So let me get this straight. Donald Trump posted footage from WWE, from
Wrestlemania 23 to be precise, phtoshopped to replace Vince McMahon's
head with a CNN logo, footage that showed him beating up on "CNN".
That's low. That's dispicable. That's sad. Using one fake thing,
professional wrestling, to accuse CNN of being fake, and showing how he
wants to beat up on them. Sadly, his fans just eat it up.
The rest of
us know that he has sadly demonstrated that he does not respect
the media, which we already knew, but that he also does not respect the
office of President.
This is not reality TV, this is not a ratings
war. He is supposed to be the President of the USA. Instead, he is
nothing more than a cult leader, destroying the United States, under the
Cult Of Trumpistan.
He's too stupid to resign, and his cabinet is too
in his thrall to dump him. Somebody needs to do something to end this
travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two
mockeries of a sham of a presidency.
Somebody in the Congress needs to
do something, soon, whilst there is still something of the United States
left to salvage.
Sunday, 2 July 2017
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Roger Moore: 1927-2017
Goodbye, Mr Bond.With the heaviest of hearts, we must share the awful news that our father, Sir Roger Moore, passed away today. We are all devastated. pic.twitter.com/6dhiA6dnVg— Sir Roger Moore (@sirrogermoore) May 23, 2017
Viewpoint: Manchester Concert Explosion.
My first thoughts in this situation, are the same this time as they always are, they are with the families and friends of the victims. There are no words right now, that will soothe their pain, or ease them through what will be one of the hardest, toughest times they will ever go through.
My second thought is the same one I have every time somebody uses one of the T words in this kind of situation. The T words being terror, terrorist and terrorism. Whether the crime fits the definition of terrorism or not, I will not used the T words to describe it. This was a crime, an act of premeditated murder. Even describing it that way is emotive enough. The fact that the perpetrator committed suicide in the act, just means that it saves the expense of a trial and the ongoing cost of keeping him in prison. Rather than face human justice, the perpetrator convicted himself in the highest court of all, and all he did in the process was to allow the gods and goddesses to send him into his eternal damnation much sooner than originally planned.
My last thought here is simply this. Carry on as normal today. Don't let this or any other criminal act of this magnitude change who you are or what you do.
My second thought is the same one I have every time somebody uses one of the T words in this kind of situation. The T words being terror, terrorist and terrorism. Whether the crime fits the definition of terrorism or not, I will not used the T words to describe it. This was a crime, an act of premeditated murder. Even describing it that way is emotive enough. The fact that the perpetrator committed suicide in the act, just means that it saves the expense of a trial and the ongoing cost of keeping him in prison. Rather than face human justice, the perpetrator convicted himself in the highest court of all, and all he did in the process was to allow the gods and goddesses to send him into his eternal damnation much sooner than originally planned.
My last thought here is simply this. Carry on as normal today. Don't let this or any other criminal act of this magnitude change who you are or what you do.
Thursday, 18 May 2017
Viewpoint: The clock is ticking on Donald Trump.
We are getting ever closer, inch by inch, foot by foot, yard by yard, to a moment like this one...
...and believe me, there will be whooping and hollering around the world when he does go down.
The announcement that a special counsel has been appointed to investigate the reported meddling in the US Presidential Election by Russia and whether Trump campaign associates or the campaign itself, collaborated with the meddling, has invariably thrown a spanner into the barely functional works of this White House.
We've heard a report that apparently Donald Trump went into his White House accomodations earlier on today, and apart from food and drink requests has not emerged since. If he has any sense at all, which is unlikely, he'd head for Moscow on the first flight he could charter, and leave everybody else behind and go into hiding. Unfortunately, he's too much of an egomaniac and spotlight hog to want to go into hiding for very long.
The strangeness here, is although in the history of the USA, there have 15 people impeached at the federal level, the two presidents impeached, were both acquitted in the Senate, and both were Democrats. Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1999. Richard Nixon was never actually impeached. Articles of impeachment had been agreed by the House Judiciary Committee, but Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Whatever happens now, we are in territory that is reminiscent of Watergate, but also way greater than a bungled break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic Party. The words "high treason" are being used in intelligence circles right now, and those words are not used lightly, or even at all. But they are being used now. This is a situation that may have to call for a completely new response, including possibly an election re-run, or a brand new election. Nothing at this stage should be ruled out or in, Everything is still on the table.
The only real question remaining is whether Trump's self-preservation instincts will overtake his grossly inflated ego, and make him head for the hills. I'm not sure his ego will allow him to see how deep the quicksand is, or even that he is sinking in it. And if that is the case, his whole administration might just go down with him.
...and believe me, there will be whooping and hollering around the world when he does go down.
The announcement that a special counsel has been appointed to investigate the reported meddling in the US Presidential Election by Russia and whether Trump campaign associates or the campaign itself, collaborated with the meddling, has invariably thrown a spanner into the barely functional works of this White House.
We've heard a report that apparently Donald Trump went into his White House accomodations earlier on today, and apart from food and drink requests has not emerged since. If he has any sense at all, which is unlikely, he'd head for Moscow on the first flight he could charter, and leave everybody else behind and go into hiding. Unfortunately, he's too much of an egomaniac and spotlight hog to want to go into hiding for very long.
The strangeness here, is although in the history of the USA, there have 15 people impeached at the federal level, the two presidents impeached, were both acquitted in the Senate, and both were Democrats. Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1999. Richard Nixon was never actually impeached. Articles of impeachment had been agreed by the House Judiciary Committee, but Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.
Whatever happens now, we are in territory that is reminiscent of Watergate, but also way greater than a bungled break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic Party. The words "high treason" are being used in intelligence circles right now, and those words are not used lightly, or even at all. But they are being used now. This is a situation that may have to call for a completely new response, including possibly an election re-run, or a brand new election. Nothing at this stage should be ruled out or in, Everything is still on the table.
The only real question remaining is whether Trump's self-preservation instincts will overtake his grossly inflated ego, and make him head for the hills. I'm not sure his ego will allow him to see how deep the quicksand is, or even that he is sinking in it. And if that is the case, his whole administration might just go down with him.
Sunday, 14 May 2017
Viewpoint: Eurovision Song Contest needs a change
So, at this year's Eurovision Song Contest, the UK's entry placed 15th, scoring 111 points. Not as bad as I feared, but also not as good as I expected.
Half the juries gave the UK points, ranging from the 1 point awarded by Austria, Greece and Norway, to the 10 points awarded by Slovenia and the 12 points awarded by Australia.
4 countries awarded points in the televoting. 3 of those countries were not countries that had juries awarding points. Only Australia awarded points in both the jury stage and the televoting stage, but the televoting only brought 3 points, compared to 12 points from the jury. The rest of the points came from Spain (1), Ireland (4) and Malta (4).
99 points from the juries, just 12 points from the televoting.
