Showing posts with label Radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radio. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

From Dialogue to Division: When Radio Mattered

Lew Hill, founder of Pacifica Radio, was the son of an Oklahoma millionaire. Attending Stanford University, he studied Kierkegaard and Gandhi, became a conscientious objector, and conceived the idea for a pacifist-controlled radio station while working at a remote, church-funded Civilian Public Service camp in Coleville, California, one of many set up for those refusing to fight in World War II. KPFA, the first Pacifica station, went on the air in April 1949, initially reaching relatively few people in the San Francisco Bay Area on the FM dial.

These were the boomer years, a time of anticommunist fever, later renamed the McCarthy era after the unscrupulous Wisconsin Senator who claimed in 1950 that 205 Communists infested the State Department (and that was just his warm up act), a time when Hollywood screenwriters were jailed for refusing to discuss their political activities with red-hunting congressmen. In fact, during KPFA’s first months on the air, union leader Harry Bridges was imprisoned for lying about his ties with the Communist Party, and a dozen California Communist leaders were convicted for violating the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government. 

But for Hill and other early Pacificans the purpose of the new station was dialogue not revolution, and the Pacifist ideology that had inspired its birth played a marginal role as it struggled to establish itself in Berkeley’s then relatively insular university community.

By this point, commercial broadcasting had been around for almost thirty years. Lee DeForest, the controversial “father of radio,” who spent millions in court trying to validate his patents, conducted the crucial tests on trains and boats, and finally began distributing news and opera in 1916 from an experimental radio station located in the High Bridge section of New York City. He later moved his transmitter to San Francisco and installed it in the wings of the California Theatre to broadcast orchestra performances, then took his fledgling station to Berkeley, where it lasted less than a year.

American Telephone & Telegraph was another early entrant, transmitting signals across the Potomac River for the US Navy, while the Marconi companies used a low-powered vacuum-tube transmitter to send audio from Aldine in New Jersey to David Sarnoff aboard the Bunker Hill off the coast of New York. Thirteen years later Sarnoff would become president of the Radio Corporation of America.

The early experimenting ended abruptly on April 6, 1917, when the United States entered World War I and all stations not needed for the war effort were shut down. It remained illegal for the general public to hear radio transmissions until the fighting ended. During this period, the industry was placed under government control and the Navy Department tried to convert it into a permanent public monopoly, quietly purchasing Federal Telegraph and Marconi stations. When the US Congress found out about that after the war, the Navy was ordered to return the stations to private owners. 

Government pressure also led to the sale of the British-managed Marconi stations to General Electric, already a big US electrical firm and poised to dominate international radio communications. It soon formed a new company for that precise purpose. GE’s patriotically named Radio Corporation of America, soon known worldwide as RCA, made its debut on July 2, 1921 with the broadcast of a heavyweight boxing championship, Jack Dempsey’s defeat of Georges Carpentier in Hoboken. Within a year, RCA was building a national consumer market fueled by advertising.

For a while most programming contained no commercials and many entertainers performed for free. But the next decade featured a battle for dominance by some of the largest companies in the United States that eventually turned radio into a vehicle for superficial comedy, big bands, and often unprincipled advertisers. In 1931, the father of radio publicly voiced his disgust, describing commercial broadcasting as a “national disgrace.” But DeForest was also conservative Republican and fervent anticommunist who called Franklin Roosevelt the “first fascist president,” lobbied Congress against “socialized medicine” and federally subsidized housing, and, in 1953, cancelled his subscription to The Nation magazine on the grounds that it was “lousy with treason.” In any case, the public flocking to radio didn’t much care what its cranky “father” thought.

By 1941, more than 13 million radios a year were being sold – that is, until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December and a World War II ban on non-essential electronic manufacturing drastically reduced production. After the war, of course, the industry grew like a teenager on steroids; Manufacturing exploded, automakers installed millions of sets, and the number of AM stations doubled to 2000 in less than three years. By 1949, radio’s advertising income reached $200 million, over 90 percent of all US households had receivers, and a poll reported that two thirds of the American people regarded the medium as their primary source of news.

