smedge2006 said:
Oh, we get it. What you don't seem to get is that for at least 75 years now--dating back to 1934--the federal government has intentionally allowed licensees to determine what "serving the public" constitutes for each licensed radio station in each community that it serves.
And they have been reasonably clear about why they've done it this way--because it would be presumptuous for the government to abridge the free speech of the licensee and the community.
This is a misstatement of the FCC's approach, at least pre-Reagan. What about ascertainment (talking to community leaders)? Is that some evil, presumptive plot.
We could have had all-national radio stations in the 1920's -- all the stations could have been WLW-type 500-kWers. Then localism would never have been an issue. But the FCC and Congress chose to have smaller stations focused on communities. Even in the heyday of network radio, network-affiliated stations programmed dozens of hours a week and had dozens of employees. Syndication and voicetracking dominates in most smaller markets because it is cheaper, not because the people of Paintsville and Paducah and Panama City voted one day to throw out their local personalities.
It's presumptive to assume that the people have been heard from. What about all the folks who crowded into those FCC hearings on localism around the country? Are they "not part of the public"?
Yeah...at least some radio companies still do that. Ascertainments? We do them in our shop. We also do local research. We see no groundswell to get rid of the syndicated talk in favor of a lesser-known local host.
In fact, the P-1's to our station are very happy with the local talent we have on the air with our morning show, the local news anchors, and programming people, many of whom sub in as talk hosts when a local emergency requires us to cut back on the syndication and provide local information.
We hear from "fan clubs" of various hosts wanting programming changes. Some hosts are local, some national. But the rule we use is: can this host do a better job at entertaining, gaining and maintaining the audience we have now?
I'm sure at least some of those folks who crowded in to talk about "localism" probably:
1.) Want their own show, but haven't been able to convince the station they can do it. (We get lots of
calls from "wannabe" hosts who beg us, "just put me on the air one day and I'll show you I can do it."
Then, when you ask about experience, you find they have none.)
2.) Local musicians who want to find some way to force radio to play what could be sub-par local music.
3.) Locals who think every station should be run like PBS or NPR.
Yes, they can have their say if they want. But every bit of research available indicates they are in the minority...and the minority, in the U.S. does not rule the country.
Yeah, you're right. Voice tracking is cheaper. That's why some radio people still have jobs. But, most listeners don't care...unless (and this is the one caveat I will give you), the station screws up because it has no quality control efforts in place to keep the voice tracked shows correct in terms of local events, weather, etc. Every station should have this in place. It is reprehensible that there are stations that do not.
Please understand: I am not standing up for every owner, or every consolidator in this country. A few are doing good things...others are screwing it up big time. But, the FCC should deal with this, not by a blanket rule concocted by "know nothing" legislators, but at renewal time...by more carefully scrutinizing each station's renewal application, rather than the "rubber stamp" they've been giving operators over the past
decade or two. Every station should be made to prove it is being operated in the "public interest, convenience and necessity."