Now obviously politics, in the form of Brexit, played its part with the public in Europe, but considering the juries rated us so highly, putting us in 10th place overall in terms of jury scores, it makes the televoting look worse. The televoters had us in 20th place, hence why we ended up with mid table mediocrity at 15th.
However, at almost 4 hours long just for the final, the Eurovision Song Contest is proving to be a difficult sell now, especially as in Kiev, where the event was taking place, it was almost 2am when the show finished. The fact that the show starts at 8pm UK time, means its 9pm in most of Western Europe, ecxept Portugal and Ireland, and 10pm in most of Eastren Europe. It's getting too long and unweildly to be just one show.
And indeed it isn't. You have two semi-finals, one on Tuesday, one on Thursday, and it's been that way since 2004. And in my view, the semi finals are not serving the contest well.
First off, you have the big 5, who get automatic byes straight through to the final. The Big 5 are the biggest monetary contributors to the EBU. The year's host nation also automatically qualifies, and then from however many countries beyond those 6 have submitted entries, they are split into 2 pools, and have to go through a semi final each to qualify. The top 10 from each semi-final get through to the final, leaving you with 26 finalists.
Each semi final though goes on for about 2.5 hours, with somewhere between 15 and 20 songs per semi. It makes the total investment over the whole week about 9 hours. And again, in a place like Kiev, it's past midnight when the shows end.
There has to be a better way to do this, and perhaps there is.
Get rid of the semi-finals, and have all countries competing in a new Eurovision Weekend. It starts on Saturday night with the entries, performing for the juries and the audience. This process is going to be long, but during a Eurovision party, it's really the songs that matter, that's the main thing that brings people together, the music. So, let the music take centre stage, start the event earlier, 7pm UK or 7.30pm UK rather than 8pm, and everyone can have their Eurovision party and enjoy the music.
The juries would then meet up on Sunday morning to award the points for each country, and from after the performers have finished on stage, the lines could then open for televoting. Then, like the X Factor and Britain's Got Talent do, have a Sunday night results programme, where the country representatives can announce the jury points, and their countries televoting points, and then we end up with a winner. So for instance, if one country was awarded 12 points from each of the other 41 country juries, and 12 points from each of the other 41 countries televoting, their final score would be 984 points.
Currently, the juries watch their own performance, untelevised, on Friday night, and they finalise their scores before the live broadcast ever happens. Where as televoters get mere minutes to make up their mind and cast their own vote. Leaving the lines open all through the night, into Sunday and right up until the beginning of the results show, would leave much more time to get the votes in, and you can still have some performances to start the show off well, before the results get announced.
Whilst Saturday night's programme is still likely to be about 4 hours, the new Sunday night programme would be only half that at most, and the combined length is less than the current 9 hour time investment that we are currently asked for.
Half the juries gave the UK points, ranging from the 1 point awarded by Austria, Greece and Norway, to the 10 points awarded by Slovenia and the 12 points awarded by Australia.
4 countries awarded points in the televoting. 3 of those countries were not countries that had juries awarding points. Only Australia awarded points in both the jury stage and the televoting stage, but the televoting only brought 3 points, compared to 12 points from the jury. The rest of the points came from Spain (1), Ireland (4) and Malta (4).
99 points from the juries, just 12 points from the televoting.
Now obviously politics, in the form of Brexit, played its part with the public in Europe, but considering the juries rated us so highly, putting us in 10th place overall in terms of jury scores, it makes the televoting look worse. The televoters had us in 20th place, hence why we ended up with mid table mediocrity at 15th.
However, at almost 4 hours long just for the final, the Eurovision Song Contest is proving to be a difficult sell now, especially as in Kiev, where the event was taking place, it was almost 2am when the show finished. The fact that the show starts at 8pm UK time, means its 9pm in most of Western Europe, ecxept Portugal and Ireland, and 10pm in most of Eastren Europe. It's getting too long and unweildly to be just one show.
And indeed it isn't. You have two semi-finals, one on Tuesday, one on Thursday, and it's been that way since 2004. And in my view, the semi finals are not serving the contest well.
First off, you have the big 5, who get automatic byes straight through to the final. The Big 5 are the biggest monetary contributors to the EBU. The year's host nation also automatically qualifies, and then from however many countries beyond those 6 have submitted entries, they are split into 2 pools, and have to go through a semi final each to qualify. The top 10 from each semi-final get through to the final, leaving you with 26 finalists.
Each semi final though goes on for about 2.5 hours, with somewhere between 15 and 20 songs per semi. It makes the total investment over the whole week about 9 hours. And again, in a place like Kiev, it's past midnight when the shows end.
There has to be a better way to do this, and perhaps there is.
Get rid of the semi-finals, and have all countries competing in a new Eurovision Weekend. It starts on Saturday night with the entries, performing for the juries and the audience. This process is going to be long, but during a Eurovision party, it's really the songs that matter, that's the main thing that brings people together, the music. So, let the music take centre stage, start the event earlier, 7pm UK or 7.30pm UK rather than 8pm, and everyone can have their Eurovision party and enjoy the music.
The juries would then meet up on Sunday morning to award the points for each country, and from after the performers have finished on stage, the lines could then open for televoting. Then, like the X Factor and Britain's Got Talent do, have a Sunday night results programme, where the country representatives can announce the jury points, and their countries televoting points, and then we end up with a winner. So for instance, if one country was awarded 12 points from each of the other 41 country juries, and 12 points from each of the other 41 countries televoting, their final score would be 984 points.
Currently, the juries watch their own performance, untelevised, on Friday night, and they finalise their scores before the live broadcast ever happens. Where as televoters get mere minutes to make up their mind and cast their own vote. Leaving the lines open all through the night, into Sunday and right up until the beginning of the results show, would leave much more time to get the votes in, and you can still have some performances to start the show off well, before the results get announced.
Whilst Saturday night's programme is still likely to be about 4 hours, the new Sunday night programme would be only half that at most, and the combined length is less than the current 9 hour time investment that we are currently asked for.
Thursday, 2 February 2017
NFL showing its international intentions
I could write rant after rant after rant about Donald Trump, but frankly that would be boring, so I want to tackle some other stories here for a little bit.
I am a bit of a sports fan, okay, a lot of a sports fan, and I'm getting ready for the Super Bowl this weekend, and saw with interest on a recent episode of Around The Horn, a story about the NFL playing a game in Mexico City next year.
It does look like that the NFL is showing its hand with regards to adding more international teams to their roster. London has already seen many NFL matches with 4 more coming up next season.
But the NFL's history with the World League Of American Football, later NFL Europe League and NFL Europa; gives some interesting background.
For the 1991 and 1992 seasons, there were more North American teams than European ones. Only one of those teams was outside the US, and it wasn't in Mexico, it was in Canada. The Montreal Machine. The other North American teams by the way were Birmingham Fire (that's Birmingham, Alabama, not the West Midlands), New York/New Jersey Knights, Ohio Glory, Orlando Thunder, Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks, Sacramento Surge & San Antonio Riders.