From the start, the US government resisted proposals designed to require balance and accuracy on the air, even though prominent figures recognized the danger of monopoly and the power of propaganda. In 1922, no less than the president of GE warned Europe about the downside of radio, urging nations to stop hurling insults at each other "in furious language." Five years later, the League of Nations passed a resolution opposing "obviously inaccurate, highly exaggerated, or deliberately distorted" news, urging the press not to undermine international peace. By the early 30s, the International Federation of Journalists had established a tribunal to deal with broadcasting that promoted hate and violence. Still, the prevailing argument in the US was that only private-sector ownership could protect the so-called "free marketplace of ideas.”

Fundamentalist Christians took early advantage of the opening, jumping into broadcasting even before federal regulation could be developed. By 1925, more than 10 percent of all stations were licensed to religious organizations. Starting with radio evangelism, these media radicals subsequently perfected the use of each new technology to influence opinion, win elections, and hammer home their theology. One of the first was Aimee Semple McPherson, who pioneered the approach on a powerful Los Angeles' radio station. Broadcasting from her temple, McPherson styled herself a modern-day Joan of Arc in a titanic struggle against communism.

Her crusade reached the boiling point in 1934 during the insurgent Democratic gubernatorial campaign of Upton Sinclair. The socialist author of The Jungle and other novels about the excesses of capitalism had pledged to "end poverty in California," but the evangelist, in an alliance with Republican leaders, Hollywood propagandists and political consultants, redefined the race in apocalyptic terms. "Someone has cast in the poison herb," McPherson bellowed on the Sunday before Election Day, "and if we eat thereof we shall all perish and the glory of our nation as it has stood through the years shall perish with us." 

Sinclair, at first the front runner in an era of mass unemployment and hard times, became the target of the nation’s first full-fledged "media campaign" and ultimately lost by 200,000 votes. McPherson had effectively seized on growing fears of revolution, convincing her flock – many of them poor – that the real enemy was satanic communism and its Democratic messenger.

First appearing on CBS stations in 1930, Father Charles Coughlin built a similarly ardent following with his volatile mixture of populism and nationalism. When CBS management insisted that he stop railing against “international bankers,” the evangelist appealed directly to his listeners, who sent more than a million letters of protest to the network. CBS responded by replacing all paid religious broadcasts with Church of the Air, a show that offered free, rotating air time to speakers from the three “major” faiths. 

This became a standard media approach with religious groups. But it didn’t deter Coughlin, who created his own network and turned even more political, eventually drifting toward fascism. Along the way – until he lost favor in World War II -- he suggested that “Christians suffer more at the hands of the Reds than Jews do in the Third Reich” and that Nazi Germany had to protect itself from Jewish communists who were influencing radio, journalism and finance. Attempts to censor him were often decried as “Jewish terrorism.”

For Lew Hill, interest in launching a radio station dated back to his time at the Coleville Public Service Camp in California, but was further stimulated by a stint announcing on the air at WINX in Washington DC toward the end of the war. Working there also brought him together with Joy Cole, a kindred spirit from an old American family who shared his anti-war sentiments and desire to create a better world. They married in 1944. But Lew couldn’t abide the restrictions and distortions that had become commonplace in commercial radio by this time, and his qualms ultimately became intolerable in May 1945, when he was handed a story about “the people at Tule Lake.”

He knew what that euphemistic phrase really meant. Tule Lake was the site of one of the most infamous internment camps for Japanese Americans during the war, a so-called "segregation camp" in northern California that warehoused more than 18,000 people for several years. In all, about 120,000 US citizens of Japanese ancestry were taken from their homes and imprisoned in remote detention centers. The Tule Lake camp had just closed but Lew, who knew about it from working as a war resister 300 miles away, refused to read what he considered a misleading report and turned in his resignation.

