Say Goodbye To Your Local TV And Radio Stations

[Playball40]

Vote is today - expected to pass. This really sucks - IMO, way more damage than elimination of the main studio rule.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to relax decades-old rules that prevent the same company from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same market and limit the number of stations a company may own.

The rules come from a pre-cable and pre-internet era when newspapers and broadcast stations could dominate news and advertising in a community. Media companies say they need the scale of large ownership to reduce costs and increase a larger customer base.

Republicans control the FCC and the measures are likely to pass, but not without a stiff blowback. Common Cause, for example, says the Sinclair-Tribune merger would, "Give the company control of 233 stations – including in many of the country’s largest media markets – reaching 72 percent of U.S. households. If approved, the merger will lead to job loses, less competition and higher costs for consumers."

 

[Ford]

But they ALREADY weren't broadcasting from the main studio anyway. You don't think that a station broadcasting from NYC is capable of carrying news in Poughkeepsie?

Not local news, no. I mentioned a train derailment because some years ago there was a train derailment in a small town (North Dakota I believe) and hazardous material was leaking into the air. The local iHeart station didn't break from their automated programming...they just kept playing music. This is the setup all across the country in small markets where local radio has been destroyed by the worship of cost cutting and operating everything as cheaply as possible, and the people who rely on radio to get their information in an emergency are screwed.

Again, these stations are licensed to the companies that run them, and with that license comes certain responsibilities. Corporate pressure has been whittling away at those for decades now, and this new rule is merely a way for companies like iHeart to cut more jobs and provide fewer services to the local communities where their stations are located.

 

[Playball40]

But they ALREADY weren't broadcasting from the main studio anyway. You don't think that a station broadcasting from NYC is capable of carrying news in Poughkeepsie?

Not local news, no. I mentioned a train derailment because some years ago there was a train derailment in a small town (North Dakota I believe) and hazardous material was leaking into the air. The local iHeart station didn't break from their automated programming...they just kept playing music. This is the setup all across the country in small markets where local radio has been destroyed by the worship of cost cutting and operating everything as cheaply as possible, and the people who rely on radio to get their information in an emergency are screwed.

Again, these stations are licensed to the companies that run them, and with that license comes certain responsibilities. Corporate pressure has been whittling away at those for decades now, and this new rule is merely a way for companies like iHeart to cut more jobs and provide fewer services to the local communities where their stations are located.

And all I'm saying is that went away long ago with the last round of deregulation. People contact stations via email and phone these days and don't 'walk in' so what's the point of keeping a physical address in that town? Radio is evolving just like every other industry and some of the innovations are good....others, not so much. You've pointed out one incidence of 'not so much'.

And what happened to the Emergency Broadcast System? I remember those 'tests' but I don't see them anymore. That may help the 'emergency' in a small town issue. I know where I live if there is an emergency (such as an Amber Alert) EVERYONE'S PHONES SOUND AN ALARM. It's like a fire drill. Since more people have phones in their hands than are listening to radio, why wouldn't that system work? Again, evolve.

Ok, so apparently it's already in place and included digital providers:

The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is a national warning system in the United States put into place on January 1, 1997 (approved by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in November 1994),[1] when it replaced the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS), which in turn replaced the CONELRAD System. The official EAS is designed to enable the President of the United States to speak to the United States within 10 minutes.[2] In addition to this requirement, EAS is also designed to alert the public of local weather emergencies such as tornadoes and flash floods (and in some cases severe thunderstorms depending on the severity of the storm). A national EAS test was conducted on November 9, 2011, at 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The most recent National EAS Test was performed on September 27, 2017 at 2:20 pm EDT (11:20 am PDT).[3]

EAS is jointly coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS). The EAS regulations and standards are governed by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC. EAS has become part of Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), a program of FEMA.

EAS messages are transmitted via AM, FM, broadcast television, cable television and Land Mobile Radio Service, as well as VHF, UHF, and FiOS (wireline video providers). Digital television, satellite television, and digital cable providers, along with Sirius XM satellite radio, IBOC, DAB, smart phones and digital radio broadcasters, have been required to participate in the EAS since December 31, 2006.[4] DirecTV, Dish Network, and all other DBS providers have been required to participate since May 31, 2007.