Other than New York, who already have the Giants and the Jets, none of the other cities in the North American section of the WLAF, have a current NFL franchise. Interestingly though, Florida already has 3 teams in their state. Jacksonville Jaguars, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Miami Dolphins. The Carolina Panthers are based in the same state as the Skyhawks were but at the other end of the state. The Cincinnati Bengals are in the same state that the Glory were.
The European teams were across a greater number of countries originally. The UK had the London Monarchs, Germany had the Frankfurt Galaxy and Spain had the Barcelona Dragons. When the World League became exclusively European in 1995, they added the Netherlands with the Amsterdam Admirals, and they added teams in the UK and Germany, the Scottish Claymores and the Rhein Fire in Dusseldorf.
When the London Monarchs tried playing home games in different locations in 1998, rebranding themselves as the England Monarchs, the move ultimately failed and the franchise was shutdown and replaced by the Berlin Thunder.
Gradually NFL Europe became more and more NFL Germany, as Barcelona Dragons were shutdown in 2003 and replaced by the Cologne Centurions, and the following year, the Scottish Claymores were closed down and replaced by the Hamburg Sea Devils. Only the Amsterdam Admirals would keep going as the sole non-German NFL Europa team until the league folded in 2007.
So, whilst the NFL's international ambitions have been there for a long time, the lack of international success in terms of building teams, doesn't bode well.
I am a bit of a sports fan, okay, a lot of a sports fan, and I'm getting ready for the Super Bowl this weekend, and saw with interest on a recent episode of Around The Horn, a story about the NFL playing a game in Mexico City next year.
It does look like that the NFL is showing its hand with regards to adding more international teams to their roster. London has already seen many NFL matches with 4 more coming up next season.
But the NFL's history with the World League Of American Football, later NFL Europe League and NFL Europa; gives some interesting background.
For the 1991 and 1992 seasons, there were more North American teams than European ones. Only one of those teams was outside the US, and it wasn't in Mexico, it was in Canada. The Montreal Machine. The other North American teams by the way were Birmingham Fire (that's Birmingham, Alabama, not the West Midlands), New York/New Jersey Knights, Ohio Glory, Orlando Thunder, Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks, Sacramento Surge & San Antonio Riders.
Other than New York, who already have the Giants and the Jets, none of the other cities in the North American section of the WLAF, have a current NFL franchise. Interestingly though, Florida already has 3 teams in their state. Jacksonville Jaguars, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Miami Dolphins. The Carolina Panthers are based in the same state as the Skyhawks were but at the other end of the state. The Cincinnati Bengals are in the same state that the Glory were.
The European teams were across a greater number of countries originally. The UK had the London Monarchs, Germany had the Frankfurt Galaxy and Spain had the Barcelona Dragons. When the World League became exclusively European in 1995, they added the Netherlands with the Amsterdam Admirals, and they added teams in the UK and Germany, the Scottish Claymores and the Rhein Fire in Dusseldorf.
When the London Monarchs tried playing home games in different locations in 1998, rebranding themselves as the England Monarchs, the move ultimately failed and the franchise was shutdown and replaced by the Berlin Thunder.
Gradually NFL Europe became more and more NFL Germany, as Barcelona Dragons were shutdown in 2003 and replaced by the Cologne Centurions, and the following year, the Scottish Claymores were closed down and replaced by the Hamburg Sea Devils. Only the Amsterdam Admirals would keep going as the sole non-German NFL Europa team until the league folded in 2007.
So, whilst the NFL's international ambitions have been there for a long time, the lack of international success in terms of building teams, doesn't bode well.
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
RTE rejects TV3 collaboration offer on diaspora channel.
So, being reported by The Irish Times, and coming to my attention via the Media Boy Blog, is a report that TV3 has offered to collaborate with RTE on a best of Irish TV channel for the Irish diaspora.
Irish World then reported, and again brought to my attention by the Media Boy blog that RTE rejected the idea calling it speculative and premature.
Premature? Remember, this is the company that part owned Tara TV between 1998 and 2002.
Irish World then reported, and again brought to my attention by the Media Boy blog that RTE rejected the idea calling it speculative and premature.
Premature? Remember, this is the company that part owned Tara TV between 1998 and 2002.
There hasn't been a TV channel aimed at the Irish abroad since then. There hasn't been a true best of Ireland TV channel since then.
RTE has not only RTE 1 & RTE 2, but also RTE News Now and RTE Jr. TV3 has of course TV3 and 3e, and UTV Ireland when that deal gets completed, and what ever that becomes. Some have suggested it will get closed down, others think it will become 3u, and what a horrible name that is, but whatever happens there, the idea of RTE and TV3 teaming up for a channel is a great combination.
Think about this. TV3 already have Ireland's only local breakfast TV show in Ireland AM, so they could start the ball rolling at 7am. Have live news from TV3 at 12.30, 5.30 and 8.00, with live RTE News at 1.00, 6.01 and 9.00. That already gives a collaborative channel a great structure of live news to work from. Adding in Xpose, The Seven O'Clock Show, Midday and Tonight with Vincent Brown from TV3, and Today and The Late Late Show from RTE, and you have the basics of a great channel that would showcase the best of Irish TV.
RTE should rethink the whole rejection of TV3's idea as it is a good one. What's more, they should be looking to get RTE News Now onto Sky in the UK, Freest in the UK and Virgin Media in the UK as quickly as possible.
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
Live radio. It's not just the past, it's the future.
So, James Cridland, a self-described radio-futurologist (is that even really a word?), recently released an audio column on You Tube. Now I have a lot of time for James as he talk a lot of sense. In particular, his commentary on treating audiences with respect was pretty good.
But this column on whether radio needs to be live, is one where I think he came to the wrong conclusion, for the wrong reason.
Okay, so the motivation here was a response to someone else's blog post about the idea that if radio isn't live, it isn't really radio. Well, I'm sorry but that's patently nonsense, and I agree with James on that. Some of the best radio material ever broadcast was pre-recorded in advance. But equally, some of the best radio material isn't pre-recorded at all, but went out live and untouched by any razor blade or piece of audio editing software.
But when he says that the people who say that live radio is the essence of great radio are wrong, I start to get concerned about this. His first argument is the technical one, the one that says that FM is a slight delay behind the actual broadcast, DAB is a little bit further behind and radio over an Internet Protocol, can be a lot slower. Sometimes the delay is only 10-15 seconds, sometimes it can be as much as a few minutes.
But actually, as I've found with various different listen again services, the delay between the actual broadcast, and the reception of it, isn't actually relevant. Whether something was actually happening as you were listening, or had in fact happened up to 30 days previously, didn't matter. What I was listening to had been transmitted live, and I was experiencing it, as though it was live, even if it had happened 4 weeks earlier.
