[Kzyxtalk] Local vs syndication

[BC]

Tim, I think your analysis is excellent, but being of a scientific bent 
myself, it seems that the question is not simply the mix of syndicated 
vs local. It is also not just the last 5 years.  The overall story is 
tied to the general state of the national media and the need for local 
process to evolve our communities and spirits.

It seems to me that the necessary changes in KZYX will be communal and 
somewhat gradual (or epochal) and are dependent on our discovery of 
community process that was perhaps more present 20 years ago at the 
station and needs to be reinstated.  These changes, in my mind, will 
involve the local community in an ongoing dialogue towards a truly 
evolved community.    ~BC


On 5/20/2014 5:27 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> OK, I provided the breakdown of hours/week of various sorts of 
> programming, and now some of you are drawing conclusions and 
> inferences that are not supported by evidence.  I'm a scientist and 
> that sort of thing sets me off, and it's partly my fault because I 
> didn't provide enough information with the numbers. So I will try to 
> correct some of that.
>
> You can go look at a schedule from 2009 here:
> *http://tinyurl.com/omohgm5
> *(This is the earliest schedule I can find And of course the current 
> schedule is on the KZYX Website.*
> *
> From 2009 to 2014, NPR hours went from 28 to 32.5 per week. What 
> changed?  They added a second hour of Fresh Air at 3:00 AM M-F, 
> replacing The Take Away (a syndicated but non-NPR show) M-F, BBC on 
> Sat, and part of Up in the Night on Sun; and Left, Right, and Center 
> on Sunday (this wasn't a drop-in replacement as there was a lot of 
> other changes to the schedule, and I haven't yet figured out where 
> that half-hour came from).
>
> Doug and others infer that John C deliberately chose to reduce local 
> public-affairs programming and substitute NPR or other syndicated 
> programs, and I don't think that is supported by any evidence.  
> Certainly John has said to me, on several occasions, that he would 
> love to have more locally-produced public affairs programming.  And 
> why would he not?  It is cheaper than buying syndicated content.  I 
> don't think ease of use is really a big consideration for John, that 
> is Mary's concern.
>
> I don't think I am betraying any confidence if I share some things 
> John wrote to me a while back when I questioned him on this, and 
> perhaps it will help some people here understand his thinking a little 
> better.
> "We would prefer to put a good local program on over something we pay 
> for. But we won't put a bad program on in preference to something of 
> good quality.  ... there aren't as many good quality local programs 
> coming forward. Almost nothing worthwhile comes over the transom. Most 
> of what is new either came from our recruiting or from someone who is 
> a friend of a current programmer. I wish we had a lot more 
> locally-focused programming. But I want it to come from someone who 
> wants to shed light, independent of biased agenda or faction with a 
> mission to be inclusive of a variety of views. We almost never hear 
> from someone who wants to do that. "
>
> "Our experience is that we are far more successful finding what you 
> could call "content creators" and talking them into doing a show.  
> What comes over the transom, even when we do put it out there - which 
> we have many times - just doesn't hardly pan out.  I would like to 
> spend more time working on developing programming.  Man would I love 
> for that to be a day's main project.  But the task load is huge here 
> and frankly, we burn an amazing amount of calories dealing with some 
> people..."
>
>
> I do agree with Doug about the need for more communication from staff 
> about programming decisions, and in fact had a conversation with Mary 
> and John on Sunday about exactly that.  I suggested they might 
> alleviate some of the brouhaha by issuing a statement presenting the 
> basis and rationale for decision-making whenever a programming change 
> is made, especially when an existing program is canceled.  By not 
> doing that, they are allowing everyone else to make up stories and 
> tell them often enough that people believe they are true.
>
> I have no doubt that any survey would indicate people want more local 
> talk.  Such surveys never ask what programs they would cancel to make 
> room.  They also don't ask respondents to do any of the work that is 
> required to make it happen.  If you ask people if they would like more 
> money, most will certainly say yes; but if you ask them if they would 
> take on a second job to earn more money, you get different answers.
>
> Doug, you mischaracterize what I said about the failure of the 
> previous PAC.  I think it was based on a flawed model that never had a 
> chance - the idea that you could find 7 people who could reach 
> consensus on programming decisions.  So everything ends up back on 
> Mary and there's still no clearly understandable basis for the 
> decision.  It's as if the Vice-President ruled whenever the Senate 
> couldn't reach consensus.  (BTW, Belinda's last name is Rawlins.)
>
> I do agree with you about the need for better communication to the 
> membership when programming decisions are made.  It's something I've 
> been saying for some time as well.  Mary is obviously unwilling to do 
> that, so perhaps a PAC is worth another try...
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 5/20/2014 11:07 AM, doug mckenty wrote:
>> I concur with BC in that the syndicated NPR direction was a " 
>> conservative" choice.  It was the direction John C chose after 
>> realizing the station was in such a bad way financially.  BC is also 
>> correct when he says the locally produced programs are more time 
>> intensive to produce and requires dealing with radio personality 
>> types, which presents a variety of unknown factors,drama etc. 
>>  I  believe this is the reason we have seen more NPR etc. over the 
>> last six years.
>>
>> To clarify.  The PAC is a programmer advisory committee, created by 
>> the board to make programming decisions by consensus.  The CAB is the 
>> community advisory board which is mandated by the CPB in prefer for 
>> us to receive their funding.  The CAB is charged with gathering 
>> pertinent information from the community.
>>
>> I agree with Tim that the failure of the original PAC was largely due 
>> to its lack of "teeth."  When it was developed under GM Belinda 
>> Carlyle it was assumed that the committee would work through the 
>> consensus of the group.  After John C became manager the 
>> interpretation of the language changed so that the "consensus" was 
>> merely "advisory."  One member of the PAC described to me how "the 
>> air went out of the tire" for the group when this decision was made. 
>>  Why have an advisory PAC when the station already has a CAB?
>>
>> I am not stuck on the current incarnation of the PAC.  As Tim 
>> suggested, perhaps a smaller committee would be more functional.  I 
>> have always felt the programming committee would work best if at 
>> least some, if not most or all, were elected directly by the 
>> membership.  Could you imagine having this classic NPR argument on 
>> air and a membership vote which directly determined how much NPR we 
>> heard?  Such elections, with results resulting in real change, would 
>> undoubtably increase participation in the elections and turn them 
>> into something the members would really care about.
>>
>> I do not wish to belittle the music programming or the effort made 
>> but my major emphasis is on the public affairs programming because 
>> this most directly relates to the radio stations ability to 
>> facilitate political dialogue ensuring free speech to minority 
>> groups.  I think the concern, at least from my point of view, is that 
>> minority groups are not fully represented and KZYX is not entirely 
>> fulfilling this important aspect of its mission.  Also, it seems from 
>> survey evidence that people in our community would like to hear more 
>> local talk.
>>
>> I don't think the issue with having one person choosing programming 
>> with no transparency requirements is not so much one of trust as one 
>> of information.  I think the members as well as those applying for 
>> programs deserve a transparent process so we see what program choices 
>> are available, and get to know potential programmers as they learn 
>> more about what it takes to be on the radio.  Also, when a program 
>> idea is turned down, but the potential volunteer does not know why 
>> and sees no formal process utilized and has no recourse to a second 
>> opinion about their program pitch, they tend to feel alienated.  I 
>> think staff should at least be required to write a formal 
>> communication explaining why a program idea has been denied.
>>
>> I have spoken with two people recently who applied for shows but were 
>> declined.  Also, the impetus behind Kathrine Massay's letter to the 
>> FCC was caused by the way her proposal for an art history program was 
>> dismissed.  I knew a guy who wanted to host a variety show on KZYX. 
>>  He had just retired here from Santa Cruz where he had hosted an 
>> award winning variety show on Public Access TV in the Bay Area.  Mary 
>> did not like the idea.  He called me for years to see if anything had 
>> changed but even as a board member I had to tell him there was 
>> nothing I could do.
>>
>> These people deserve some kind of a process, and if a program idea is 
>> turned down, I think it would be good to give the potential volunteer 
>> other avenues of volunteer service that may eventually lead to a 
>> program.  Bring them into the fold and see if they might become 
>> better suited for a program in the future.
>>
>> This whole issue has been my top priority for the station since 
>> before my time on the board and is the reason why I have always 
>> advocated for the PAC or any other form of transparency in the 
>> program decision making process.  I believe that the lack of 
>> transparency in this area is the root cause of almost all the 
>> conflict at KZYX over the last ten years, up to and including the 
>> recent crisis.
>>
>> The truth is nobody but staff knows how many and who has applied for 
>> what kind of program for a long time.  Staff tells us it is hard to 
>> find good people who are qualified and willing to volunteer the time. 
>>  They are concerned about producing "bad radio" and ensuring that the 
>> production value of each program produced adheres to certain standards.
>>
>> These notions are entirely rational, considering aforementioned 
>> demographic changes ect. but I have been concerned that staff has set 
>> the quality bar too high and has done so at the expense of content. 
>>  I have felt that interesting and diverse content should be 
>> prioritized over production value (content is free, production value 
>> usually costs money) but that runs the risk of sounding hoky and 
>> unprofessional.  For me PV vs. content is like the yin/yang of audio 
>> production, we need to find the balance that works for us.
>>
>> Thanks again for this discussion, your feedback is really helping me 
>> clarify and express my ideas in a way that is productive, though I 
>> really should get back to work.....
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Oak & Thorn <http://oakandthorn.wordpress.com>
> Facebook: Oak and Thorn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140520/3f77402f/attachment.html