In 2008, the FCC began work on another system for public alerting designed and targeted at smartphones, meant to support the EAS. The Commercial Mobile Alert System (now Wireless Emergency Alerts) made its debut in about early 2013 in select states for select events. While this system functions independently from the Emergency Alert System, it may broadcast identical information.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm curious if it went out on the emergency broadcast system, because that's the rule the station should have to follow. But other than that, the radio station should be able to be located anywhere.

 

[Ford]

And all I'm saying is that went away long ago with the last round of deregulation. People contact stations via email and phone these days and don't 'walk in' so what's the point of keeping a physical address in that town?

I'm looking at a salted caramel brownie that was given to us by a listener who walked in. We have a constant stream of listeners in our lobby waiting to pick up prizes or meet artists who come in to perform. The latter will be happening in a few minutes. We used to give listener tours of the station before corporate security policy changed. Our receptionist (we call her the "Director of First Impressions") also greets clients and record industry people who come in for meetings, presentations, lunches, etc. Our lobby has comfy seating, video monitors, and even a fridge with beverages for people while they wait.

 

[Playball40]

And all I'm saying is that went away long ago with the last round of deregulation. People contact stations via email and phone these days and don't 'walk in' so what's the point of keeping a physical address in that town?

I'm looking at a salted caramel brownie that was given to us by a listener who walked in. We have a constant stream of listeners in our lobby waiting to pick up prizes or meet artists who come in to perform. The latter will be happening in a few minutes. We used to give listener tours of the station before corporate security policy changed. Our receptionist (we call her the "Director of First Impressions") also greets clients and record industry people who come in for meetings, presentations, lunches, etc. Our lobby has comfy seating, video monitors, and even a fridge with beverages for people while they wait.

And all radio studios are EXACTLY like yours, right?

 

[Ford]

And all I'm saying is that went away long ago with the last round of deregulation. People contact stations via email and phone these days and don't 'walk in' so what's the point of keeping a physical address in that town?

I'm looking at a salted caramel brownie that was given to us by a listener who walked in. We have a constant stream of listeners in our lobby waiting to pick up prizes or meet artists who come in to perform. The latter will be happening in a few minutes. We used to give listener tours of the station before corporate security policy changed. Our receptionist (we call her the "Director of First Impressions") also greets clients and record industry people who come in for meetings, presentations, lunches, etc. Our lobby has comfy seating, video monitors, and even a fridge with beverages for people while they wait.

And all radio studios are EXACTLY like yours, right?

Are all radio studios exactly as YOU described them? Where nobody walks in and there's no need for a physical location?

Now, I haven't worked in a small market in a long time, but I can tell you that most if not all stations in the town where I work have front lobbies, receptionists, and in some cases very nice studios. What's been your experience?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't give a hoot where your operations are based. The important issue is to maintain competition.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

This rule is rooted in the idea that a local broadcast station exists to serve the local community. When a train derails or there's a tornado or a chemical spill in the city of license, the station has an obligation to serve that community at that time. Everything else is secondary.

Where the studio is based has nothing to do with doing that. What counts is where the reporters are--and these days the reporters don't need to be in the same place as the station. While it's been a long time since I've watched TV news back when I still did they often covered important stories on-site. All the major stations have vans equipped to do such mobile reporting.

Requiring a local studio does nothing to actually make them deliver local news.

That's the bargain they signed when they bought the broadcast license in that town. They got a 100 thousand watt signal, a tower, and a facility on the promise that when shit hit the fan, they'd stop playing music or syndicated talk shows and serve the community. A broadcast license is a license to do business, but there are conditions that come along with it.

