievances, especially if you aren't going to stand by your comments by coming forward and letting us all know who you are.
 
While I agree with VOR that local PBS/NPR stations have bloated budgets/big bureaucracies, etc.(I must divulge my own brief experience with WXXI, many years ago, was a very unhappy one, so for me, being impartial here might be tough), you can't knock their programming. For example: driving home tonight while listening to All Things Considered on WRUR, I heard a great feature about a famous photographer who's husband has been diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy --- and there was a whole lot more to it than that, but it was just excellent and something you're never going to hear on commercial radio. For anyone who cares to tune in, stories like these give you this much bigger view of real life. I like WRUR's mid-day music schedule too - another nice alternative to commercial radio. While I don't listen much to classical music, it seems to me that WXXI-FM also is a real community asset, as is the WXXI-AM programming, including Bob Smith's very local talk show.
I have no idea what Mr. Savage makes when it comes to a salary, but I know from people who are familiar with him say that he doesn't spend his most of his time sitting being a plush desk in a building paid for with taxpayer's money, attends wine and cheese fundraisers, or drives around in a company-paid for SUV. Nope he actually works for a living!
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything wrong with begging for money, especially if VOR's hope for no government funding comes to fruition. Where else do they get their money from(not counting underwriting, which is sort of like begging, perhaps)? Yes, I applaud Bob Savage and other indie commercial radio operators for their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit, but you can't knock pubcasters for not selling commercial advertising - they're non commercial. While wine and cheese fundraisers aren't my thing(I'd be a fish outta water at one of those) they are FUNDraisers - Norm's raising funds - gotta do that to make budget. Raising funds for non profits is hard work too! There is nothing illegal or immoral about running a non-profit or for-profit organization. They can co-exist, for cryin' out loud.
while forcing good employees to leave because he was impossible to work for.
Click to expand...
No quarrel with you there.

From my own experience with pubcasting, I feel much of the programming is a real asset, but don't like the bloated operations of local pubcasters(this is based on what knowledge I have of WXXI and WNED, personally and from what I've read and heard through the grapevine). So now VOR and Bob Smith might possibly agree on one thing - I'm being wishy washy here. But really, I'm just callin' it the way I see it. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
 
cee said:
While I agree with VOR that local PBS/NPR stations have bloated budgets/big bureaucracies, etc.(I must divulge my own brief experience with WXXI, many years ago, was a very unhappy one, so for me, being impartial here might be tough), you can't knock their programming. For example: driving home tonight while listening to All Things Considered on WRUR, I heard a great feature about a famous photographer who's husband has been diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy --- and there was a whole lot more to it than that, but it was just excellent and something you're never going to hear on commercial radio. For anyone who cares to tune in, stories like these give you this much bigger view of real life. I like WRUR's mid-day music schedule too - another nice alternative to commercial radio. While I don't listen much to classical music, it seems to me that WXXI-FM also is a real community asset, as is the WXXI-AM programming, including Bob Smith's very local talk show.
Click to expand...

I've never "knocked" the programming provided by public radio and television. I've merely pointed out that a number of cable channels offer similar programs. Granted one has to endure commercials, but for the past few years public broadcasting has also injected commercials; aka: Underwriting; into their programs as well.

You did hit the nail on the head however when referring to "bloated bureaucracies and budgets" which is what I've been advocating against for sometime; much to the chagrin of Dr. Smith and a few other posters. Well as we all know Dr. Smith has been an outspoken and often vocal critic against Clear Channel, but I guess that's okay for him to post numerous rants against that organization, which he has the right too, but when I bring up the truth about overpaid executives at his station, I'm accused of "harping on the same ole subject." Apparently the good doctor wants to keep in the good graces of his employer. So be it.

Just for the record, I am not opposed to public broadcasting per say. What I am opposed to is the simple fact that public broadcasting receives federal tax dollars, is allowed to air commercials (underwriting), receives grant monies, and donations from the public. Now, that some lawmakers are calling for the end of federal funding for public broadcasting, one can hear the cry of the sky falling in.

Everyone else in the private and education sectors are faced with possible budget cuts and will have to tighten their belts. But I've yet to hear the executives at WXXI come out with a statement that they will impose a wage and benefit freeze for themselves. Oh they might tell the public that there is a wage freeze in place, but that's for the "small fry" at the station. Heaven forbid that the CEO and his five top managers take a pay cut. (Notice that Dr. Smith avoids issues like this for the obvious reason that he doesn't want to anger his bosses).

The solution is simple for public broadcasting and its future budget woes.

1. Cut the salaries and benefits of top executives
2. More listeners and viewers contribute to public radio and television.
3. Stop spending grant monies on projects that may just last a few years.

