6 Comments so far

1. Poet February 28th, 2007 3:35 pm

   eric makes a good comment about injecting some life into the moribund world of satellite feed radio, but there is a much simpler and less expensive solution–the same solution that already exists to the money grubbing print media which has do e the exact same thing to its editorial content–it’s called the internet.

   For a fraction of the cost of starting and maintaining a print publication or an on the air broadcasting facility, writers and broadcasters can go on the net anbd seqrch vor an audience.

   The real problem here is the unwillingness of Americans to pay for what they want. They are more than willing to sell out to advertisers who quite correctly conclude that iuf they are going to pay the bills, they are going to call the tune.

   So we have print media where editorial content is etermined by how much space is left on the page after they have sold as many ads as they can and broadcasting where programming conmsists of that which is most predictable and least offnsive to its commercial sponsers.

   It was no accident that the BBC reporters were among the most aggressive and dogged questioners of the fatigued generals who held their pep rally “press briefings” in Doha right after the invasion of Iraq. Their institution is supported by the individual licensing fees paid by their audience. The CBC in Canada has similar economic and hence editorial freedom which allows it to report on matters with much less spin and much more objectivity.

2. Urban Shocker March 1st, 2007 12:03 pm

   Poet assumes the internet is available everywhere, which simply is the case.
   Americans may not be so much unwilling as they are unable to find what they want. In order to experience internet broadcasting, one needs an ISP capable of providing the necessary bandwidth. All too often in rural America this can not be found. Choices for internet access are extremely limited.
   One is lucky to find a dial-up connection faster than 40 kbps, which means one may spend hours waiting for buffered content while enjoying only one or two minutes of stuttering broadcast. In effect, internet radio is unlistenable.
   The problem is more widespread than many imagine. While we presently reside in the heartland, we the had the same online limitations when we were living just 58 miles from down town Boston. So it’s true in yet another sense, we are living in two Americas. There’s no telling what ramifications the connectivity gap may bring about.

3. Urban Shocker March 1st, 2007 12:05 pm

   whoops! please read; “Poet assumes the internet is available everywhere, which simply is not the case.

4. Poet March 1st, 2007 8:58 pm

   Urbanshocker makes a good point but I hasten to add that for the first 20-25 years of commercial broadcasting (till about 1945-50) there were vast stretches of the U.S. which had similarly bad broadcast service which was highly dependent on either weather or solar activity. While the internet does have a way to go it has evolved faster than wireless broadcasting did and that is a hopeful sign.

   The cost of more dependable bandwidth and speed of connection will arive like it did in broadcasting when there is a large enough audience to provoke it. My point was (and is) that we could hurry that day by making sure that we carve out and keep:

   1. Net neutrality
   2. Thye notion that some things are worth making the sacrifice to pay for so that others don’t take them away from us.

   Once up[on a time public broadcasting was that way and now just listen to it–filled with increqsingly bland sterile goo paid for by corporate backers. Pacifica Foundation and strong community stations like KGNU in Boulder CO along with some low-powered FM (them that haven’t been eaten up by religious broadcasters) are the too scarce exceptions to that rule.

5. BobNolin March 2nd, 2007 11:03 am

   My reaction to this is: let radio (and broadcast TV) die. The paradigm we grew up with, where the content goes out over the airwaves for free but comes with advertising attached, is going to be gone soon. Cable, the Internet, and satellite will take it’s place. I recently signed up for a year of XM radio, after trying it out for three days free (over the Internet). During the trial, I was amazed at the variety, and thrilled by the lack of commercials AND fundraising. I would much rather pay a monthly or yearly bill for this service than hear commercials. And “public radio” is plagued by incessant pledge drives.

   On XM, I’m hearing songs I haven’t heard since the early heyday of FM radio (I grew up listening to WNEW-FM in NYC, in the 1970’s). The saviors of radio, in my opinion, are living on XM radio. This new model, the satellite model, works because, if subscribers like the content, they continue to pay for it.

   As for the consolidation issue, THAT has me concerned. If there’s only one game in town, the content could go downhill, and it’s only a matter of time until commercials appear, to fatten up the bottom line. I’m hoping that the deal does not go through. I’m not holding my breath, though.

   In the meantime, I’m enjoying listening to the radio again, for the first time in many, many years. Thank you, XM.

6. eyesee March 3rd, 2007 9:15 pm

   And if you REALY want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the MOST comprehensive site you will ever find is http://www.freepress.net I guaranttee you results beyond your wildest expectations. Become an active participant without leaving the comfort of your own home…notice I left the word privacy out? You’ll find out why at this site. Go for it!!

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)