> To make the best of a situation or to complain about the
> things that cannot be changed? To judge others without
> knowing them or to remember that everyone in this business
> has suffered at some point and have compassion? From
> blacklisting new PDs to smacking down people who defend
> their formats, many of the comments on this board make it
> seem like there are a lot of chips on a lot of shoulders.
>
> Just because it's not as overt doesn't mean that the dirty
> laundry doesn't exist. To be a fly on the wall at almost
> any Sacramento radio station (even the Zone, 98 Rock, KHTK,
> KNCI and the End, which are rarely mentioned on this site)
> would surely prove that everyone goes through the same
> garbage day in and day out.
>
> Yeah, sure, this board is intended to be little more than a
> rumor mill. Still, has everyone been so beaten down by
> corporate entities that they've lost any sense of civility?
> I'm certainly not speaking to everyone on this board - just
> to those who have the tendancy to slam everyone else and
> second guess people. I'm so tired of negative attitudes and
> I'm grateful to work in an atmosphere that for the most part
> exudes the contrary - a rarity, I know.
>
> I'm not suggesting we devote ourselves to ensuring world
> peace. I'm merely suggesting that people sit back for a
> moment and remember that we're all just trying to make a
> living.
>
> Ok. I'm ready. Go ahead and rip me to shreds now.
>
All right you two (Mr. Patriot and Radio Victim), enough of the pity party. Just kidding. Finally, a topic that's about radio, but isn't. I hope it generates a lot of posts instead of just this one long one you may or may not get through.
Radio doesn't have exclusivity in this arena. The commonality, I think, is that complaining is universal. You don't even have to work in a different industry to find it --what's that website that posts secretly acquired corporate memos and comments to them? Corporate something or other (uh, dot-com). Talk to computer techs who've been "shredded" by outsourcing and if you close your eyes, it sounds like you're talking to people who were on the wrong end of voice tracking. It seems this is a human condition.
By the same token, any individual will eventually admit, yes, make the best of a bad situation. Sort of goes with that old mantra, you have to be part of the system if you wanna change it.
But being part of the system doesn't seem to be the solution and perhaps what people are really frustrated by is a lack of control. Maybe that's the human condition, a free spirit desire to be able to do that which achieves the best possible results. I know this is what turns my insides, and I don't say this out of personal angst (though I've had my share of "that's bullshit" moments).
We all know that radio could be a way better product but for the countless examples of corporate buffoonery that were red flagged by town criers during those heady years of consolidation. Honestly, is Clear Channel any better because the Lowrys wanted to be the biggest radio company out there? Did voice-tracking or syndicating Howard Stern (or anyone else for that matter) ultimately deplete or deny the industry of a whole generation of talent? How often have we heard, "there's no talent out there"? Who's fault is this Catch 22? Not the morning show guy or the MD. How many PDs are better managers than they are radio people because they run selector and write liner cards for four stations instead of one? How often has it been said that the more hats you can wear the better your job security?
(As an aside, the Chinese Fire Drill resulting from Stern's departure would suggest that yes, syndicating him was a short term idea that was bad in the long run. Admittedly he's not the best example --it was a success but it was also an example of how radio doesn't think long term, even when, in his final years "on Earth," it was clear that contingency plans for his replacement were needed. Did they make them? I can tell you in fact, that it was a mad scramble, akin to the Keystone Cops.)
I don't say this as someone who lost his job to a Mancow syndication or something. We've all had to warm the bench at one time or another. I didn't like it but I hold animosity to no one for it. As I said, my angst isn't for personal reasons, but it's hair-pulling to see people make a decision about me (or anyone) that I didn't like --a firing or what-not-- and then continue to make bad decisions. Sort of like, if you thought it was an improvement to fire so-and-so, why does it sound worse? Some people would look at that and feel vindicated --"well, they fired me and look what happened, f*** 'em, they got what they deserved." That's not what I see. I see an opportunity for improvement wasted, a moment when a small part of the industry could be better and we fail that moment. We can all cite that kind of story or three from our past. Is that ultimately the problem? My frustration arises from knowing that radio could be a way better product but for a variety of reasons, simply gets in its own way. More to the point, the radio business gets in the way of the radio product.
Maybe I'm an idealist, sort of the way Bobby Kennedy once put it: Rather than see things the way they are and say "why?" I see things the way they can be and say, "why not?" The world's a much more cynical place today.
