Why work in radio anymore?

[davideduardo]

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.

A competent assignment editor at the station can verify news with the proper authorities and then get color directly from the street using new technology much faster than a reporter can arrive, and likely with more variety.

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.

I can think of dozens of markets where in no-traffic situations spot coverage takes forever. While Tv has news shows, radio has breaking news... requiring much more instant coverage.

An event in Naperville would take a station in the Loop area 40 to 50 minutes to cover on the scene... an event around JFK would take a station in the City the same, and double or more in rush hours. An event in Pomona could take some LA stations over an hour to reach in the best of daytime conditions. A Boca Raton event is nearly an hour from a Miami station. A Ponce event is about two hours from most station's San Juan base. A Campbell event is well over an hour away for a San Francisco station.

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".

Many who are called journalists have become editorialists, coloring and flavoring their news in an ugly and unprofessional way. On the other hand, skilled news coverage coordinators armed with new technology sources can get on the spot coverage to verify or moderate official positions from official spokespersons... a much better way to balance news coverage in our era of slans and biases in coverage... all the fault of those very same "journalists" who have spun the meaning of news in an unethical and antisocial manner such that few of us trust traditional sources any more.

 

[smedge2006]

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.

This, of course, wouldn't work in the real world because no radio station would dare cough up the money -- even in 1970's dollars, never mind adjusting for inflation.

TMZ.com, Facebook and Twitter accounts beat the crap out of "experienced journalists" in getting out the word about Michael Jackson's death.

The latter two simply repeated TMZ, which actually has paid reporters and pays for tips. Again, something we're not likely to see from current radio types.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Obviously, you don't distinguish between "journalists" and "editorialists". Not all who call themselves "journalists" are, and the general public recognizes that Fox news is no more "fair and balanced" than CNN, MSNBC, or most other news organizations. Still, most news organizations plainly attempt to present "news" in a much less biased way than "opinion".

I would hope that assignment editors, producers, anchors, and reporters are ALL journalists. Obviously, not every story rates a reporter on scene, but any story with impact on a large number of people over a significant period of time will best be served by getting a reporter to the incident. Assuming, of course, that corporate has any "reporter" positions left in the budget.

Those who view the world through the lens of TMZ, Twitter, and Facebook don't tune into the radio - be it commercial or NPR - for news anyway, unless they go there to get the "real story" after being flooded by rumor and innuendo.

 

[smedge2006]

Somehow I don't think we would have gotten these nuggets from Joe on the Street with his cell phone:

12:35 p.m. CST 11/22/63, KBOX Dallas: "Something... I repeat something has happened in the motorcade route..." (Yes, I know the current available version is a recreation, but there was an actual broadcast from a mobile unit above the motorcade)

11:20 a.m. CST 11/24/63, Ike Pappas, in the Dallas City Jail basement: "Do you have anything to say in your defense? (BANG) There's a shot! Oswald has been SHOT! ... Mass confusion here... Holy Mackerel!"

June 4, 1968, Mutual reporter Andrew West, Los Angeles, California: "Senator Kennedy has been shot, is that possible?..... it is possible... Rafer Johnson has a hold of a man who apparently has fired the shot... he still has the gun... the gun is pointed at ME... Get the gun! Get the gun! Get the gun!... Get his thumb... take ahold of this thumb and BREAK it if you have to... Get away from the barrel... Hold him, Rafer! We don't want another Oswald..."

 

[davideduardo]

Obviously, you don't distinguish between "journalists" and "editorialists". Not all who call themselves "journalists" are, and the general public recognizes that Fox news is no more "fair and balanced" than CNN, MSNBC, or most other news organizations. Still, most news organizations plainly attempt to present "news" in a much less biased way than "opinion".

I distinguish between fact and opinion when I see both combined in "news" articles in papers like the LA Times and the New York Times and the Atlanta Constitution and such... the line between opinion and news has been blurred badly. In most electronic media, it simply does not exists.

I would hope that assignment editors, producers, anchors, and reporters are ALL journalists. Obviously, not every story rates a reporter on scene, but any story with impact on a large number of people over a significant period of time will best be served by getting a reporter to the incident. Assuming, of course, that corporate has any "reporter" positions left in the budget.

News or news based stations will be at events that are known in advance, such as major speeches, etc. Most music based stations will depend on pool based services (remember, even AP is a pool in a sense... it's a cooperative). The news stations will not be able to get to most spot news in a timely fashion, and will more and more depend on alternative methods of getting "beepers" on the air.

Technology is making the traditional radio journalist... who is basicly a reporter, not an investigative journalist... obsolete. What is needed is a good person in charge at the station who can marshall all the resources of this age to get the story, the verification and the actuality fast. Reporters in cars don't serve that purpose any more.

Those who view the world through the lens of TMZ, Twitter, and Facebook don't tune into the radio - be it commercial or NPR - for news anyway, unless they go there to get the "real story" after being flooded by rumor and innuendo.

Outside of my job, I use all those and more to get tidbits, and if any interest me, I go to a more detailed source. But my first alert to breaking news is my iPhone... and radio, if it does not recognize this, will be out of the news business, journalists or not.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Do you people in management have any idea how small the percentage is of people that own an iPhone, or even have Internet access on their phones? You really have to get out of the office a little more often.

 

[oaktree]

A very interesting thread, but, just for grins and giggles, let's get back to the "Why work in radio anymore?" theme of our Movie of the Week, shall we?

And it as great bearing on just how to do things like not having "journalists" rip and read from this morning's half-dollar local paper, for instance. They "do" you know.

But all of this radio stuff costs money to do. So, I went to a valuable resource, just to see. You'll enjoy this, I know:

http://www.bls.gov/k12/music04.htm

And for us news junkies, everyone -- also from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos088.htm

Now, back to our Movie of the Week, already in progress.

 

[davideduardo]

Do you people in management have any idea how small the percentage is of people that own an iPhone, or even have Internet access on their phones? You really have to get out of the office a little more often.

Do you have any idea how rapidly this user base is increasing? In a recent music test among Spanish dominant Hispanics in a large Southwestern city, 50% had phones with some form of internet access or radio station playing ability, nearly all did text messaging.

If you wait for this to reach 100%, it will be too late.

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, the answer is to make radio news less valuable, less differentiated from Internet content? Most of the usage of Internet on phones is by people under 30 - the very generation that radio has largely abandoned anyway. What you're contending is that radio will continue to be less important as a medium, so working in radio will become less and less appealing.

I guess we have the corporate answer to the original question.

 

[gr8oldies]

I'm over 50 and tons of my friends 40 and up have internet accessible phones and use them. Rox, you've got such a chip on your shoulder that even if you get your dream, that corporate goes bankrupt, some mythical "real radio person" buys the station and has an unlimited supply of money, goes ahead and hires DJs 24/7, a 25 person news staff and abandons the internet, why would I they want you on board? Bitch moan, complain, woe is me, the big bad corporate bossman won't let me do what I want, talk as much as I want and play what I want. What do you have to contribute but a bad attitude?

 

[SirRoxalot]

I'm over 50 and tons of my friends 40 and up have internet accessible phones and use them. Rox, you've got such a chip on your shoulder that even if you get your dream, that corporate goes bankrupt, some mythical "real radio person" buys the station and has an unlimited supply of money, goes ahead and hires DJs 24/7, a 25 person news staff and abandons the internet, why would I they want you on board? Bitch moan, complain, woe is me, the big bad corporate bossman won't let me do what I want, talk as much as I want and play what I want. What do you have to contribute but a bad attitude?

Once again, as usual, you exaggerate beyond all reason what I've ever advocated for radio. And, once again, you spout nothing but "corporate business as usual", despite overwhelming evidence that it's an abject failure - as demonstrated by stock prices, listener response, and the continued decline of TSL. There is some middle ground between the current state of over-formatted radio and "talk as much as I want and play what I want". Radio IS a business, but it's SHOW business. Music is ART, not PRODUCT, and needs to be presented as such.

Anyone who criticizes corporate is a malcontent in your book. Well, considering corporate's performance over the last 10 years, it's about time that they started to listen to criticism. And don't tell me that "it's the economy". SMART managers plan for economic downturns. And, radio has been in the economic doldrums far longer than the current economic downturn. In past recessions, radio has not only survived, but thrived. This time, the house of cards that they constructed from borrowed money is bringing the entire industry down.

Perhaps it's time for corporate to plan for the greater good, instead of the greater greed.

 

[TheBigA]

Music is ART, not PRODUCT, and needs to be presented as such.

The music industry refers to what it does as "product," and treats it a such. The reason music radio needs help is not because of presentation, but because of terrible music, made without any kind of quality control. And that's why CD sales are down 56% in just the last two years. If the public won't buy it, what makes us think they'll even listen to it for free?

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, as usual, you exaggerate beyond all reason what I've ever advocated for radio. And, once again, you spout nothing but "corporate business as usual", despite overwhelming evidence that it's an abject failure - as demonstrated by stock prices, listener response, and the continued decline of TSL.

You are mixing unrelated things to make your point. Stock prices overall are down, and some sectors more than others. Bank stocks are off in many cases even more than broadcast issues, and some are valueless... does that mean that banking is an "abject failure?"

TSL has been declining over an 18 year period... very very slowly, but when you consider the enormous number of media and entertainment options, the way radio has held up is rather amazing. On the other hand, the future of radio depends on moving into new media distribution channels, and fast.

There is some middle ground between the current state of over-formatted radio and "talk as much as I want and play what I want". Radio IS a business, but it's SHOW business. Music is ART, not PRODUCT, and needs to be presented as such.

The definition of "entertainment" has changed over the last decade or so. The DJ of the 60's is, to many, not entertaining. The traditional news on the hour is not, to many, informative. Even the way music is consumed has changed.

Oh, and record companies have called music "product" for decades.

Anyone who criticizes corporate is a malcontent in your book.

No, I think all of us realize that the days of cart racks, tone arms and transmitters with tubes are gone, just as is the model for the DJ and the 60's music format.

Well, considering corporate's performance over the last 10 years, it's about time that they started to listen to criticism. And don't tell me that "it's the economy". SMART managers plan for economic downturns.

Nobody, starting with POTUS, planned for the worst downturn in about 80 years. Yes, we may plan for flat or slightly off years, just as we realize that dominant stations may get increased competition... but we don't plan on our largest revenue source, the auto industry, literally disappearing and the entire economy being off by 20 to 30 percent...

And, radio has been in the economic doldrums far longer than the current economic downturn. In past recessions, radio has not only survived, but thrived.

Radio revenues were growing through 2007... and they have pretty much tracked the economy all along. Radio is surviving this near-depression, just as it has in the past. Some companies that took advantage of the relaxation of ownership rules by buying with too much debt will be affected as companies, but the radio stations they own will likely thrive, even if spun off or put through reorganization.

This time, the house of cards that they constructed from borrowed money is bringing the entire industry down. You are blaming aggressive corporate management for the changes in public taste and the way radio is going to be used in the future.

 

[elchupacabras]

No, I think all of us realize that the days of cart racks, tone arms and transmitters with tubes are gone, just as is the model for the DJ and the 60's music format.

The sixties model was when radio was fun to do and fun to listen to. There was a personality behind the microphone who actually gave a crap about his listener. Radio is painfully boring in most cases these days, because it is nothing more than a puker with a push button, reading a liner card.

I will also take a shot at the music industry. Music for the most part sucks. Has sucked for the past 15 years or so. All formats. Even in Spanish language radio, which you know so well, it has gone down, thanks to 30 years of payola and lackies such as Raul Velasco who promoted mediocre acts who paid for time on Azcarraga's Telerisa. That's why we went from the likes of Jose Jose and El Puma to promotion of narcocorridos. Sure, there are a few exceptions, I can think of Juanes or Arjona. I know, you're going to tell me they are "different formats," which I do know, but please try and understand my point.

Where are the power artists in English? Where is the talent? When I see Lady GaGa I want to loose my cookies.

And as for the public? We've dumbed them down by not informing them. We've told the public they should no longer care for a 15 minute news block, even on news/talk stations. (Harvey is gone, few affiliates pick up all ten minutes of CBS's World News Roundup). Ask someone under 35 what happened in the news and the will give you a blank stare. Who is to blame? We are. By not insisting on the old model of information, personality and music, we have accepted an inferior product that the public could care less about.

Am I bitter? You're damn right I am. I see an industry tanking that I dearly love. Had I seen the future of radio as it is today, I would have never gotten into it. Now 24 years later, it's too late. It's not to say I have not adapted nor am I willing to adapt to what is needed. I am saying that the industry on the whole sucks, thanks to the same idea that screwed our banking system: greed!

I am sure I will regret some of my words later on, and perhaps I was overly harsh in my criticism, but sometimes you have to get things off of your chest. I did.

 

[firepoint525]

http://www.krud.com

This is a great site. Hasn't been updated in at least a couple of years, but they tell it like it is in radio. (Some of it is actually a bit obsolete, because they give the impression (in places) that radio still actually hires djs!)

 

[KeithE4]

The sixties model was when radio was fun to do and fun to listen to. There was a personality behind the microphone who actually gave a crap about his listener. Radio is painfully boring in most cases these days, because it is nothing more than a puker with a push button, reading a liner card.

There are still personalities behind the microphone, but they're not, and won't be, spinning records. They're doing talk radio, either news- or sports-oriented. There may not be as many of them as in years past, but they are there. Other "personalities" moved to TV instead of radio. Everyone has to adapt, regardless of what you do for a living, or die. This is 2009, not 1969. 1969 is not coming back.

The golden age of something called a "disk jockey" only lasted about 30 years (1955-85 or thereabouts). Before and since, radio is/was mostly a networked medium. In the past, the networks ran entertainment programs. Today, it's talk shows and sports. It was mostly network then, and it is again now (by "network," I also include syndicated programming).

I will also take a shot at the music industry. Music for the most part sucks. Has sucked for the past 15 years or so. All formats. Even in Spanish language radio, which you know so well, it has gone down, thanks to 30 years of payola and lackies such as Raul Velasco who promoted mediocre acts who paid for time on Azcarraga's Telerisa. That's why we went from the likes of Jose Jose and El Puma to promotion of narcocorridos. Sure, there are a few exceptions, I can think of Juanes or Arjona. I know, you're going to tell me they are "different formats," which I do know, but please try and understand my point.

I can't speak for Spanish-language music or radio, but most popular music has been pretty bad since the early '90s. Can't disagree there. But somebody's buying it (not me, though).

Where are the power artists in English? Where is the talent? When I see Lady GaGa I want to loose my cookies.

When my parents saw the Beatles or the Stones, they wanted to lose their cookies. My grandparents thought Frank Sinatra was the devil himself. It happens when we get old. :-D

And as for the public? We've dumbed them down by not informing them. We've told the public they should no longer care for a 15 minute news block, even on news/talk stations. (Harvey is gone, few affiliates pick up all ten minutes of CBS's World News Roundup). Ask someone under 35 what happened in the news and the will give you a blank stare. Who is to blame? We are. By not insisting on the old model of information, personality and music, we have accepted an inferior product that the public could care less about.

The public is being informed, but the media of choice is cable news (OK, "news" is a stretch there), and the internet, where the real future is. Those sites are a combination of print and video to the point where a newspaper's and a TV station's website's look and feel are almost identical. The Washington Post has video. Radio and TV station websites have print. No difference anymore.

Sorry, but "News of the hour, on the hour," as one network used to call it in the '60s (ABC?) is just not necessary anymore. Neither is 8 hours a day of American Idol highlights local newscasts on TV. There are better ways to be informed now.

Am I bitter? You're damn right I am. I see an industry tanking that I dearly love. Had I seen the future of radio as it is today, I would have never gotten into it. Now 24 years later, it's too late. It's not to say I have not adapted nor am I willing to adapt to what is needed. I am saying that the industry on the whole sucks, thanks to the same idea that screwed our banking system: greed!

Unfortunately, radio as we knew it is going the way of the buggy-whip, but that's because better methods are available to get music and information to the public. It's years away from disappearing, if it ever will totally, but the way things were done in the past is almost over. It has to be.

 

[elchupacabras]

The sixties model was when radio was fun to do and fun to listen to. There was a personality behind the microphone who actually gave a crap about his listener. Radio is painfully boring in most cases these days, because it is nothing more than a puker with a push button, reading a liner card.

There are still personalities behind the microphone, but they're not, and won't be, spinning records. They're doing talk radio, either news- or sports-oriented. There may not be as many of them as in years past, but they are there. Other "personalities" moved to TV instead of radio. Everyone has to adapt, regardless of what you do for a living, or die. This is 2009, not 1969. 1969 is not coming back.

The golden age of something called a "disk jockey" only lasted about 30 years (1955-85 or thereabouts). Before and since, radio is/was mostly a networked medium. In the past, the networks ran entertainment programs. Today, it's talk shows and sports. It was mostly network then, and it is again now (by "network," I also include syndicated programming).

I will also take a shot at the music industry. Music for the most part sucks. Has sucked for the past 15 years or so. All formats. Even in Spanish language radio, which you know so well, it has gone down, thanks to 30 years of payola and lackies such as Raul Velasco who promoted mediocre acts who paid for time on Azcarraga's Telerisa. That's why we went from the likes of Jose Jose and El Puma to promotion of narcocorridos. Sure, there are a few exceptions, I can think of Juanes or Arjona. I know, you're going to tell me they are "different formats," which I do know, but please try and understand my point.

I can't speak for Spanish-language music or radio, but most popular music has been pretty bad since the early '90s. Can't disagree there. But somebody's buying it (not me, though).

Where are the power artists in English? Where is the talent? When I see Lady GaGa I want to loose my cookies.

When my parents saw the Beatles or the Stones, they wanted to lose their cookies. My grandparents thought Frank Sinatra was the devil himself. It happens when we get old. :-D

And as for the public? We've dumbed them down by not informing them. We've told the public they should no longer care for a 15 minute news block, even on news/talk stations. (Harvey is gone, few affiliates pick up all ten minutes of CBS's World News Roundup). Ask someone under 35 what happened in the news and the will give you a blank stare. Who is to blame? We are. By not insisting on the old model of information, personality and music, we have accepted an inferior product that the public could care less about.

The public is being informed, but the media of choice is cable news (OK, "news" is a stretch there), and the internet, where the real future is. Those sites are a combination of print and video to the point where a newspaper's and a TV station's website's look and feel are almost identical. The Washington Post has video. Radio and TV station websites have print. No difference anymore.

Sorry, but "News of the hour, on the hour," as one network used to call it in the '60s (ABC?) is just not necessary anymore. Neither is 8 hours a day of American Idol highlights local newscasts on TV. There are better ways to be informed now.

Am I bitter? You're damn right I am. I see an industry tanking that I dearly love. Had I seen the future of radio as it is today, I would have never gotten into it. Now 24 years later, it's too late. It's not to say I have not adapted nor am I willing to adapt to what is needed. I am saying that the industry on the whole sucks, thanks to the same idea that screwed our banking system: greed!

Unfortunately, radio as we knew it is going the way of the buggy-whip, but that's because better methods are available to get music and information to the public. It's years away from disappearing, if it ever will totally, but the way things were done in the past is almost over. It has to be.

I agree with alot of what you say. Technically, things are very different than the sixties jock. I just lament the golden age gone bad. And I am not as old as you might think. I am pushing 40, but very much a fan of the old days. I got in at then end of the golden age and was hoping for a career path that followed in that vein.

I too have worked television and currently do talk radio. You are correct that personality-based programming has migrated to that format.

To a certain degree, my anger isn't as much at radio itself, but rather towards a society that fails to appreciate traditional media (I include newspaper in that). I love the net just as much as anyone, but I it is uncomfortable seeing so much change, so fast. I think many of us are going through a midlife crisis on this board, and the rapid change and uncertainty coupled with the economic disaster of the past year don't help.

 

[TheBigA]

I agree with alot of what you say. Technically, things are very different than the sixties jock. I just lament the golden age gone bad. And I am not as old as you might think. I am pushing 40, but very much a fan of the old days. I got in at then end of the golden age and was hoping for a career path that followed in that vein.

I think you have a romantic image of that period. It wasn't as free and open as you say. There were only a few radio stations that operated as you describe. The majority were very safe and very boring. The key difference is there was nothing else. The minute people had choices, they chose other things.

 

[elchupacabras]

I agree with alot of what you say. Technically, things are very different than the sixties jock. I just lament the golden age gone bad. And I am not as old as you might think. I am pushing 40, but very much a fan of the old days. I got in at then end of the golden age and was hoping for a career path that followed in that vein.

I think you have a romantic image of that period. It wasn't as free and open as you say. There were only a few radio stations that operated as you describe. The majority were very safe and very boring. The key difference is there was nothing else. The minute people had choices, they chose other things.

Perhaps there is some truth to that. I think I was referring more to music radio.

As for talk, now that I've thought about, the Fairness Doctrine put the screws to a lot of political talk that is now possible. There are some things I say on my program that I would have never been able to have discussed under the old rules, and I am far from being in the corner of Rush Limbaugh. In that aspect, there is a bit more freedom.

 

[KeithE4]

I agree with alot of what you say. Technically, things are very different than the sixties jock. I just lament the golden age gone bad. And I am not as old as you might think. I am pushing 40, but very much a fan of the old days. I got in at then end of the golden age and was hoping for a career path that followed in that vein.

I don't lament it at all, and I remember it quite well (I'm 54 but have never worked in broadcasting). For every Dick Biondi, Larry Lujack, or Cousin Brucie, there were twenty Joe Pukers in markets of all sizes that should have been working at the local Safeway, not in radio.

I like listening to the old airchecks as much as anybody, but those days are over. The past is a nice place to visit. It is a bad place to live.

I too have worked television and currently do talk radio. You are correct that personality-based programming has migrated to that format.

That migration started in the '70s, mainly with ex-DJs becoming TV weathermen (not "meteorologists"). Bob Sirott (who later moved to news) & Brant Miller in Chicago, and Ron Riley in Baltimore - all former WLS jocks - come to mind immediately.

To a certain degree, my anger isn't as much at radio itself, but rather towards a society that fails to appreciate traditional media (I include newspaper in that). I love the net just as much as anyone, but I it is uncomfortable seeing so much change, so fast. I think many of us are going through a midlife crisis on this board, and the rapid change and uncertainty coupled with the economic disaster of the past year don't help.

"Traditional media" is not going away. The method of delivering content is, and is already starting to occur. There will still be printed news and video. Audio-only broadcasting will still be necessary for automobile use. But it will be on something other than AM or FM radio frequencies in the future.

Once paper-thin color displays that can be folded or rolled up are perfected and available for a reasonable price (they're still a few years away), then the era of ink on dead trees will pretty much be done. WiMax will diminish over-the-air radio and TV once a profitable business model is worked out. AM and FM radio won't go away until that happens, and WiMax "receivers" are available in cars. Again, we're still several years away from that.