All Blog Posts from Public Eye

You probably don’t know this, but there was yet another presidential debate the other day.

You didn’t see it. But don’t feel bad – not that you would – but nobody saw it. It was on National Public Radio.

And the reviews have been positive, save for the little “it put me to sleep” factor. But all the plaudits got this writer thinking how you could repackage the debate, draw a crowd and inform a potentially large size of the electorate.

First off, the reviews. Columbia Journalism Review observed:

Yesterday’s debate was no exception: when the radio stars kill the video, it seems, good things happen. The talk’s moderators—Steve Inskeep, Michele Norris, and Robert Siegel—selected three general topics for discussion: Iran and the Lessons of Iraq, Relations with China, and Immigration. The goal wasn’t breadth, but depth: “By covering a little less, we hope to go deeper,” Siegel noted. “We will try to have some real discussion here today.”

For the most part, it worked.

And Salon’s Walter Shapiro wrote:

In politics, radio can be the great leveler. According to legend, the 5 o'clock-shadowed Richard Nixon won the first 1960 presidential debate against matinee idol John Kennedy among voters who only listened on radio.

And for two hours on Tuesday afternoon on National Public Radio, those veteran foreign-policy experts Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dominated the penultimate Democratic debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

Even Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson had to give the debate format some some props:

The NPR debate was a good one this afternoon. Not that it was a great debate, per se, but it was a lively intelligent discussion. And the NPR moderators could all teach Wolf Blitzer a lesson or two on how to rein in blabbering candidates and steer a discussion.

The debate dealt with just three topics — Iran, China and Immigration — a long-form format that served the Iran topic best.

The unfortunate truth about this debate? As great and stimulating and (yawn) engrossing as the NPR debate may have been, we all know that if you tried it on prime-time TV it would inevitably revert back to the sound bite contest we have come to know and love. Okay, maybe just the ‘know’ part.

Read full post…

It wasn’t what was said about Air America Radio, so much as who said it. (So many critical comments have been directed toward the network.) And then, given that information, my response was a hearty “Oh, no he di’nt!.”

According to St. Petersburg Times media writer and New Edition aficionado Eric Deggans, the following observation was made of the liberal-leaning radio network:

I do think the liberal programming that has occurred here has been far too extremist… It's not our job to get a Democrat elected to Congress. We need to be funny, we need to be enjoyable, and I don't think that existed at this company three years ago.

The person who said it? Air America VP of Programming David Bernstein, in a conversation about the new direction the network is heading in.

What’s going on? I spoke with Michael Harrison of Talkers Magazine -- the self-described “Bible of Talk Radio” – about the radio network’s new approach. What is someone to make of the fact that a VP is being so critical of the network’s early days?

His response? “I think Bernstein was smart to say it. As a broadcasting company, it was a total failure. It was an interesting item in the news, but as a broadcasting company it went bankrupt. So these other people buy it at a bargain price and realize that it has negative brand identification,” Harrison noted. “Saying Air America Radio doesn’t get you anywhere – it actually hurts you. So it’s smart of Bernstein to say what he’s saying, that they’re going to run an entertaining and progressive programming schedule that fits in more with the mainstream audience.

“It was far too politically motivated and not motivated to gather an audience and generate revenue. It just wasn’t a good business plan. They ran it like a campaign, rather than a broadcasting company.”

Read full post…

William Lobdell, a writer for the Los Angeles Times recently decided to sit down in a studio and give a radio show a test drive. His thoughts?

You wouldn't think being a talk radio show host would be all that tough -- just read a few newspapers, magazine and Web articles others have slaved to produce and then riff about them.

But here's the hard part. It's just you, your voice and the microphone. You are giving a monologue in an empty studio. You can't see your audience or sense their engagement. It felt like being locked in a sensory-deprivation chamber. Time seemed to slow, the awful way it does during a car accident.

Man, I feel his pain. And then some. As an occasional guest-host of the “Kojo Nnamdi Show” on Washington, DC’s NPR affiliate -- most recently, last week -- I can vouch for Lobdell’s experience. Hosting a radio show is a thrill, but it’s a little more involved than you may think while listening.

Here’s what’s going on in a radio studio that you don’t hear:

The clock. The clock rules all. It’s a bit different on NPR, where the breaks are more flexible, but you always have to know what time it is and roughly how much time you can budget for. And the commercial breaks where the clock actually counts you down to the moment? Do you know how many words you can say in 12 sec-- Exactly.

Read full post…

Want to know the future of Internet news? (The fact that you’re reading Public Eye leads me to think you might have considered it.)

Predications come cheap, but here’s a new one: You know now a lot of web browsers – or sites, even, like Google Maps – have a function where you can zoom in or zoom out, according to a sliding scale? Imagine being able to do that for the “weight” of your news content.

Michael Wolff has a fascinating read in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair, where he discusses how, historically, each new medium has created its own version of news. – and that we’re still waiting for how the Internet is going to “do” news. He talks about how software types and media people have regular conference calls to try to wrap their heads around the future of online news.

Yet I understand that these incredibly unresponsive people may well possess untapped magic that, if they wanted to, could make for all sorts of wondrous tricks which might save the news.

"What about a sliding bar?" Mike Wu, a software engineer, offers just a little grudgingly. "Like from hard to soft news. So you can set it where you want to?"

"Really? From serious broadsheet to scandalous tabloid?" I wonder if this plasticity is miraculous or ludicrous. "From Ben Bernanke to Paris Hilton. And could this work, from unreconstructed crypto-Fascist religious right to loony absolutist left?"

"If we get the algorithm right."

Read full post…

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.”

Read full post…

Did you see that 10 big-shot conservative talk radio hosts visited the White House the other day? Yep. According to the New York Daily News:

For the second year in a row, President Bush called some of his closest radio friends to the White House for an off-the-record briefing and discussion.

Mark Levin and Sean Hannity of WABC (770 AM) were among the 10 conservative talk-radio hosts who met with Bush in the West Wing yesterday, according to Talkers magazine.

The others were Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Hugh Hewitt, Scott Hennen, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Lars Larsen and Janet Parshall.

Bush met with five hosts last fall, including Boortz, Hannity and Medved, Talkers noted, "to discuss issues and gauge the conservative talk-radio audience's feelings about issues and policies."

And bloggers immediately knee-jerked with negative feedback. Blatherwatch said:

They went in to get a fluffing and pick up some talking points straight from the fluffer-in-chief.

The catch was that despite they could ask their best questions, but there were no recordings or even direct quotes allowed, which is the administration's favorite interview model.

Read full post…

There’s been a slight uptick in discussion regarding the validity and need for the “Fairness Doctrine” lately, spurred on by a study proving/reiterating the obvious fact that conservative talkers make up the majority of syndicated radio programming. (Allow me to hit rewind: The “Fairness Doctrine” was a broadcasting rule requiring that equal time be given to differing political views, and was repealed in the ‘80s.)

The only thing wrong with this debate? There really wasn’t one. An amusing facet of the quote-unquote debate has been the fact that very few people were actually advocating for the reinstatement of the rule; many pushing in that direction were accused of misreading the report. Even the thinktank responsible for the study that pointed out the imbalance said – and I quote – “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

Read full post…

I rejoice. And I know I rejoice alone.

Yesterday, XM announced it had reached an agreement with C-SPAN (throat clear—both Public Eye topics last week) to start a radio channel devoted entirely to the 2008 presidential race.

As the Associated Press reported:

XM Satellite Radio announced plans Monday to launch a station devoted completely to coverage of the 2008 election.

Dubbed "POTUS '08," the station will debut next month with a sort of sneak preview format that will include original programming as well as rebroadcasts of candidate debates. The station will formally launch in September and remain in place through November 2008.

Read full post…

CBS Radio News correspondent Barry Bagnato covers everything from cancer research to the Supreme Court from his post in Washington, D.C. With that wide range of responsibilities, Barry has some interesting tidbits to share – from people's fascination with Bill Clinton to the benefits and the drawbacks of covering more than just one beat.

What do you do at CBS News?

I am a correspondent for CBS Radio News, covering a variety of stories and issues in Washington, D.C., and outside. Because I have no single beat, I have to be flexible and versatile. The Supreme Court and medical stories are the closest things I have to regular responsibilities. For the court, for instance, I read briefs for cases, choose issues that I believe will interest our audience, and develop them.

What single issue should be covered more at CBS News?

Global warming.

Give us a great behind the scenes story.

Covering the first Bill Clinton campaign from start to finish was fascinating -- seeing a person go from bus rides in the cold in New Hampshire to the whirlwind of a Presidency. He was always running late for campaign stops. At the end of one long day, we landed in Dayton, Ohio, well past midnight. Even so, people who had no chance of meeting him were pressed up against a chain link fence yelling and reaching through with such hope in their eyes, they looked as if they were on the other side of the Berlin Wall. That moment, for me, makes Clinton's failings in office all the more inexcusable.

Read full post…

Adventures In Cuban Broadcasting: Remember Radio and TV Marti, the U.S. funded stations that broadcast anti-Castro propaganda into Cuba (which most people in Cuba don't actually see or hear because the Cuban government regularly jams the signals)?

Well, in the wake of rumors that Fidel Castro may be on his deathbed, $377,500 is now being spent "to air select programs on South Florida broadcast stations over the next six months, using loopholes in a law that prohibits the propaganda channels from distribution within the United States." While the stations have primarily U.S. audiences, experts told the Miami Herald that signals from a South Florida AM radio station can reach Cuba "very clearly at night." While the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting argues the move is "another method to get our signal in," critics argue the move is political. Joe García, executive vice president of the New Democratic Network, called the investment "a fraud." He told the Herald: "This is using taxpayer dollars for a political payoff to benefit the most Republican and politically charged radio station in Miami. They know well that the station isn't heard in Cuba, because Cuba transmits Radio Rebelde over the exact same frequency."

More Drama In Santa Barbara: In case you don't follow the journalistic drama that's been plaguing Santa Barbara's community, let us fill you in. This past July, nearly every top editor and several employees of the Santa Barbara News-Press abruptly left the paper. American Journalism Review reporter Susan Paterno wrote an article in AJR's recent issue about the melee, called "Santa Barbara Smackdown," in which she "talked with former staffers, some of whom accused News-Press owner and publisher Wendy McCaw of meddling in the newsroom." Now the company that publishes the News-Press is suing Paterno for "libel and product disparagement," according to the AP. In a court filing, the company calls the article "nothing but a biased, false and misleading diatribe against plaintiff." AJR's Senior Vice President told the AP that "the article was carefully reported and News-Press management had 'ample' opportunity to respond to questions but refused."

Read full post…