The stations broadcasting the music are likely not equipped to do anything more than that. They have an announcer and probably an engineer. They don't have reporters. Unless the station is able to run fully automated someone has to be there to do the station identification information so the announcer can't very well try to find out anything. If you take that announcer and move him elsewhere and have him run two or three stations at once nothing has been lost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Vote is today - expected to pass. This really sucks - IMO, way more damage than elimination of the main studio rule.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday on whether to relax decades-old rules that prevent the same company from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same market and limit the number of stations a company may own.

The rules come from a pre-cable and pre-internet era when newspapers and broadcast stations could dominate news and advertising in a community. Media companies say they need the scale of large ownership to reduce costs and increase a larger customer base.

Republicans control the FCC and the measures are likely to pass, but not without a stiff blowback. Common Cause, for example, says the Sinclair-Tribune merger would, "Give the company control of 233 stations – including in many of the country’s largest media markets – reaching 72 percent of U.S. households. If approved, the merger will lead to job loses, less competition and higher costs for consumers."

Now, that one actually matters. Anything that hurts competition is bad for the consumer.

 

[Ford]

Where the studio is based has nothing to do with doing that. What counts is where the reporters are--and these days the reporters don't need to be in the same place as the station. While it's been a long time since I've watched TV news back when I still did they often covered important stories on-site. All the major stations have vans equipped to do such mobile reporting.

So when the hurricane hits Panama City Beach, the mobile van from corporate HQ in New York is dispatched to cover the story?

The stations broadcasting the music are likely not equipped to do anything more than that. They have an announcer and probably an engineer.

That's exactly the problem. When the tornado hits middle of nowhere Kansas, the local station doesn't have the ability to respond. They should. That's what they signed up for.

 

[Playball40]

My experience is building out those studios, so yeah, I'm familiar with them. Many absolutely are meant to be showcases that people visit....but others simply don't have the foot traffic to substantiate that kind of expense. IF a station can broadcast to a small community, be accessible by email, internet or phone then, no, I don't think they should be 'required' to have a physical presence anymore. If they choose to, fine, but not required.

I'm looking at a salted caramel brownie that was given to us by a listener who walked in. We have a constant stream of listeners in our lobby waiting to pick up prizes or meet artists who come in to perform. The latter will be happening in a few minutes. We used to give listener tours of the station before corporate security policy changed. Our receptionist (we call her the "Director of First Impressions") also greets clients and record industry people who come in for meetings, presentations, lunches, etc. Our lobby has comfy seating, video monitors, and even a fridge with beverages for people while they wait.

And all radio studios are EXACTLY like yours, right?

Are all radio studios exactly as YOU described them? Where nobody walks in and there's no need for a physical location?

Now, I haven't worked in a small market in a long time, but I can tell you that most if not all stations in the town where I work have front lobbies, receptionists, and in some cases very nice studios. What's been your experience?

 

[Playball40]

Now come on, you know darn well that's not the case. It's not like everything is broadcast from ONE location.....just not every CITY. It could have come from Pensacola, Jacksonville, Tallahassee or even Atlanta. All of which have studio locations.

Where the studio is based has nothing to do with doing that. What counts is where the reporters are--and these days the reporters don't need to be in the same place as the station. While it's been a long time since I've watched TV news back when I still did they often covered important stories on-site. All the major stations have vans equipped to do such mobile reporting.

So when the hurricane hits Panama City Beach, the mobile van from corporate HQ in New York is dispatched to cover the story?

The stations broadcasting the music are likely not equipped to do anything more than that. They have an announcer and probably an engineer.

That's exactly the problem. When the tornado hits middle of nowhere Kansas, the local station doesn't have the ability to respond. They should. That's what they signed up for.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to admit it feels weird siding with both Loren and Colorado. But I'm sorry, in just this one instance, I think the rule removal was justified.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have to admit it feels weird siding with both Loren and Colorado. But I'm sorry, in just this one instance, I think the rule removal was justified.

Why do you feel it's justified?

 

[Playball40]

I have to admit it feels weird siding with both Loren and Colorado. But I'm sorry, in just this one instance, I think the rule removal was justified.

Why do you feel it's justified?

I think it was outdated and established an unnecessary financial burden or radio broadcasters.

 

[Underseer]

This is bad, but to be honest, I don't consume local media anymore. I don't listen to broadcast radio much, and almost never broadcast TV.

From what I understand, it's older people who get news this way, and frankly, most of them are already corporatist zombies, so what changes? I mean, in general we should oppose anything that gives more control of the media to powerful and increasingly centralized corporations, but in this case what actually changes?

- - - Updated - - -

I have to admit it feels weird siding with both Loren and Colorado. But I'm sorry, in just this one instance, I think the rule removal was justified.

Why do you feel it's justified?

I think it was outdated and established an unnecessary financial burden or radio broadcasters.

A free and independent media is a financial burden? To who?

 

[Playball40]

This is bad, but to be honest, I don't consume local media anymore. I don't listen to broadcast radio much, and almost never broadcast TV.

From what I understand, it's older people who get news this way, and frankly, most of them are already corporatist zombies, so what changes? I mean, in general we should oppose anything that gives more control of the media to powerful and increasingly centralized corporations, but in this case what actually changes?

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you feel it's justified?

I think it was outdated and established an unnecessary financial burden or radio broadcasters.

A free and independent media is a financial burden? To who?

I'm talking about eliminating the main studio rule, not the elimination of the cross-ownership rule. And yes, it's a financial burden to have to own, rent or maintain a studio/office "just because" when the content is broadcast digitally from another location. This has nothing to do with 'free and independent' as it doesn't affect the 'independence' of stations.

 

[Ford]

And yes, it's a financial burden to have to own, rent or maintain a studio/office "just because" when the content is broadcast digitally from another location. This has nothing to do with 'free and independent' as it doesn't affect the 'independence' of stations.

It isn't a rule "just because." Having not just a physical location but actual people in the locality is predicated on the idea that the station serves that community. If nobody who "works at" the station is anywhere near the community, how can they discharge their responsibility as a license holder?

If the content is delivered digitally from another location, then why even bother having a station at all? A "presence in the market" if you will.

And if you think that having all the programming delivered from a centralized hub where nobody has any relation to the local market isn't affecting the independence of those stations, I must ask where you're getting the stuff you're smoking, because it is some really good shit.

I remember a year or so after I left El Paso (75% Hispanic market, number one station was Spanish) I called back to talk to my old boss and was put on hold. The station had previously been programmed locally, but Clear Channel had taken over and was dictating the playlist from the corporate office. While waiting on hold, I heard songs that never worked in the market. That didn't test well at all, but - after I got the PD on the line and asked what exactly the fuck was happening - he explained that the playlist had been taken out of his hands. He'd lost his independence, and wasn't actually programming the station anymore...just following orders.

The ratings tanked. The station only recovered when the "brand manager" at Clear Channel headquarters changed and handed back local control over the station's playlist.

And of course ratings drive revenue. If that station was just piping in music and content from somewhere outside the market, their ratings would suffer, and the local sales staff would be hindered in their ability to sell the station. Local businesses are going to spend their money at a local station, not some satellite-fed or voice-tracked outfit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's exactly the problem. When the tornado hits middle of nowhere Kansas, the local station doesn't have the ability to respond. They should. That's what they signed up for.

And thus you're fighting a battle that is already lost.

 

[Ford]

That's exactly the problem. When the tornado hits middle of nowhere Kansas, the local station doesn't have the ability to respond. They should. That's what they signed up for.

And thus you're fighting a battle that is already lost.

So when a lunatic with a stockpile of weapons shot hundreds of people in your town, the local media should have played no role. Just kept playing music or reporting on the latest Hollywood gossip.

Got it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's exactly the problem. When the tornado hits middle of nowhere Kansas, the local station doesn't have the ability to respond. They should. That's what they signed up for.

And thus you're fighting a battle that is already lost.

So when a lunatic with a stockpile of weapons shot hundreds of people in your town, the local media should have played no role. Just kept playing music or reporting on the latest Hollywood gossip.

Got it.

What you're missing is that the stations already had no meaningful local presence. All that this is doing is removing the requirement to maintain an illusion.