And that I think is the key to this 'myth' that keeps cropping up, that radio doesn't need to be live or isn't better live. The evidence that keeps coming up for this idea, is that podcasts like Serial are some of the best produced and most talked about and you can listen to it when you want and not on someone else's schedule.
Yet, that is the very reason, and the overriding one at that, that supports the idea that radio stations will stay live or mostly live, if they want to survive.
Live radio has a few benefits that pre-produced radio doesn't. Yes, pre-produced radio does have it's own benefits too, but in my view, these are outweighed by the disadvantages and the advantages of live radio.
Here's what I mean.
Here's what I think are the advantages of live radio.
1. Live radio is raw. What that means is that live radio is not that it's untrained, or cruel or brutal, but that it is a natural state, like unrefined sugar, and like uncooked food like carrots or lettuce. That rawness gives live radio a distinct advantage. Yes, there might be mistakes or problems, but on the other hand, that's part of the fun. We're human beings, we're not perfect, however much we like to think we are.
2. Live radio is responsive. There's a programme on US public radio that I really enjoy listening to. It's called The World, and it's presented by Marco Warman from Boston. They do some wonderful reporting and have some very interesting, but it's not live, and it's marketed as a news programme. The only actual live elements in the programme, are the news bulletins, for 5 minutes at 1 minute past the hour, and 2 minutes at half past the hour. Everything else is pre-recorded, no more than about 90 minutes in advance of first broadcast at 3pm EST, but it's mostly pre-recorded. Which means that major news stories breaking during the programme, often don't get covered until the next day, if then.
With live radio though, you have the ability to cover that major breaking news, even if it's only a quick 10 to 30 second update in a music radio format. That 30 seconds or less will be more appreciated by your listeners, than if you hadn't done it.
3. Live radio is unpredictable. You can format and prepare as much as possible, but just occasionally, something will happen that will be unplanned for. Now, in my view, a true professional is not the person who sounds slick and polished. It's the person who can handle the unplanned as though they'd planned it. If something goes wrong, they have the ability to recover the situation quickly, and with a minimum of disruption.
4. Live radio is a unique art form. This one might seem pretentious but hear me out here. In all forms of media and culture, live radio is a unique form. It can have elements of theatre about it, it can elements within it that are polished and produced beautifully, but it also has an energy to it that cannot be captured in a pre-recorded format, such as cinema or pre-recorded TV and radio. Live broadcasting is a unique art form, and with radio's ability to be heard whilst doing something else, that gives live radio a distinct advantage over pre-produced material.
So what are the disadvantages.
1. Live radio is raw. Yes, I know I said that it was an advantage, but it is also a disadvantage. It's unrefined, not polished, not made the best that it can possibly be. Sometimes that rawness can let people say things that they might not either truly mean or haven't really thought about. Or, it can lead to serious mistakes in judgment, like when Rush Limbaugh called a woman who had testified to the US Congress a "slut". That rawness isn't always a good thing, but more often than not, it is.
2. Live radio can be misinforming. It can happen from time to time, especially during breaking news scenarios. At times information can come in, and be contradicted within hours, sometimes minutes, and it can be very difficult sorting out the actual facts from the well-intentioned and unintentional fiction. Very few broadcasters have that ability to sort out fact from fantasy on the fly, so often they will just avoid breaking news situations entirely.
3. Pre-recorded radio is often better produced. There's no doubt that US public radio is filled with great shows that have a lot of great content on them. However, a lot of these programmes are not heard live by every listener. Because of the way public radio works in the USA, a lot of material is often produced and recorded in advance of actual transmission.
NPR's shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered, actually air internally for a lot longer than you hear on public radio stations, but most of those hours are actually repeats of the live broadcast hours. Morning Edition for example is often only live between 5am and 7am EST, with material sometimes being updated through the morning until the show finishes at 12noon EST, that's 9am PST. Similarly. All Things Considered is only actually live between 4pm EST and 6pm EST. Again, material can get updated, but it's mostly each hour individually repeated until 10pm EST, 7pm PST. Most local public radio stations only air a few hours at most of their own live programmes every day. WNYC has live local programmes between 10am and 2pm, as well as adding local content to Morning Edition between 6am and 9am, and adding local content to All Things Considered between 4pm and 6pm. KCRW has local content from 9am to 1pm, plus they have local DJs doing programmes between 8pm and 3am. They too, like WNYC and most other public radio stations add local content to Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
WGBH produces a lot of content for NPR and PRI, their own local content is contained within the programme Boston Public Radio, which airs between 11am and 2pm on weekdays, as well as selected late night slots on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. They also air local content during Morning Edition and All Things Considered. KQED's local programming is even more limited, with only the KQED Forum between 9am and 11am. Most local KQED programming like Perspectives and The California Report, air during Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
So much content in shows like The California Report, and many other public radio shows is produced in advance and it shows in just how well the material is produced. Live radio is rarely as well produced as these pre-recorded items and shows are.
There is a growing delineation between on-demand content, both on radio and TV, and live content. Anything that is produced in advance is going to become primarily on-demand content in the near future. They may get released on a certain day, at a certain time, but they are going to be heard and seen at a time of the listener's choosing. You already see this with podcasts, whether hourly, daily or weekly. Weekly shows like WNYC's On The Media, and KCRW's Left, Right & Center, tend to be produced on a Thursday, released on a Friday as a download, and you'll often hear these shows and others like them air on radio stations over the course of a weekend, at various times dependent on the station. And these shows can be heard on your schedule, after you download it.
But live broadcasting at the weekend is often more about sports or a late breakfast, providing news, weather and travel info. Music radio at the weekend, outside of breakfast, is often voice tracked, usually on the Friday before. But with the likes of Spotify and Pandora, and your own MP3 players and iPods growing in popularity, these are slowly replacing music radio as the preferred means of listening to music. Commercial radio is going to have to adapt to that reality, and it will have to do it at some point, sooner or later. Content is going to become the most important thing and it'll be all the better for commercial radio if they can get used to the idea of having sponsored content, not like teleshopping, but like sponsored sports coverage, and programming like Radio Plymouth's Sunday Supplement, which includes long form news features (for commercial radio, anything over a minute is long form, and some of these news packages are up to 5 minutes in length), interview segments and showbiz packages. Other ideas such as local music hours and even some forms of talk programming, are probably going to be better at attracting listeners to a live radio station, either broadcast or streaming, than more hours of music, interrupted by ads and news.
On balance, here's how I would answer the basic premise of the question. Does radio need to be live? Not always, but being live, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the best of pre-recorded radio, where as being pre-recorded the whole time, does preclude you from utilising the benefits of live radio.
But this column on whether radio needs to be live, is one where I think he came to the wrong conclusion, for the wrong reason.