A year later, shortly after the Hills moved to San Francisco, he submitted his proposal for a radio station to the Federal Communications Commission and wrote an initial fundraising prospectus. The basic idea was that people who were committed to nonviolence could reach beyond the choir, beyond ivory tower intellectuals and pacifist war resisters, and reach the “average man” by bonding with the community through a station. “Pacifica Foundation has been organized to begin this job,” his description proclaimed. In what became the single most important document in Pacifica history, he outlined the purposes of the new educational foundation in a series of bold, idealistic statements that remained central to its self-image for the next six decades.

At the core, Lew Hill’s vision was that KPFA would “engage in any activity that shall contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and between individuals of all nations, races, creeds and color.” It would “gather and disseminate information on the causes of conflict between any and all such groups,” he wrote, “and promote the study of political and economic problems, and the causes of religious, philosophical and racial antagonisms.” 

And how would this happen? Through dialogue – diverse groups openly communicating with each other on the air. The objective, he explained, wasn’t to discover and convey indisputable truths but rather to nurture an open exchange of ideas that could help people come to know each other as human beings, dialogue that demonstrated the possibility of peace in practice.

By the time I became CEO more than half a century later Pacifica had evolved into something different: progressive radio, a source of “alternative” news and left-wing viewpoints, a platform for local constituencies, identity politics, and too often “politically correct” wisdom, as well as the site of angry and endless internal bickering over process, ideology, air-time and assigning blame that effectively prevented what had become a national network from making an impact on public discourse or, as Lew Hill more modestly hoped, creating constructive connections between people.

Despite altruistic intentions, there was ambiguity from the start. The goals, at least when Lew put them in writing, tended to shift with his audience. For instance, in pitches to the Ford Foundation and a 1952 book, Voluntary Listener Sponsorship: A Report to Educational Broadcasters on the Experiment at KPFA, he dropped words like “pacifism” and “peace” and replaced them with “personal freedom” and “imagination.” Rather than bonding with the community by discussing the local and familiar, he proposed that the station offer “serious cultural broadcasting” in order to secure the support of two percent of the area’s total FM audience. This two percent formula became central to his theory of sustainable listener “sponsorship” through voluntary subscriptions. For the first five years, however, not nearly enough listeners sent in money and the station depended mainly on wealthy benefactors and major foundations.

As Matthew Lazar explained years later in Pacifica Radio: The Rise of an Alternative Network, early Pacifica announcers would boast often that, as an advertisement-free station, KPFA didn’t need to appease commercial influences. “But this freedom did not protect Lew Hill and his band of utopians from the strict ideological requirements of the liberal corporate state,” Lazar wrote. “Nor did it inure Pacifica from the influence of the class able and willing to pay for commercial-free radio.”

Neither was the Bay Area radio experiment protected from the impact of television, which would soon transform communication and human consciousness itself.

NEXT IN THE SERIES: Rise of the Tube

To table of contents: Planet Pacifica 

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The Future of Community Radio

