This is probably one of those ideas that sounds more interesting than they turn out to be. But I’ll be following along, just because I have the hots for AMC.
“Starting tonight, a designated representative of both of the major presidential campaigns are going to participate in a free-wheeling debate on technology and government, moderated by Time magazine blogger Ana Marie Cox and channeled via Twitter.” – Personal Democracy Forum/techPresident
It isn’t simply streaming your current morning show. Or putting it online for download. Jerry Del Colliano lays it out — in ten easy steps — on his blog (invitation only). #1 gives you the setup and #7 and #8 my favorites.
1. Start ten morning shows (other than the one that is airing on your terrestrial station). The content should aim at one demographic that is desirable to sell. Example: women 25-54. Ten shows that don’t air on the radio.
7. Hire the right person(s) to host this 45-minute show – not, I repeat, not anyone from your airstaff. Podcasting is not to be confused with broadcasting. You may be a professional broadcaster but it is not in your best interest to make these podcasts son of what is already on your air. Give the host a piece of the show and lock him or her into it for the long term. As it develops it will be a moneymaker for you and for your talent.
8. Do not include traditional spots in the podcast. Commercials have seen there better days. Young people don’t listen – but consider the “live read” approach that goes over very well with young people. If they are hooked on a podcast then they will listen to a “live read” by the host(s) if it is sincere and keeping with the overall approach of the show.
Mr. Del Colliano concludes his post with a bit of insight into Generation Y:
(Gen Y) went through childhood without a love for radio, unlike baby boomers or Gen X. They are attached to their iPods and smart phones – their new radio. If you still want to be in the content business when the last baby boomer passes into The Hall of Fame, learn about the new radio – podcasting.
The “ten morning shows” had me puzzled at first. But I’m guessing you need this many, all aimed at the same demo, to reach the numbers that will be attractive to advertisers. The advertises cares about reaching the demo (Women 25-54 in the example above) and not so much about how many shows he sponsors to reach them, assuming the price makes sense.
So let’s assume we have a 25 minute commute to Jefferson City (from Columbia or Loose Creek). Would I be willing to produce five, 25-min podcasts a week for a piece of the show? I would if Mr. Del Colliano was managing the station.
I checked this a couple of years ago with the same results. The reading level of smays.com is elementary school, according to this website. The high end of the scale goes up college (maybe grad school?) and I think elementary school is the low end (do pre-schoolers read?).
I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I think it might be a good thing to write at a level that third graders can follow. I assure you, I’m not trying to write down to anyone. The words you read are the ones in hear in my head. Hmm. See smays blog. Blog smays, blog.
I was talking with a co-worker about Lara Logan’s (CBS Chief Foreign Correspondent) recent appearance on The Daily Show. She posed the question, “When was the last time you saw a dead American soldier on TV?” She was making the point that media in the U. S. has been MIA on the war in Iraq (except for that victorious march into Baghdad).
My co-worker’s take was: “The only reason to show a dead American soldier would be to turn someone against the war.”
Or maybe that war is news and death is part of the story?
Actually, I didn’t have a response. I can understand that view coming from W or Rumsfeld (back in the day). But how many citizens feel the same? How many would rather not to see the bloody reality of war on their TV screens?
By this logic, we also shouldn’t be seeing the critically wounded at Walter Reed. Or can we translate missing limbs to a “don’t-let-their-sacrifices-be-in-vain” message?
So I’m asking myself why we saw more dead troops during the Viet Nam war, and it came to me. We had lots of reporters on the front lines in that war. But not so many on the mean streets of Baghdad.
In the old days, you could make a career filing reports from the front lines. Sure, you could shot, but you weren’t likely to wind up the star of a YouTube beheading video.
Naw, American journalism took a pass on this war. Better to let the Brits cover this one.
One more cool thing found on the J-Walk Blog. The Detroit Free Press website is Freep.com. I like that. Click here or the image above to get the 360 view.
“A couple of weeks ago, ABC News writers were forced to surrender their BlackBerry hand-held devices when the network clashed with the guild over after-hours work. According to people familiar with the situation, ABC asked writers and producers to sign a waiver acknowledging that they may use their BlackBerrys to monitor and compose work-related e-mail after normal working hours. When the writers guild advised its members not to sign, the network took the BlackBerrys away.” [Broadcasting & Cable]
This is one of the reasons I’ve always owned my own laptops (and most other work-related) toys. Even though the company would have probably provided some of these. I take the “carpenter’s tools” view. I know that all hammers are not the same. I want the best.
The Gizmodo caption for this photo was better than the NY Times’:
“Last Tuesday, Lori Mehmen looked out her front door in Orchard, Iowa and this is what she saw. She had a digital camera handy, and somehow managed to take this photo before crapping her pants and taking cover. This, my friends, is why always having a camera nearby is helpful.” [NY Times]
Interesting little post at Slate on how people read online (and how to write for them). Readers tend to be "selfish, lazy and ruthless." When you arrive on a page, you don’t actually deign to read it. You scan. If you don’t see what you need, you’re gone.
An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad.
“The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren’t “the worst of the worst.” From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn’t belong there.”
Stories like this one — and the way those accused respond to them — raise a troubling (to me) question about American journalism. Why can’t we have one news organization that everyone can agree is factual and fair. Just one. “Truthiness” is no longer a joke.
Somewhere in the White House and the Pentagon, men and women are figuring out ways to discredit this story and the people who reported it. I won’t try to list the tactics they employee because we are all too familiar with them.
And those who chose not to believe stories like this one need only the flimsiest excuse (“There goes the Liberal Media again.” or “Fox News says it’s not true.”).
Remember how skeptical the world was of the claims by German citizens that they didn’t know what was going on in the concentration camps?
“Whoa! Hold on there smays.com! You aren’t comparing Guantanamo to Auschwitz are you?”
No. I’m talking about what we, the American people, allow our government to do on our behalf. If we’ve been holding hundreds of innocent men for five or six years and –in some cases– torturing (I know, I know… water boarding is not torture) them, will our best explanation be, “We were at war.”
Ich bin beschämt
And I’m not sure why. I didn’t “know” the man but, like many of his faithful viewers, felt as though I did. NBC devoted the full half-hour of the evening newscast to memories of Tim (“Mr. Russert” doesn’t feel right).
Maybe it’s my new-found interest in politics… or Father’s Day rolling around again… but I’m reminded of my pop, who died six years ago.
Dad was not the “family man” Tim Russert was reported to be. At least not demonstrably so. But he had his passions and radio was one of them. One I shared.
So, in memory of Tim Russert –and my dad– I share this interview I did with my dad shortly before he retired from radio.