Public Eye
August 28, 2007 10:47 AM

Post Radio Pulled. Why?

(CBS)
You ever get sick of radio because it’s too shrill or too ideological? Or you’re not quite the NPR type?

Well, bad news. A highly-publicized attempt at breaking out of that mold is going under.

The grand experiment of Washington Post Radio (WTWP) – dubbed “NPR with caffeine” at its outset – has failed. According to the Post’s Paul Farhi:
Washington Post Radio, which brought the newspaper's journalists to the local airwaves, will go off the air next month after failing to attract enough listeners and losing money during its 17-month existence.
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher weighed in early this morning on the “difficult marriage of two very different news cultures,” offering why he thought the station never fulfilled its potential:

  • Radio requires different skills. Skills that most print reporters don’t have. (Just as print demands different skills of its practitioners.)
  • The station’s slogan “There’s always more to the story” suggested that listeners could expect more, but focus groups sponsored by a rival NPR station found that listeners weren’t getting more. (Full disclosure: That NPR station is WAMU, where I frequently guest-host. But then again, I was a frequent guest on WTWP, so make of that what you will.
  • When the initial format didn’t work, the station went for quicker hits on “a more populist and lowbrow selection of stories.”

    But all this doesn’t mean that the concept of a third way in radio – a hybrid media vehicle of NPR thoughtfulness and talk radio energy – isn’t possible. Washington Post Radio was a wobbly step, but it was a step in the right direction. I’m not alone in that opinion. Former WTWP producer Kate Brown said as much in an e-mail:
    The concept of Washington Post Radio in itself was an ingenious endeavor. But while it's inception was a worthy brainchild, it's execution faltered severely. It was launched too quickly without enough thought put into how to effectively navigate a constant and unending turf war between Bonneville and the Washington Post. Constant disagreements ate up precious time and money and detracted severely from producers and hosts' ability to concentrate on quality programming.

    Lines should have been drawn in the sand, long before WTWP hit the airwaves, but unfortunately, in their hurried attempt to make radio history, the lines weren't drawn until it was too late. The Post had a product to sell and one surely can't blame them for making that their top priority. But newspaper doesn't always translate well to radio, and the attempt to put print into broadcast form often resulted in tedious, dull programming.

    Bonneville looked at The Washington Post as an unyielding source of content. But not all print reporters, brilliant and talented as they may be, are meant to be heard on the radio.

    It was a grand experiment that, if ever duplicated, needs to be achieved in a more thoughtful, measured way. With less emphasis on "finding the magic formula," and more on quality content.

    In the end, producers and on-air talent (the lifeblood of any good programming staff) should have been listened to more, Post executives should have been listened to less, and more solid direction should have been established from the get-go. Checking a few very over-inflated egos at the door might have proven helpful as well.
    As I wrote years ago, there is a market for the “midbrow” listener who wants more than headlines but less than a lecture. For evidence, look no further than the increased viewership and/or hits being gained by nontraditional media like online publications, blogs and even international outlets. But it’s going to take skilled talkers to deliver this content, and most reporters feel more at home in front of a keyboard than a microphone. So the key will be in finding friendly and personable talkers who can discuss the news, not sell a political agenda or wander into professor-speak.

    If someone builds it, listeners will come.
  • Tags:
    Washington Post Radio ,
    Marc Fisher ,
    Paul Farhi
    Topics:
    In The News
    Add a Comment
    by mattcat25 August 31, 2007 2:21 AM EDT
    The divide between successful Right Wingnut Radio and Liberal Radio has been that the large ownership corporations such as Clear Channel have been allowed to own their competition. Parallel growth was supposed to be regulated by the FCC but through Republican Control, Clear Channel was permitted to purchase multiple licenses in the same market.

    Currently, in light of a possible Antitrust Action by Congress, Clear Channel stations actual carry Air-America and Jones Network programming. The divide is still massive between the Right Wing Radio Talk Machine and upstart Liberal Radio but, like I%u2019ve stated before "the last 20 years of Rush Limbaugh%u2019s Conservative Wet Dream for America has in actuality turned out to be a nighmare".
    Reply to this comment
    by rray52 August 28, 2007 6:29 PM EDT
    The Washington Post is a joke. Better yet a %u201CCartoon Strip%u201D
    Reply to this comment
    by one_american August 28, 2007 4:21 PM EDT
    Air-America fails.

    Jane Fonda''s womens network fails.

    Post Radio fails.


    What do these have in common?
    They are all left-wing radio experiments that failed because they were trying to compete in a market that was ALREADY SATURATED WITH LEFTIST PROPAGANDA.

    And because liberals are too busy reading fiction to be bothered by radio. Besides, liberals only hear what they want to hear, and aren''t very good listeners...
    Reply to this comment
    by memekiller August 28, 2007 3:52 PM EDT
    I think the main problem is the mistaken belief that you can make a show that appeals to Rush Limbaugh''s listeners, and everyone else. It stems from a belief, based on personal bias rather than empirical evidence, that the wise men of the world operate on the fulcrum halfway between the crazy left and crazy right. In fact, pretty much everything wrong with the media stems from this mistaken assumption.

    Reporting that climate scientists reached a consensus on anthropogenic warming is not "crazy left", but you have to pretend it is to appeal to both sides, and pump up a lot of think tank manufactured controversy to reach the "middle" -- halfway between the centrists and looney bin.

    For the Post to work, it needs to report stories that are actually true, and never, ever intentionally mislead listeners with manufactured malarky that gets a bunch of dittoheads calling and complaining, but never listening, to you show.

    The crazy left disappeared in the 80s. The "left" now wants what pretty much every poll shows 60% of the people want. A news show has to choose between the blind cultists and objectively sentient. You''re either faith-based, or empiracle. Otherwise, content yourself with an audience of political Unitarians.
    Reply to this comment

    About Public Eye

    Description for Public Eye