Will audiences keep tuning in to radio if the information and music they want can be more easily accessed by other means? Can FM compete with the quality and reliability of new portable devices? And will listeners continue to pay attention to long fund drive pitches? These are some of the difficult questions public and community radio must answer in the near future.
      At the moment websites and blogs are undermining newspapers, DVRs and TiVo are allowing viewers to skip commercials and time-shift the viewing of their preferred shows, and iPods are revolutionizing the way we access and consume music. The good news is that there are traits and features specific to radio that can help. But broadcasters need to open themselves to the inevitable convergence with new media and the Internet.
      So, how can community radio prepare for the future? Three ways: embrace convergence, focus on unique and thematic content, and use radio’s traditional strengths while combining them with the power of new technologies. This can lead to a new form of radio that doesn’t abandon the airwaves, but also brings quality programming that can’t be found elsewhere to new audiences and emerging media platforms.
     What are radio’s strengths, especially those can be leveraged and integrated with some of the new opportunities?
     IMMEDIACY: Radio’s edge is the ability to be truly "live." Instant real-time broadcasting can take place from nearly any place or location to chronicle live local – and national – events. There is considerable untapped potential here. Think street reporting, reality radio. Hearing a live voice is a totally different experience than any other. It can be powerful, touching and engaging. Being able to listen to something that is happening this very moment in another place is inherently fascinating. Returning to its roots, radio needs to leverage the huge potential of live coverage.
     EMOTIONAL POWER: Radio is about both informing and relating to people. When you do both, people change. As the great and underappreciated broadcaster Larry Josephson said, the power of radio is simple: it's personal. Radio needs to bring back the emotional power of direct, spontaneous reporting and talk delivered by strong, credible personalities. Without that, it will be difficult to compete with new portable devices. Like popular online media platforms, the successful community radio stations of the future will be characterized by a strong, unique style. Podcasting is already affecting radio, putting the heart back into it, focusing on unique content and a compelling source. Heart, passion, and a personal connection: These can’t be over-estimated.
     IDENTITY: Podcasting also draws attention to the value of niche entertainment and thematic content. Specific kinds of news, commentary or music become more important than generalized radio content that must appeal to as large an audience as possible. "New radio" needs to have a clear focus, theme and identity. This means applying some lessons from blogs and focused independent news sites to news, public affairs and music programming. Grassroots broadcast-plus-online radio stations can be debut vehicles for new music, news and reporting talent. Being a talent clearinghouse can be a very powerful theme in itself. Scouting, identifying and cultivating new talent is what some of the best bloggers and talent scouts do. Radio can do it too, especially as platforms multiply.
     THE LOCAL CONNECTION: Radio is ideal for maintaining a sense of community. This is especially true in times of emergency, or when a local event – a rally, accident, or tragedy – bursts upon the scene. People already realize that their needs and interests aren’t being well served by distant corporate entities with no real community connection or concern for local needs. A strong focus on "local" news, music, events, people and issues – especially coupled with "global" access – provides a winning combination. More people distrust “the media” in general these days, but they still have some confidence in their local outlets. Proximity can breed respect, something to be considered in the response to media consolidation.
     ADAPTABILITY: The distinction been producers and consumers is breaking down. In the future, radio will be more about the user participating in the show, potentially becoming a co-producer, host or DJ. In some cases listeners will become stars, contributors and creators of content. Technological developments make it possible for them to create shows, compilations, live entertainment, and become street reporters, reaching where few press reporters choose to go. Providing tools and programming space for them to develop, edit and compile their programming is a winning strategy that reflects the revolution taking place in other media. At an affordable cost, radio has the ability to adapt, providing tools, facilities and access to content that allows more people to research, edit and compile unique documentaries, investigative reports, artistic montages and focus-specific anthologies.
     As the current media revolution continues, radio stations can also become search engines for the specific content and music on which they focus. Some stations will build their programming by drawing thematic content from a wide variety of external sources and contributors. Stations will also become multi-media providers, offering video as well as audio – from a camera in the booth to exclusive coverage of actualities and special events. We’ll increasingly see webcasts and webisodes. Recording and archiving, something Pacifica Radio has done better than other radio operations, will also be increasingly important. Promoting ongoing access to shows, interviews or news items is inevitable.
     The change underway in mass media points to two common traits: convergence and participation. In the future, effective stations will be multi-channel and multi-format. Multi-format means gearing and adapting segments and shows for various audiences, something that doesn’t have to entail major costs. Multi-channel means making the content accessible via various platforms and applications to a multitude of media devices. Radio will also be more participatory, with listeners becoming active contributors.
     In terms of journalism, it’s not about Old vs. New Media, but fair and accurate reporting versus trivialized news and public relations spin. In any case, it’s better to think in terms of AND rather than OR; in other words, “mainstream” and “new media” journalists learning from one another. If more skills are shared and the best of both “new” and “old” are combined, today’s “citizen journalists” are more likely to become tomorrow’s responsible reporters and programmers – valuable messengers who deliver information and ideas that people can use, content that educates rather than distorts public discussion.
     So, will it be chaos or conversion? As Old Media risk becoming an archaic refuge for the elderly  New Media are entering their carefree adolescence. Online platforms may eventually be viewed as public utilities, and possibly even subject to regulation to protect the public's remaining privacy rights. For now, however, the outcome of this period of transformation remains an open question.
 