Okay, so the motivation here was a response to someone else's blog post about the idea that if radio isn't live, it isn't really radio. Well, I'm sorry but that's patently nonsense, and I agree with James on that. Some of the best radio material ever broadcast was pre-recorded in advance. But equally, some of the best radio material isn't pre-recorded at all, but went out live and untouched by any razor blade or piece of audio editing software.
But when he says that the people who say that live radio is the essence of great radio are wrong, I start to get concerned about this. His first argument is the technical one, the one that says that FM is a slight delay behind the actual broadcast, DAB is a little bit further behind and radio over an Internet Protocol, can be a lot slower. Sometimes the delay is only 10-15 seconds, sometimes it can be as much as a few minutes.
But actually, as I've found with various different listen again services, the delay between the actual broadcast, and the reception of it, isn't actually relevant. Whether something was actually happening as you were listening, or had in fact happened up to 30 days previously, didn't matter. What I was listening to had been transmitted live, and I was experiencing it, as though it was live, even if it had happened 4 weeks earlier.
And that I think is the key to this 'myth' that keeps cropping up, that radio doesn't need to be live or isn't better live. The evidence that keeps coming up for this idea, is that podcasts like Serial are some of the best produced and most talked about and you can listen to it when you want and not on someone else's schedule.
Yet, that is the very reason, and the overriding one at that, that supports the idea that radio stations will stay live or mostly live, if they want to survive.
Live radio has a few benefits that pre-produced radio doesn't. Yes, pre-produced radio does have it's own benefits too, but in my view, these are outweighed by the disadvantages and the advantages of live radio.
Here's what I mean.
Here's what I think are the advantages of live radio.
1. Live radio is raw. What that means is that live radio is not that it's untrained, or cruel or brutal, but that it is a natural state, like unrefined sugar, and like uncooked food like carrots or lettuce. That rawness gives live radio a distinct advantage. Yes, there might be mistakes or problems, but on the other hand, that's part of the fun. We're human beings, we're not perfect, however much we like to think we are.
2. Live radio is responsive. There's a programme on US public radio that I really enjoy listening to. It's called The World, and it's presented by Marco Warman from Boston. They do some wonderful reporting and have some very interesting, but it's not live, and it's marketed as a news programme. The only actual live elements in the programme, are the news bulletins, for 5 minutes at 1 minute past the hour, and 2 minutes at half past the hour. Everything else is pre-recorded, no more than about 90 minutes in advance of first broadcast at 3pm EST, but it's mostly pre-recorded. Which means that major news stories breaking during the programme, often don't get covered until the next day, if then.
With live radio though, you have the ability to cover that major breaking news, even if it's only a quick 10 to 30 second update in a music radio format. That 30 seconds or less will be more appreciated by your listeners, than if you hadn't done it.
3. Live radio is unpredictable. You can format and prepare as much as possible, but just occasionally, something will happen that will be unplanned for. Now, in my view, a true professional is not the person who sounds slick and polished. It's the person who can handle the unplanned as though they'd planned it. If something goes wrong, they have the ability to recover the situation quickly, and with a minimum of disruption.
4. Live radio is a unique art form. This one might seem pretentious but hear me out here. In all forms of media and culture, live radio is a unique form. It can have elements of theatre about it, it can elements within it that are polished and produced beautifully, but it also has an energy to it that cannot be captured in a pre-recorded format, such as cinema or pre-recorded TV and radio. Live broadcasting is a unique art form, and with radio's ability to be heard whilst doing something else, that gives live radio a distinct advantage over pre-produced material.
So what are the disadvantages.
1. Live radio is raw. Yes, I know I said that it was an advantage, but it is also a disadvantage. It's unrefined, not polished, not made the best that it can possibly be. Sometimes that rawness can let people say things that they might not either truly mean or haven't really thought about. Or, it can lead to serious mistakes in judgment, like when Rush Limbaugh called a woman who had testified to the US Congress a "slut". That rawness isn't always a good thing, but more often than not, it is.
2. Live radio can be misinforming. It can happen from time to time, especially during breaking news scenarios. At times information can come in, and be contradicted within hours, sometimes minutes, and it can be very difficult sorting out the actual facts from the well-intentioned and unintentional fiction. Very few broadcasters have that ability to sort out fact from fantasy on the fly, so often they will just avoid breaking news situations entirely.
3. Pre-recorded radio is often better produced. There's no doubt that US public radio is filled with great shows that have a lot of great content on them. However, a lot of these programmes are not heard live by every listener. Because of the way public radio works in the USA, a lot of material is often produced and recorded in advance of actual transmission.
NPR's shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered, actually air internally for a lot longer than you hear on public radio stations, but most of those hours are actually repeats of the live broadcast hours. Morning Edition for example is often only live between 5am and 7am EST, with material sometimes being updated through the morning until the show finishes at 12noon EST, that's 9am PST. Similarly. All Things Considered is only actually live between 4pm EST and 6pm EST. Again, material can get updated, but it's mostly each hour individually repeated until 10pm EST, 7pm PST. Most local public radio stations only air a few hours at most of their own live programmes every day. WNYC has live local programmes between 10am and 2pm, as well as adding local content to Morning Edition between 6am and 9am, and adding local content to All Things Considered between 4pm and 6pm. KCRW has local content from 9am to 1pm, plus they have local DJs doing programmes between 8pm and 3am. They too, like WNYC and most other public radio stations add local content to Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
WGBH produces a lot of content for NPR and PRI, their own local content is contained within the programme Boston Public Radio, which airs between 11am and 2pm on weekdays, as well as selected late night slots on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. They also air local content during Morning Edition and All Things Considered. KQED's local programming is even more limited, with only the KQED Forum between 9am and 11am. Most local KQED programming like Perspectives and The California Report, air during Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
So much content in shows like The California Report, and many other public radio shows is produced in advance and it shows in just how well the material is produced. Live radio is rarely as well produced as these pre-recorded items and shows are.
There is a growing delineation between on-demand content, both on radio and TV, and live content. Anything that is produced in advance is going to become primarily on-demand content in the near future. They may get released on a certain day, at a certain time, but they are going to be heard and seen at a time of the listener's choosing. You already see this with podcasts, whether hourly, daily or weekly. Weekly shows like WNYC's On The Media, and KCRW's Left, Right & Center, tend to be produced on a Thursday, released on a Friday as a download, and you'll often hear these shows and others like them air on radio stations over the course of a weekend, at various times dependent on the station. And these shows can be heard on your schedule, after you download it.
But live broadcasting at the weekend is often more about sports or a late breakfast, providing news, weather and travel info. Music radio at the weekend, outside of breakfast, is often voice tracked, usually on the Friday before. But with the likes of Spotify and Pandora, and your own MP3 players and iPods growing in popularity, these are slowly replacing music radio as the preferred means of listening to music. Commercial radio is going to have to adapt to that reality, and it will have to do it at some point, sooner or later. Content is going to become the most important thing and it'll be all the better for commercial radio if they can get used to the idea of having sponsored content, not like teleshopping, but like sponsored sports coverage, and programming like Radio Plymouth's Sunday Supplement, which includes long form news features (for commercial radio, anything over a minute is long form, and some of these news packages are up to 5 minutes in length), interview segments and showbiz packages. Other ideas such as local music hours and even some forms of talk programming, are probably going to be better at attracting listeners to a live radio station, either broadcast or streaming, than more hours of music, interrupted by ads and news.
On balance, here's how I would answer the basic premise of the question. Does radio need to be live? Not always, but being live, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the best of pre-recorded radio, where as being pre-recorded the whole time, does preclude you from utilising the benefits of live radio.
Sunday, 1 May 2016
BBC Local Radio: Does it have a future?
So, I'm doing my regular skimming around the various forums, looking for interesting posts, and I spot something on Digital Spy that actually got me thinking.
I know, something on Digital Spy actually got me thinking, that's a first!
The poster posed a question about BBC Local Radio as a whole. Has it, as an idea, had its day? Indeed, some of the commenters there raised very valid and accurate points about the state of BBC Local Radio.
BBC Local Radio as a whole has over 8.5 million listeners every week. That's not a shabby performance, especially when you consider the nearest thing to a comparable commercial network, Heart, gets over 9.1 million listeners per week, and other than Heart, the only stations that score higher, are BBC Radios 1, 2 & 4. By those standards of measurement, surely BBC Local Radio's future as a whole is secure.
But start digging just below the surface of those numbers, and the picture looks a lot different.
Just in the last year, BBC Local Radio as a whole, has lost over 400,000 listeners. That's not so good. The overall share of listening is also down slightly.
And when you start looking at individual stations, it doesn't get much better.
Let's start with BBC Guernsey. In a market where you have two main local stations, one BBC and one commercial (Island FM), you'd think that given the way the BBC is always portrayed by commercial radio companies as being dominant that the BBC Local station would be the runaway leader here, and you'd be wrong.
In a market that has only 53,000 available listeners, BBC Guernsey scores 20,000 whilst Island FM scores 32,000. In the last year, BBC Guernsey has lost 4,000 weekly listeners, whilst Island FM has also lost listeners, just 1,000 of them though. Obviously national radio in Guernsey has gained listeners compared to the local stations.
But even with losing 1,000 listeners, Island FM has still seen its share of listening go up from 45.7% to 46.1% in the past year. Not too shabby. By comparison BBC Guernsey's share of listening has dropped, from 20.9% to 20.5%. So how does Island FM do so much better than BBC Guernsey?
Some could put it down to the fact that Island FM is a more music service, but that's too simple an explanation. If that was all it was, commercial radio as a whole would be outperforming the BBC and that simply isn't the case. BBC Radio 4 outperforms every other station and network, except for BBC Radio 2, so the amount of music clearly isn't the deciding factor here.
When you listen to the output of Island FM, one thing stands out immediately. It has a very community-based feel to it. They talk a lot about local events and promote local causes. Live local programming hours are greater than on most mainland local commercial stations, from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 7am to 6pm on Saturdays, and 8am to Midday on Sundays, their Sunday afternoon show is voice tracked, according to their public file, although when listening in myself, I couldn't tell that it wasn't live. It's also one of the few remaining local commercial stations to feature a sports show on a Saturday afternoon.
If anything, it's a mixture of having a good mix of music, familiar enough, yet with enough variation that allows you to discover tracks you might not have heard before, combined with the community feel, and a professional imaging that doesn't make the station sound small and you have what I consider to be the perfect balance of elements to make great commercial radio.
The news on the hour doesn't feel too long, at 3 minutes, and you feel briefed, rather than feeling like you've not been told enough. Radio news itself is another whole separate issue that I could talk about in another long article, but I'll save that for another time. Suffice to say, Island FM's news feels about right.
Okay, so I can hear the next question forming in your minds. "That's in a one BBC versus one local commercial situation, but in my area, there are 2 or more local commercial stations up against one BBC local radio station. Does BBC Local Radio do any better there?"
Well, let's use BBC Radio Cornwall as an example. BBC Radio Cornwall has traditionally been one of BBC Local Radio's better performers, so if that is leading, then maybe the picture isn't quite so bad.
Well, BBC Radio Cornwall does score a decent 141,000 listeners in a market of 463,000. That's a 30% reach, that's pretty good... but that's down 12,000 listeners in the past year. It's scoring decently on share as well, a none too shabby 16.1% share of listening... down from 18.3% a year ago. Oh dear, this picture ain't looking too great to be fair. But, if it's ahead of its commercial competition, then we can still call it more successful.
Let's start with the biggest national name in local radio, Heart. Heart do report their Cornwall service separately, so we do have a direct comparison. And they score... 117,000. 24,000 less than BBC Radio Cornwall, so BBC Radio Cornwall is still more popular. However, that score is up 20,000 on the same time last year. That doesn't sound so good for BBC Radio Cornwall, who have lost 12,000 listeners in the same time.
How does share of listening compare. Well, Heart are much further back on that count, scoring only 8.5% share, but that is up on the 6.6% of a year ago. However, it's still nowhere near BBC Radio Cornwall's 16.1%.
But although they may be the biggest name in local commercial radio nationally, Heart are comparative newcomers to Cornwall, as Pirate FM were Cornwall's first local commercial radio service, launching in 1992. How do they compare to BBC Radio Cornwall?
Well, on the reach side, Pirate FM scores... 165,000. 24,000 more than BBC Radio Cornwall, and that's up 5,000 in the last year. That's not so good for BBC Local Radio. However, on the share side, Pirate FM comes in at 11.7%, quite a way back from Radio Cornwall's 16.1%, and itself, down from 12.5% a year ago.
And those figures don't show how that compares to recent entrant NJoy Radio, who broadcast on DAB, and are not currently registered with RAJAR for ratings, nor does it show how it compares to the various community stations that broadcast on FM across Cornwall, Penwith Radio, Source FM, CHBN, The Hub and RSAB. And even then, because of broadcast area, we don't know how many listeners in the Cornwall area listen to other stations that are available in the area, but are not predominantly targeted at Cornwall, such as Radio Plymouth, BBC Radio Devon and Smooth Plymouth. Also, we don't have figures for two other DAB stations that Pirate FM produce. Pirate Oldies or Escape To Cornwall.
It's not clear cut by any means, but it is fair to say that BBC Radio Cornwall is amongst the best performers in the BBC Local Radio stable. Their next door neighbour, BBC Radio Devon, has had in recent times one of the worst collapses of audience I've ever seen. In just one year, they've dropped from 212,000 weekly listeners, to just 169,000. That's a massive 43,000 listeners deserting BBC Radio Devon. The figures for share of listening are no better. One year ago, 11.4% share. Today, just 7.6% share. That's a drop of a third overall. A 33.3% fall in share of listening, just let that sink in for a second. There's a third less listening overall to BBC Radio Devon in the past year. That's a big problem. A problem that is somewhat disguised by the fact that there isn't really a direct comparison available with Heart in Devon, or with Radio Plymouth, Radio Exe and The Breeze (formerly Palm FM). Also, there are no figures for any of the community radio stations in Devon, Soundart Radio, Phonic FM, The Voice or Bay FM. So it's difficult to know exactly where the listeners are going, and how BBC Radio Devon should respond.
But even if they did know, they are hamstrung by the dictats from London which limit what BBC local radio can actually do. The BBC Local Radio formula which was devised back in the early 1990s might have seemed like a good idea then, but the audience profile has changed so significantly, that BBC Local Radio these days sounds ridiculously old fashioned and out of date, a museum piece that needs to be brought up to date.
Whilst it's admirable to commit to local journalism, nothing that BBC local radio does in journalism terms even comes close to being worthy local journalism. This is a similar problem that has been facing local NPR stations across America, and they've come up with many different applications but the basic guiding principle has been the same. Don't go for the easy stories, the ones that are important, but basically dull. Also, don't go for the standard commercial fare, high on the interest scale, but lacking any importance at all. Find stories that are both interesting and important, and find new, more interesting, more compelling ways to tell them.
Indeed, I found one such story that I brought onto my own show, which had so many angles that I needed to give the whole story a lot more time. The basic story was the local food bank was having a public fundraising appeal to help pay for the bigger premises that they had to move into, because of increased demand for the food bank's help. But the food bank wasn't the only community service that was in the new location, there were other services that were sharing that building, so it made sense to me to cover the basic story, but also to talk about each of the services that were at that location.
The story also played into the two higher tiers in the Public Radio News Director's Guide. There are four tiers of news, according to the guide.
Tier One: Commercial
Tier Two: Staged
Tier Three: Local Impact/National
Tier Four: Local Meaning.
The story was a local impact of a national trend, the growing use of food banks since 2010, so it fitted in tier three. But it also fitted in tier four. It was about something that was truly making a difference in the local community. It made perfect sense to do that story, and to give it more airtime than BBC or commercial radio would ever give it.
Unfortunately, most BBC local reporting still fits into Tier one or two on the scale. Very little comes under tier three or tier four. Also, a lot of the reporting can be summed up as worthy, but dull, and that does nothing for the appeal of BBC local radio.
Whilst it's understandable that commercial radio would stick pretty close to tier one and tier two, and indeed mostly does, there are occasions when even commercial radio will touch on tier three or tier four, and those are the times commercial radio genuinely surprises. BBC local radio on the other hand, rarely does surprise.
So, what does BBC local radio need to do?
Well, its local journalism needs to be more interesting, better presented and produced, and it needs to be less commercial, and more tier three and tier four, more relevant to the local area, more local impact and local meaning.
The music needs to be generally broader, and at times, there does need to be more music than talk. Not every hour should be more music, or more talk, or even all talk. What it needs to be is right for the time of day. Breakfast should always aim to be more informed, but that doesn't necessarily mean music has to be completely excluded. By enforcing a strict 70:30 ratio of talk to music during daytime and evening, it means that far too often, BBC local radio is just talking about stuff to fill airtime, stuff that really shouldn't be taking up that airtime, and stories that deserve more time, just aren't getting it.
Let the balance of music and talk work itself out for each station. Also, BBC local radio's reliance on phone ins to help fill the airtime doesn't help matters as often, the contributions go on way too long, and leave you begging for a producer to pull the plug on a phone call because somebody's spoken for far too long and said very little if anything of any use to the station or the listener.
What BBC local radio needs is a complete overhaul, but unfortunately, I don't see any such overhaul coming.
I know, something on Digital Spy actually got me thinking, that's a first!
The poster posed a question about BBC Local Radio as a whole. Has it, as an idea, had its day? Indeed, some of the commenters there raised very valid and accurate points about the state of BBC Local Radio.
BBC Local Radio as a whole has over 8.5 million listeners every week. That's not a shabby performance, especially when you consider the nearest thing to a comparable commercial network, Heart, gets over 9.1 million listeners per week, and other than Heart, the only stations that score higher, are BBC Radios 1, 2 & 4. By those standards of measurement, surely BBC Local Radio's future as a whole is secure.
But start digging just below the surface of those numbers, and the picture looks a lot different.
Just in the last year, BBC Local Radio as a whole, has lost over 400,000 listeners. That's not so good. The overall share of listening is also down slightly.
And when you start looking at individual stations, it doesn't get much better.
Let's start with BBC Guernsey. In a market where you have two main local stations, one BBC and one commercial (Island FM), you'd think that given the way the BBC is always portrayed by commercial radio companies as being dominant that the BBC Local station would be the runaway leader here, and you'd be wrong.
In a market that has only 53,000 available listeners, BBC Guernsey scores 20,000 whilst Island FM scores 32,000. In the last year, BBC Guernsey has lost 4,000 weekly listeners, whilst Island FM has also lost listeners, just 1,000 of them though. Obviously national radio in Guernsey has gained listeners compared to the local stations.
But even with losing 1,000 listeners, Island FM has still seen its share of listening go up from 45.7% to 46.1% in the past year. Not too shabby. By comparison BBC Guernsey's share of listening has dropped, from 20.9% to 20.5%. So how does Island FM do so much better than BBC Guernsey?
Some could put it down to the fact that Island FM is a more music service, but that's too simple an explanation. If that was all it was, commercial radio as a whole would be outperforming the BBC and that simply isn't the case. BBC Radio 4 outperforms every other station and network, except for BBC Radio 2, so the amount of music clearly isn't the deciding factor here.
When you listen to the output of Island FM, one thing stands out immediately. It has a very community-based feel to it. They talk a lot about local events and promote local causes. Live local programming hours are greater than on most mainland local commercial stations, from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 7am to 6pm on Saturdays, and 8am to Midday on Sundays, their Sunday afternoon show is voice tracked, according to their public file, although when listening in myself, I couldn't tell that it wasn't live. It's also one of the few remaining local commercial stations to feature a sports show on a Saturday afternoon.
If anything, it's a mixture of having a good mix of music, familiar enough, yet with enough variation that allows you to discover tracks you might not have heard before, combined with the community feel, and a professional imaging that doesn't make the station sound small and you have what I consider to be the perfect balance of elements to make great commercial radio.
The news on the hour doesn't feel too long, at 3 minutes, and you feel briefed, rather than feeling like you've not been told enough. Radio news itself is another whole separate issue that I could talk about in another long article, but I'll save that for another time. Suffice to say, Island FM's news feels about right.
Okay, so I can hear the next question forming in your minds. "That's in a one BBC versus one local commercial situation, but in my area, there are 2 or more local commercial stations up against one BBC local radio station. Does BBC Local Radio do any better there?"
