[Kzyxtalk] Local vs syndication

Tue May 20 20:25:06 PDT 2014

You know BC, I think you just nailed it!  It is that simple…and subtle. May we evolve with that wisdom.

On May 20, 2014, at 7:44 PM, BC <omni at mcn.org> wrote:

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
> Facebook: Oak and Thorn
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kzyxtalk mailing list
> Kzyxtalk at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk

_______________________________________________
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/e3e81ac7/attachment-0001.html 