Originally posted on March 25, 2008. Last of four parts. Material in this "State of the Media" series was first presented in January 2008 at a KPFT-FM strategic planning retreat in Houston. Previous parts include A Crisis of FactWill Newspapers Survive? and Radio's Delicate Condition.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Radio’s Delicate Condition

For at least two generations, public radio has helped people to learn about each other and their problems, and share a common cultural experience. But digital media challenge that relationship. The blogosphere has doubled every six months in recent years, and it’s a multilingual, multicultural environment. Social networks have also exploded. By 2006, traffic on MySpace had already outstripped traffic to traditional news platforms such as the New York Times and CNN.
     The question is whether broadcasting operations can catch up. To survive and remain relevant, they must adapt.
     Technology slowly seems to be turning traditional broadcasting into a dinosaur. And it’s not just radio. In 2008 NBC formally declared itself an “Internet company,” and the end of analog TV broadcasting came in February 2009, another step in the most sweeping overhaul of TV viewing since its inception. After Mega-media mogul Rupert Murdoch bought MySpace in 2005, there were rumblings that he might dump his satellite assets in favor of wireless digital TV. At the same time, the audience and credibility of public broadcasting has been undermined. Most bloggers and iPod users don’t watch much TV, read newspapers, or wait for their favorite radio program.   
     The music industry has made a painful transformation, the movie business has resisted, and cable television has developed niche marketed, sometimes high-quality programming. But to a large extent, network TV hasn't figured out what to do. Viewers are leaving -- or "aging out," but the reaction of the networks has largely been to reduce not only the cost but also the quality of programs through reality-TV and tabloid formulas. Those are just ways of denying the inevitable.
     In commercial radio, the reaction has been mainly to rely on two models – talk and formulaic music. But this is just competing for a limited audience with undifferentiated products. Even though the broadcast spectrum is a scarce resource, those with licenses are in many cases writing their own death warrants by using it inefficiently. 
     Public radio’s problems are compounded by the fact that the Bush administration tried to rip the guts out of it. Before the election of a Democratic president, George W. Bush's 2009 budget proposed cutting the allocation to public broadcasting by half over two years. Had it been approved, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have lost $420 million of the $820 million in federal funds it was set to receive.
     Beyond that, NPR and its local stations – much like Pacifica Radio – have continued to fight over money and control. But the real problem is that more and more listeners prefer "on-demand" content. They want programs that are more meaningful to them, and they want to listen at their convenience. So far most of community and public radio, with its current distribution model, hasn't responding fast or seriously enough.
     Talented people are doing the best they can, but it’s not just a management issue. The problem is systemic. Podcasting is to public radio what apps like Garage Band and Pro Tools have been to the music industry. Large recording outfits have closed because musicians can produce appealing new music in small project studios -- or even in their apartments. The traditional music industry has been forced to embrace new forms of production and distribution. The same is true for public radio.
     Traditional radio broadcasters need to acknowledge that the era of being a music jukebox is coming to an end. New media technologies like file sharing, online music clearinghouses, portable players, and smart phones provide much more flexibility for the user. Remaining a “jukebox" – even with a lovable, knowledgeable host – is a losing battle. Kids born today aren’t likely to listen to radio over accessing a playlist, a personalized streaming radio station via the Internet, or whatever comes next.
     Some stations are attempting to become facilitators of open public media spaces. For instance, Minnesota Public Radio turned its listeners into sources and generators of news stories with what they called Public Insight Journalism. StoryCorps began generating grassroots oral histories. These are promising ideas, but radio has to go farther. It needs to become a leader in training, participation, and developing new platforms, apps and formats.
 
Originally posted on March 24, 2008. Third of four parts. Material in this series was first presented in January 2008 at a KPFT strategic planning retreat.
 
Next: The Future of Radio