Three simple steps to avoid laying off employees and cutting back on programs.

Oh and a final note on programs. A great majority of the programs aired over WXXI radio and TV are national programs. Only a small minority are locally produced. If it is costing the station money to air Diane Rehm for example, why not save that money by
eliminating that show and having 1370 Connection on earlier?
 
Red1 said:
I am so sick of this debate and if you knew who Voice of Reason was you would be too!
Click to expand...

You tantalize us, oh mysterious new poster...

But getting back to a point made by VoR:

Oh and a final note on programs. A great majority of the programs aired over WXXI radio and TV are national programs. Only a small minority are locally produced. If it is costing the station money to air Diane Rehm for example, why not save that money by
eliminating that show and having 1370 Connection on earlier?
Click to expand...

The math on this is very simple, and you know it: the cost of NPR fees for two hours of Diane Rehm or Talk of the Nation, while not insubstantial, is still significantly lower than what it would cost to produce local programming. That's why many smaller stations don't do anything local in midday.
 
I am so sick of this debate and if you knew who Voice of Reason was you would be too!
Click to expand...
  • Bob Lonsberry?
  • Andrew Cuomo?
  • Norm Silverstein's alter ego (& perhaps having a laugh at our expense)?
 
Heh. Wouldn't it be funny if VoR was actually Wease complaining about somebody else's fat salaries?
 
http://www.democratandchronicle.com...N02/102200325/Don-t-cut-funding-public-media-


What I found hilarious is Silverstein's comment about having people come up to him at the grocery store expressing their concerns over the elimination of funding for public broadcasting.

Does this guy think we are stupid or what?

I've been told by current and former employees that this man has no social skills when it comes to a one-on-one conversation with another person; yet he's trying to allude that total strangers approach him in the pickle and catsup aisle at Wegman's to engage him in a conversation about funding for public broadcasting. ::)
 
"What I found hilarious is Silverstein's comment about having people come up to him at the grocery store expressing their concerns over the elimination of funding for public broadcasting."

Im sure it's true, since people have come up to me with similar concerns.

"Does this guy think we are stupid or what?"

Again, since he's stating a fact, your point's moot.

"I've been told by current and former employees that this man has no social skills when it comes to a one-on-one conversation with another person; yet he's trying to allude that total strangers approach him in the pickle and catsup aisle at Wegman's to engage him in a conversation about funding for public broadcasting"

Your animus toward the man is really showing, and coloring your argument about the entire issue. It's pretty clear you have a deep personal dislike for him, for reasons which we can only guess since you don't choose to identify yourself. To try to guess this back story is pointless since it has nothng to do with the central issue at hand. Public broadcasting provides a nonpartisan, inclusive news and public affairs service that no commercial network or station chooses to match (and many refuse to, providing partisan programming instead). The question is this...are we going to continue to provide listeners with a service that presents all sides of an issue., or are we going to allow broadcasting in America to become the same kind of special interest-driven. partisan outlet that it has become in many of the nations we now regard as our adversaries?
 
Bob1370 said:
"What I found hilarious is Silverstein's comment about having people come up to him at the grocery store expressing their concerns over the elimination of funding for public broadcasting."

Im sure it's true, since people have come up to me with similar concerns.

"Does this guy think we are stupid or what?"

Again, since he's stating a fact, your point's moot. :D
Click to expand...
"

The truth is the guy has the personality trait of Richard Nixon. He's an introvert when it comes to dealing with people, especially staff members, on a one-to-one basis and you know it. So what I've written is true; even though you are covering for this guy.

You know darn well that first of all he didn't write this column; his press person did. And most importantly nobody is going to approach him at a supermarket to discuss WXXI and public funding. A majority of people have no idea who this guy is. And unless someone has money or influence in this community, it highly unlikely he would engage in a conversation with that person anyways.

So stop trying to gain brownie points with management.
 
Cheese it, guys! Click off the flashlights, stash the comic books under the bed and pretend you're asleep! I hear the TIO police coming down the hall!!! :D
 
while I know I qualify to comment [36 years on the air now- one way or another-and counting- in this market... 17 years at the public radio station in question].. and I certainly have "dirt" and opinions about that radio station ( and many others! ), sorry I am not VOR [that person is smarter than me!].. I occasionally read what's going on, on the boards, but in fact, this is the first time I have ever posted here. -bill flynn
 
I'm more and more convinced VOR is indeed WXXI CEO Norm Silverstein, playing a joke on us. :D Or, if you want to look for "clues" --- perhaps someone who used to work at the old WVOR - Jack Palvino? ???
 
"this is the first time I have ever posted here. -bill flynn"

Welcome to the board, Bill, good to see you...and hope all's well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom