Why work in radio anymore?

[TheBigA]

Most stations that give up street reporting end up presenting newscasts full of the usual suspects -- spokespeople and PR handouts.

Here is a fact: No radio station will ever have enough street reporters on staff to cover the stories as they happen. You can have one reporter or 20. There will always be some news that happens that your reporter can't get to. Even in a small town, but particularly in larger towns. You can't be everywhere. Even if you listen to police radio and send people to where the police go, you miss out on lots of stuff.

The best way to cover news now is to interact with your listeners. They know much more about the real stories than any reporter. They are where the news is, and they will be your best source for news. And not just re-report their stuff, but actually INTERACT with them. That was one of the mistakes radio made when it got big was to distance itself from its audience.

The era of paid beat reporters is over. We know that there are lots of people who will report on news for free. Radio stations need to tap into those sources. Obviously, the radio station has to check the story, and weed out the biased information. But that's what editors do. You don't need to cold call sources when you have the internet. EVERYTHING is there for free. You just have to figure out the facts from the fiction.

 

[TheBigA]

Also, in keeping with the topic of this thread, anyone who is interested in broadcasting as a career should be doing it on the web. Consider it your audition tape. If you want to be a reporter, set up a news blog. If you want to do sports, same thing. Music is more difficult because of the royalty issue. But there are ways around it. If this is what you want to do, you need to approach it as something you'd be willing to do for free, because the money will never be good.

 

[firepoint525]

Wow, a lot here to chew on since I last replied.

I remember an old episode of The Facts of Life in which the girls made and sold pizzas.  Things went well at first.  They used homemade ingredients and made everything from scratch.  Then they started cutting corners, and using already-made pizza crusts, and sauce from a jar.  Then one day, someone stopped them, and asked, "have you actually TASTED your product lately?  It's awful!"  Same thing with radio.  One or two consolidation-type changes would likely pass by the listener unnoticed, but the cumulative effect of ALL the changes IS noticeable.  Even by people who are NOT "radiophiles" like all of us.  I've even seen it discussed on non-radio message boards.

When I asked if corporate types listen to their own stations, I meant, do they ever listen to those stations for entertainment purposes, not just with a technical ear listening for dead air and other mistakes.  Obviously, a radio station CEO won't listen to Radio Disney for entertainment purposes, but if there is a station in his cluster which fits his demographic, does he ever listen to it on his day off, just for entertainment?  Sometimes, I wonder what exactly DO they ever listen to, if anything, on the radio?  Even listening to a competitor's station, even if just for entertainment, won't provide much relief from "sameness" and mediocrity, because nearly all stations all across the dial sound pretty much the same nowadays.

 

[TheBigA]

One or two consolidation-type changes would likely pass by the listener unnoticed, but the cumulative effect of ALL the changes IS noticeable. Even by people who are NOT "radiophiles" like all of us. I've even seen it discussed on non-radio message boards.

There are a lot of myths perpetuated on message boards. One has to do with the number of commercials. I've read all kinds of numbers about commercials on message boards, and the facts don't bear them out. But people believe what they want to believe, so they feel there are too many commercials. The fact is that, for the most part, commercial load hasn't increased, and in many places it's gone down. The truth is that for some people, any commercials are too many. But you have to pay the bills somehow.

The other issue has to do with change. You refer to “consolidation-type changes.” But there have been lots of changes that have nothing to do with consolidation. I say that because they’re also being made at non-consolidated and non-commercial stations. But people associate them with consolidation, which is a bad word these days, so it all gets a bad rap.

The most important issue, and you didn’t mention this, is competition. There are lots of other types of media competing with radio now. None of it existed ten years ago. Lots of it is done with fewer employees, and less attention to quality that traditional radio.

Even listening to a competitor's station, even if just for entertainment, won't provide much relief from "sameness" and mediocrity, because nearly all stations all across the dial sound pretty much the same nowadays.

First of all, you can’t generalize about what radio executives listen to. I know that several top CEOs listen, because their employees have told me they’ve heard from the boss while doing their show, usually to complain. If you’re on the air, getting a call from the boss is not something to look forward to.

Second of all, obviously the CEOs live in NY, and can’t listen to every local station. That’s not a new problem. Companies have been owning stations away from their home office since the 1920s.

But the real issue is your comment about “sameness and mediocrity.” That’s a subjective comment. Some people like same old same old. They want their French fries to taste the same regardless of where they are. I’ve read where Home Depot customers complained when stores changed their layouts.

As fore mediocrity, once again, that’s subjective. I think a lot of the music is pretty mediocre, but that’s just the music being made today. When I see what people are attracted to, either on the web or on TV, quality doesn’t seem to be the determining factor.

Personally, with all the choices on the radio, there’s no reason to complain. If you don’t like the corporate stations, tune in the public stations. If you don’t like them, there’s bound to be a non-corporate station in the market. They may not play the exact music you want, but you have to decide what you want, and find it. The public wants everyone else to change to suit them, and that’s not how mass media works.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, when something happens in the town, radio stations should put listeners on the air to inform the rest of the public about what they're seeing from their vantage point. Wow.

I guess that there would be one good thing to come of such a plan. It would require radio stations to be manned by a live body 24/7 to get those listeners on the air and "interact" with them.

Good grief, have you ever BEEN a reporter at a hot scene? The amount of misinformation and outright stupidity repeated by some members of the public - and "official sources" - is outright laughable. Look at the health care "debate". Misinformation is inserted into the arguement, and repeated so much that nobody can tell the difference between truth, speculation, and outright disinformation.

What you're talking about is tantamount to an on-air chat room, or at best a blog. That MIGHT be entertaining in its own way, but it hardly would replace actual reporting of NEWS.

 

[TheBigA]

So, when something happens in the town, radio stations should put listeners on the air to inform the rest of the public about what they're seeing from their vantage point. Wow.

That's not what I said, but that's what MOS is. Do you know what MOS is? It's "man on the street." Radio has been doing that kind of reportage since the 40s.

I guess that there would be one good thing to come of such a plan. It would require radio stations to be manned by a live body 24/7 to get those listeners on the air and "interact" with them.

Huh? Where did I say that? There is no requirement for anything.

Good grief, have you ever BEEN a reporter at a hot scene?

I won more journalism awards in one year than you have won in your entire life. And I'm not talking about AIR awards or some local AP award. So yes, I’ve been a reporter on a hot scene. Many times. My best sources are eyewitnesses.

Look at the health care "debate". Misinformation is inserted into the arguement, and repeated so much that nobody can tell the difference between truth, speculation, and outright disinformation.

The biggest problem with the health care debate isn’t coming from the public, but from actual officials who know better. The real BS in that debate is coming from politicians and members of the media. That is a fact. The media is in fact perpetuating the misinformation, not correcting it. So if the media is no more factual than the public, who needs the media? Real reporters become no better than bloggers.

What you're talking about is tantamount to an on-air chat room, or at best a blog. That MIGHT be entertaining in its own way, but it hardly would replace actual reporting of NEWS.

The goal of broadcasting is to serve the public. Chat rooms serve the public better than another ten in a row. Actual reporting of news has become tired and undependable. Serious reporters are being scooped by blogs every day because they have better sources and aren’t afraid to say the truth. "Actual reporting" is losing out to blogs and chat rooms, and to hold on to the past isn’t going to change that. The fact that you’re here on a message board just proves my point.

 

[firepoint525]

There are a lot of myths perpetuated on message boards. One has to do with the number of commercials. I've read all kinds of numbers about commercials on message boards, and the facts don't bear them out. But people believe what they want to believe, so they feel there are too many commercials. The fact is that, for the most part, commercial load hasn't increased, and in many places it's gone down. The truth is that for some people, any commercials are too many. But you have to pay the bills somehow.

Where did I say anything about commercials? The number one complaint I have seen is the proliferation of "bubba 1 and bubba 2"-type morning "talk" shows where they only talk TO each other, and only AT the listener. And of course, they laugh at their own jokes.

First of all, you can’t generalize about what radio executives listen to. I know that several top CEOs listen, because their employees have told me they’ve heard from the boss while doing their show, usually to complain. If you’re on the air, getting a call from the boss is not something to look forward to.

Didn't I specify earlier in this thread that this is exactly the type of listening that I was NOT referring to? I didn't generalize about what the CEOs listened to: I ASKED what they listen to. Big difference! I have now asked this same question TWICE in this thread, and not been able to get a straight answer either time!

 

[TheBigA]

Where did I say anything about commercials?

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I'm talking about myths on message boards.

I didn't generalize about what the CEOs listened to: I ASKED what they listen to. Big difference! I have now asked this same question TWICE in this thread, and not been able to get a straight answer either time!

I don't think it matters. CEOs don't hire talent, they don't pick the music, and they don't get involved in station operations. They hire lots of people to do that, and THOSE people listen. This infatuation with CEOs is silly. It's not their job to focus on those areas, and if I was a manager in charge, I wouldn't want that kind of interference. If you hired me to do a job, you'll trust me to get it done, not second guess me.

But if you want to know what they listen to, ASK them! Don't ask me. I'm not a CEO, and I doubt any ever come to message boards. If they did, I'd wonder who's running the store.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Yeah, Firepoint, what are you thinking. A radio CEO listening to the radio would be as silly as the President of GM driving a car. Next, you'll want them to actually care about quality control, or look past the end of their financial noses and actually PLAN for the future.

 

[davideduardo]

By using cross-cross, you also reach a lot of P***ed-off people who have never heard of your radio station and don't want to talk to you.

Actually, we seldom had people who were annoyed, and we seldom had people who had not heard of our station. And the approach propelled us into a frequent occupant of the #2 postition right behind our FM, in a top 15 market.

And because that market is 100 miles by 35 miles, it would be impossible to be at the site of ever event. So between contacting the local police or fire or other authorities, we got first person reaction from listeners by appealing to the lookie-loo in all of us. Since we had the address, we sent a little thank you card to the best ones.

The flavor of our news was much more listener and street based, and, we thought, a lot more exciting.

Walking up to someone on the street is far less an invasion of privacy than ringing their home telephone.

Obviously, you never thought of this and now are discrediting it because you didn't. We verified facts with the appropriate authorities, but got color from real people living near the incident. Talk about increased credibility!

You can also get into some dangerous situations -- such as the Florida radio station that tried to cover a cop killer who holed up in a gas station by calling gas stations near the interchange -- and wound up reaching the gunman.

One has to exercise some judgement. However, for color and "being there" it's incredibly fast... as opposed to the long delays of getting a news person to a location at times like rush hour.

You also totally miss the feel of a situation on the scene, and the natural sound of the event occurring.

So the person actually living at the scene is not "feeling" the incident. I did not know this. Wow, how illuminating.

The proliferation of cell phones as only-phones is making this method of newsgathering increasingly obsolete.

CPO households tend to be small family units or singles, and tend to be apartments. There are still plenty of landline homes and businesses (do you know of a business at a fixed location without a phone?) you can contact if you know how to do it and have reasonable guidelines on independent verification.

Most stations that give up street reporting end up presenting newscasts full of the usual suspects -- spokespeople and PR handouts.

In this case, we had more spot news than the station with the mobile units stuck in traffic and lots more real voices and real people adding color to the report.

I've done it both ways... a few years ago with a station that had 7 anchors and over 30 writers and reporters just for 5 AM to 10 AM, and a staff of 120 in news commentary and reporting... and both options work, and each has a special flavor, and the use of each depends on the competitive situation in each market.

 

[davideduardo]

I'd like to thank "TheBigA" and Mr. Eduardo for such clear insight into the thinking at the corporate level of broadcasting. That should tell you all you need to know about what to expect if you pursue a career in radio.

Actually, I gave you a 60-year history in nutshell about the reduction of many no longer needed positions as technology advanced. We needed people at the transmitter in the 30's as the equipment needed constant attention. Nautel in Canada became famous by making transmitters that could be on remote hilltops and never serviced for 4 months in Canadian winters... their technology made higher and more remote sites viable, because people were not needed to attend the transmitters.

But as each obsolete position vanishes, something else appears. Only those stuck in the past lament their passing.

And the news example I gave came from an owner-operated station, not Clear or CBS or something similar.

So if one pursues a radio career, they should know of the trends in media.

 

[gr8oldies]

CKLW in the 60s and 70s made heavy use of people calling in on a tip line (yes I realize it was blood and guts news, especially in the early 70s, but they had the story and the facts.) Every newscast they would promote the $25 for the best news tip of the week with the $1000 cash award for the best news tip of the year. People called. All the time, Listen to some of the CKLW newscasts from back in the day and how they used those on the scene reports, including from the Detroit riots (CKLW's reporting of the riots won awards). This was pre-cell phone.

I knew another news guy who is still working today who was and is totally blind. He did almost all his news gathering by phone (he would go to some meetings he and his dog could walk to). Won a few award too. So, yes it can be done. But I know, we need radio in 1975.

 

[SirRoxalot]

If you don't understand the difference between a "tip line" and putting callers on the air in lieu of actual reporters, you deserve the coverage that you get. This is as true today as it was in 1975 - or 1955 for that matter.

The job of a professional journalist is to sort through the noise that accompanies any event and distill the essence of that event for interested listeners. It's even more important now than it was when attention spans were longer. How you gather and sort out those facts requires multiple sources and verification. Most importantly, you have to give them context, and the story needs to have impact on listeners.

We live in an era where anyone can express an opinion, or detail their view of an event, and it will be almost instantly available to an audience. The key is "THEIR view of an event", which is neither unbiased nor fully accurate. Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge about the value of "eye witness testimony". The value of a professional journalist is in determining what the common elements of a story are from different sources, and presenting those facts in an unbiased, undistorted way. Unfortunately, there's precious little of that in this era of "infotainment".

 

[TheBigA]

The value of a professional journalist is in determining what the common elements of a story are from different sources, and presenting those facts in an unbiased, undistorted way.

'Value" to whom?

 

[SirRoxalot]

The value of a professional journalist is in determining what the common elements of a story are from different sources, and presenting those facts in an unbiased, undistorted way.

'Value" to whom?

Obviously not to someone who believes that Facebook or Twitter is a news source. Fortunately, a great many people in America prefer "news" to "rumor" or "opinion".

 

[TheBigA]

Obviously not to someone who believes that Facebook or Twitter is a news source.

I was taught that a journalist should consider all sources, which includes the internet. Otherwise, you're inserting your own personal bias in the story.

You've obviously never used Facebook. On the other hand, lots of serious news organizations use Twitter. In fact I followed the status of the LA Fires last week on Twitter...it was far more up to date than any actual news organization. And I compared it to at least 50 other sources. That's my unbiased report.

 

[davideduardo]

If you don't understand the difference between a "tip line" and putting callers on the air in lieu of actual reporters, you deserve the coverage that you get. This is as true today as it was in 1975 - or 1955 for that matter.

A person on the spot of a news event is an eye witness. Generally, an eye witness is good enough for a court of law, but the use of a well interviewed witness escapes you.

"And can you see the fire from where you are?" "How many fire trucks can you see on the scene now?"

DOn't you think having a report to air within a few minutes of news breaking vs. having to wait as much as an hour and a half for a reporter to get to the scene has value? It also has much more emotion and excitement.

The job of a professional journalist is to sort through the noise that accompanies any event and distill the essence of that event for interested listeners. It's even more important now than it was when attention spans were longer. How you gather and sort out those facts requires multiple sources and verification. Most importantly, you have to give them context, and the story needs to have impact on listeners.

So, continuing with the fire example, you have confirmation via fire and police radio and the press contact at each... but those are people at desks. So you add to the story by getting a real, and nearly instant, report from the scene.

We live in an era where anyone can express an opinion, or detail their view of an event, and it will be almost instantly available to an audience. The key is "THEIR view of an event", which is neither unbiased nor fully accurate. Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge about the value of "eye witness testimony".