We (or I) say it could be better but the bigger question in all this for corporate management might be, "do they care?" I don't believe they do. We who work in radio see it as a product; they see it as a delivery system. We who wish it were better are not the ones who see balance sheets, sit before a board of directors or address a convention of stockholders. They who do are not down in the trenches.
Can you take the word "radio" out of that synopsis and replace it with "auto industry," "computer biz," any corporate workplace USA? I think you can.
It's foreboding that this happens at a time when technology offers an abundance of alternatives to the radio medium. I can't tell you how many times I've heard high school kids say "I haven't listened to the radio for 3 years." Certainly, radio isn't giving them a reason to listen, any more than the music or film industry has offered a compelling reason not to pirate their products. Like radio, the greed factor and a lack of foresight have been their undoing.
It's a sad state but I feel confident in saying that if radio suffers a calamitous demise, it will be the fault of the people who owned it, not those who worked in it. I just hate seeing that sort of thing happen anywhere, whether I'm part of it or not. Especially when it's avoidable.
All that aside, I will "defend" this site as one where enlightenment prevails over the gutter, whose contributors generally are civil, insightful and even provocative (as in the post that started this thread) --exceptions noted, of course. I have not been to AllAccess NetTalk in a long time precisely because I became tired of the rants, slams and bitterness inherent in the posts. There were definitely some people on there that needed to be shot; on here, there's a person or two who maybe needed to be slapped, or spanked. I have to include myself in that latter group as I'm sure something I've contributed along the way has gotten under someone's skin. But by far, this is a highly useful site, so if there's complaining now and again, it's palatable by comparison.
As for rating people whom I've worked with, etc... hmm, my first thought was that to name the best companies and managers I've worked for, you'd have to go back to the days before consolidation --a cynical remark, I confess. But you have a list of decent human beings there, to be sure.
There are others: John Geary is an aloof sort, but if you're "one of his boys," you're in. Robin Pechota is a solid promotions person and Charlie Weiss (speaking of Entercom's AM) gets good marks, as do Entravision's Larry Lemanski and air talents Jim Hall and Rick Shannon. And the folks at V-101 are a willing and able group.
You have to add the caveat of a sales staff. AEs and managers need to be part of the equation and there are some very good ones in this market and not so very good ones. Sometimes programming people forget that (by the same token, sometimes sales people hold their programming colleagues in contempt, so that's a two way street and one to be avoided). Oh, and know your engineers. I've never met one I didn't like, and they can be terrific allies if you're in programming.
I think you have to qualify it, though. People you work with is different from people you work for, so while Monica Lowe may be a sweetheart off the air, it's not the same thing as saying Alan Eisenson is a great guy (both observations are true, by the way). Even the best manager faces corporate hurdles over which he has no control and in any interview process, I think that's a fair question to ask of a potential employer. Surely Mr. Eisenson (ar at the time, Ken Kohl) wouldn't have approved getting rid of air traffic but higher ups were cutting costs. Leaving a company on good terms isn't always fun. How managers work with those crises is an important part of your working environment. What sort of bosses would they be in a better situation? IS there a better situation? Ya know, they say winning is the best tonic. It's easy when things are going great; when things get difficult, that's when you find out what kind of mettle you're made of. Would some of these good people be better in better working environments, or worse in worse environments? And those of us who can think of the assholes in this market (that would be a fun night of drinking), would they still be assholes in a more ideal situation? (In some cases, we would probably all agree that yes, still assholes.)
Companies? A year ago I'd have said Susquehanna and Emmis but they're in a state of flux and certainly in no position to be expanding. Entercom runs a good ship and if anyone were in a position to launch a competing AM operation against the Clear Channel tandem, they would be it. But so far, they have little to show for it.
In the end, it's the obvious: you choose based on whom you will be working with, and then who your immediate supervisors are. Some shops are doomed from the start no matter what they promise at the outset (can you say First Broadcasting). Others will be around whether you like them or not (Clear Channel, Infinity and Entercom). Ultimately, no matter who your work for, doesn't it come back to the question you first posed, the one about making the best of a bad situation? Maybe it would be best to set aside a night of pitchers to discuss who NOT to work for. It might be fruitless to hope those people would improve, but it would certainly be worth a laugh, and in the end, the good news is, they have to live with themselves. How's that for a penance?
Chapter 2 of "War and Peace" tomorrow.