Well, let's use BBC Radio Cornwall as an example. BBC Radio Cornwall has traditionally been one of BBC Local Radio's better performers, so if that is leading, then maybe the picture isn't quite so bad.
Well, BBC Radio Cornwall does score a decent 141,000 listeners in a market of 463,000. That's a 30% reach, that's pretty good... but that's down 12,000 listeners in the past year. It's scoring decently on share as well, a none too shabby 16.1% share of listening... down from 18.3% a year ago. Oh dear, this picture ain't looking too great to be fair. But, if it's ahead of its commercial competition, then we can still call it more successful.
Let's start with the biggest national name in local radio, Heart. Heart do report their Cornwall service separately, so we do have a direct comparison. And they score... 117,000. 24,000 less than BBC Radio Cornwall, so BBC Radio Cornwall is still more popular. However, that score is up 20,000 on the same time last year. That doesn't sound so good for BBC Radio Cornwall, who have lost 12,000 listeners in the same time.
How does share of listening compare. Well, Heart are much further back on that count, scoring only 8.5% share, but that is up on the 6.6% of a year ago. However, it's still nowhere near BBC Radio Cornwall's 16.1%.
But although they may be the biggest name in local commercial radio nationally, Heart are comparative newcomers to Cornwall, as Pirate FM were Cornwall's first local commercial radio service, launching in 1992. How do they compare to BBC Radio Cornwall?
Well, on the reach side, Pirate FM scores... 165,000. 24,000 more than BBC Radio Cornwall, and that's up 5,000 in the last year. That's not so good for BBC Local Radio. However, on the share side, Pirate FM comes in at 11.7%, quite a way back from Radio Cornwall's 16.1%, and itself, down from 12.5% a year ago.
And those figures don't show how that compares to recent entrant NJoy Radio, who broadcast on DAB, and are not currently registered with RAJAR for ratings, nor does it show how it compares to the various community stations that broadcast on FM across Cornwall, Penwith Radio, Source FM, CHBN, The Hub and RSAB. And even then, because of broadcast area, we don't know how many listeners in the Cornwall area listen to other stations that are available in the area, but are not predominantly targeted at Cornwall, such as Radio Plymouth, BBC Radio Devon and Smooth Plymouth. Also, we don't have figures for two other DAB stations that Pirate FM produce. Pirate Oldies or Escape To Cornwall.
It's not clear cut by any means, but it is fair to say that BBC Radio Cornwall is amongst the best performers in the BBC Local Radio stable. Their next door neighbour, BBC Radio Devon, has had in recent times one of the worst collapses of audience I've ever seen. In just one year, they've dropped from 212,000 weekly listeners, to just 169,000. That's a massive 43,000 listeners deserting BBC Radio Devon. The figures for share of listening are no better. One year ago, 11.4% share. Today, just 7.6% share. That's a drop of a third overall. A 33.3% fall in share of listening, just let that sink in for a second. There's a third less listening overall to BBC Radio Devon in the past year. That's a big problem. A problem that is somewhat disguised by the fact that there isn't really a direct comparison available with Heart in Devon, or with Radio Plymouth, Radio Exe and The Breeze (formerly Palm FM). Also, there are no figures for any of the community radio stations in Devon, Soundart Radio, Phonic FM, The Voice or Bay FM. So it's difficult to know exactly where the listeners are going, and how BBC Radio Devon should respond.
But even if they did know, they are hamstrung by the dictats from London which limit what BBC local radio can actually do. The BBC Local Radio formula which was devised back in the early 1990s might have seemed like a good idea then, but the audience profile has changed so significantly, that BBC Local Radio these days sounds ridiculously old fashioned and out of date, a museum piece that needs to be brought up to date.
Whilst it's admirable to commit to local journalism, nothing that BBC local radio does in journalism terms even comes close to being worthy local journalism. This is a similar problem that has been facing local NPR stations across America, and they've come up with many different applications but the basic guiding principle has been the same. Don't go for the easy stories, the ones that are important, but basically dull. Also, don't go for the standard commercial fare, high on the interest scale, but lacking any importance at all. Find stories that are both interesting and important, and find new, more interesting, more compelling ways to tell them.
Indeed, I found one such story that I brought onto my own show, which had so many angles that I needed to give the whole story a lot more time. The basic story was the local food bank was having a public fundraising appeal to help pay for the bigger premises that they had to move into, because of increased demand for the food bank's help. But the food bank wasn't the only community service that was in the new location, there were other services that were sharing that building, so it made sense to me to cover the basic story, but also to talk about each of the services that were at that location.
The story also played into the two higher tiers in the Public Radio News Director's Guide. There are four tiers of news, according to the guide.
Tier One: Commercial
Tier Two: Staged
Tier Three: Local Impact/National
Tier Four: Local Meaning.
The story was a local impact of a national trend, the growing use of food banks since 2010, so it fitted in tier three. But it also fitted in tier four. It was about something that was truly making a difference in the local community. It made perfect sense to do that story, and to give it more airtime than BBC or commercial radio would ever give it.
Unfortunately, most BBC local reporting still fits into Tier one or two on the scale. Very little comes under tier three or tier four. Also, a lot of the reporting can be summed up as worthy, but dull, and that does nothing for the appeal of BBC local radio.
Whilst it's understandable that commercial radio would stick pretty close to tier one and tier two, and indeed mostly does, there are occasions when even commercial radio will touch on tier three or tier four, and those are the times commercial radio genuinely surprises. BBC local radio on the other hand, rarely does surprise.
So, what does BBC local radio need to do?
Well, its local journalism needs to be more interesting, better presented and produced, and it needs to be less commercial, and more tier three and tier four, more relevant to the local area, more local impact and local meaning.
The music needs to be generally broader, and at times, there does need to be more music than talk. Not every hour should be more music, or more talk, or even all talk. What it needs to be is right for the time of day. Breakfast should always aim to be more informed, but that doesn't necessarily mean music has to be completely excluded. By enforcing a strict 70:30 ratio of talk to music during daytime and evening, it means that far too often, BBC local radio is just talking about stuff to fill airtime, stuff that really shouldn't be taking up that airtime, and stories that deserve more time, just aren't getting it.
Let the balance of music and talk work itself out for each station. Also, BBC local radio's reliance on phone ins to help fill the airtime doesn't help matters as often, the contributions go on way too long, and leave you begging for a producer to pull the plug on a phone call because somebody's spoken for far too long and said very little if anything of any use to the station or the listener.
What BBC local radio needs is a complete overhaul, but unfortunately, I don't see any such overhaul coming.
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
Utah decides to make pornography a public health issue...
This is perhaps the most baffling, the most unbelievable, the most stupid reason I've ever heard for banning pornography, and the reality is, it won't change a thing.
And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".
But it should come as no surprise. Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US. And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.
But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.
By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive. By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it. By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.
Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.
And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".
But it should come as no surprise. Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US. And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.
But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.
By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive. By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it. By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.
Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)