Most eye witness testimony that is invalidated has to do with the passage of time and blurring of memories. Having a person on the phone on the scene and asking them what they see is pretty accurate.

On the other hand, back in the 60's my friends and news staff in Ecuador would frequently have a laugh session about the preofessional journalists of Time who covered events, albeit briefly, in Ecuador. In most cases, the reports were so far removed from even resembling the truth that they gave us quite a chuckle fest.

Just because a reporter is paid does not make that reporter any good... yet you seem to think that unless we have graduate journalists in mobile units on the scene, there is no good coverage. I've proven that such a contention is not true by beating the stodgy old-line station with its graduate reporters and sombre, professional style... so badly beaten, in fact, that the station was sold.

The value of a professional journalist is in determining what the common elements of a story are from different sources, and presenting those facts in an unbiased, undistorted way. Unfortunately, there's precious little of that in this era of "infotainment".

Quite a few journalists hold such views. What they did not realize is that newer generations wanted a different delivery and style... and that is an element in the death of newspapers, too.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Just who is supposed to coordinate this coverage? Who is supposed to question the eye witnesses? Who is supposed to get the information on Twitter and Facebook? A board op? An automated system? A "hub" many miles away?

There is no substitute to having experienced eyes on the scene. Short of that, SOMEONE has to take all these tips, amateur observations, scanner reports, and Twitters and distill them into cogent information for delivery to the public. The advantage that radio once had was they their reporters could be on the scene in minutes, and reports could be on the air almost instantaneously. That's still generally true.

Hysteria is little more than "emotion and excitement" - and not useful in a serious situation. Rumors run rampant at active news scenes. Repeating those rumors can make the job of the people dealing with that serious situation MUCH more difficult. Broadcasters have a responsibility to add light, not heat.

As you have observed, the sources of information and means of communication have changed, but the task remains the same: find reputable sources, extract information from them, and distill that information into an accurate and reliable "story". The people who are skilled at this task are called "journalists".

 

[gr8oldies]

TMZ.com, Facebook and Twitter accounts beat the crap out of "experienced journalists" in getting out the word about Michael Jackson's death. Rox, you sure know how everyone else should spend their money.

 

[John FL]

Obviously not to someone who believes that Facebook or Twitter is a news source.

I was taught that a journalist should consider all sources, which includes the internet. Otherwise, you're inserting your own personal bias in the story.

You've obviously never used Facebook. On the other hand, lots of serious news organizations use Twitter. In fact I followed the status of the LA Fires last week on Twitter...it was far more up to date than any actual news organization. And I compared it to at least 50 other sources. That's my unbiased report.

I'm in agreement with TheBigA's view and other similiar ones in this string. The internet and in particular Twitter are invaluable news sources. When used correctly, I believe these can greatly enhance the reporter's story. The positive possibilities are endless.

Where I live earlier this summer, a tornado/water spout cut through town right smack in the middle of PM drive. I was on the road and was listening to my local news/talk station. The weather was cloudy where I was but the station broke with the potential of really bad, serious weather. They had, as the usually do, the very good sense to provide their phone#, internet address to include Twitter details. The info that came in was primo. Hearing first hand accounts by real people was awesome. The reporters also read email comments and they were both informative and very descriptive. I avoided the area that had tornanic activity as that's where I was heading.

Later when I caught local TV, the station received hundreds of photos all from the public. This happened very fast and no reporters were around. In fact, one photo I believe won some type award because it was shot right below the water spout looking right up into its jaws. Reporting can't get any better than that. Lots of news organizations and I'm happy to see even music stations encourage this type involvement from their audience. I think it's a win-win for all. It's pretty cool to have this technology assist with the stories. My goodness, who can forget earlier this year seeing first hand real time injustices directed at the election protestors in Iran. As was also brought up, Michael Jackson's death was reported like wild fire on Twitter and Facebook. For radio, those who embraced the technology as well made a connection with their audience at a time they needed to be connected. Count me in with the thinking that journalism has taken on very effective ways in reporting stories.