"Reality" TV shows just won't go away. I would have thought that people would have gotten sick of this craze, just like the prime-time game show craze of a few years ago. Networks like these so-called reality shows because they are cheap. Even with million dollar winners, a show like "Survivor" is considerably cheaper than a show like "Friends", with its huge star payroll. From what I can tell, "reality" shows started with MTV's "Real World", a show that placed a bunch of hand-picked whiney 20-something year olds in a house together. Now, we have everything from "The Great Race" to "The Mole", to "Fear Factor". Most "reality" shows feature attractive twenty-somethings pitted against each other for a prize.
"Reality", not really. There isn't really any chance of dying when a camera person is following right beside a contestant. Probably more of a chance that the camera person will get hurt than a show contestant. These shows are in reality, scripted inexpensive vehicles for making money. They are scripted in the sense that the hand picked contestants are chosen based on personality and looks, and on how they will react to the others. That might as well be scripted because we all know what is going to happen when an ex-Marine is put with a slacker, or a religious fanatic with a homosexual, etc. Far from "reality". Very much pre-planned, and of course, edited to fit a story line.
Have TV sitcoms and dramas become so predictable and dull that these cheap "reality" shows actually seem better? I'm sure that next season will have it's fair share of sitcoms about twenty-somethings living in New York, and the standard "Law & Order" cloned cop shows....only making these "reality" shows look even more original and appealing.

XM Satellite Radio launched last year with high expectations. Sirrus Satellite Radio launched six months later. The receivers cost around $300.00, plus around another $50.00 to install them at most places. Not a huge amount of money. The service is also inexpensive, roughly $10.00 a month. Both services offer rock, rap, gospel, talk, spanish, trance, techno....pretty much anything anyone would want to listen to. They also sound really good. CD quality audio coast to coast, with only a few dropout areas. With all of that going for both services, one would think that they would be doing well. Also consider how most people seem to be disatisfied with broadcast radio these days. Thing is though, Sirrus is only expecting to have 75,000 (for the entire country) subscribers by 2003. That's very small, less than the population of Mason City Iowa or Watertown New York. Both XM and Sirrus are in the process of "seeking additional funding to carry them through these lean years". Not good. I think that it's safe to say that satellite radio is no real threat to terrestrial radio stations. I do believe that satellite radio can survive, but it will take a really long time, and might not ever be more than an addition to your radio - like your CD player. The HBO of radio.
One thing that Satellite Radio can't offer is a local voice. No local traffic, local weather, parking info at the beaches, shows coming to town, etc. People seem to want to know what's going on around them. The other problem though.... terrestrial radio stations have been getting away from being that local community voice. Many dayparts are now voice-tracked (pre-recorded), and offer no local anything. Most talk stations use syndicated programming that comes from far away. With growing animosity from the public towards "canned" sounding radio, and limited playlists...and now the rejection by the masses of the Satellite services - when will stations realize that they really have to go back to being live and local? This is a great opportunity for stations to regain an audience that wants to be connected to their community. Play interresting music, let the airstaff have a voice, and be an assett to the community - not just a sponge. Maybe the corperate brass will open their eyes and see that by being part of a local community, no matter the age group or demographic, they can gain a loyal local audience.

Breaking News.....This just in.......Live on the scene........ How many times have we seen this on the tube since September 11th? Understandably the anthrax story is important to many people. As I am writing this, I am in the center of Washington D.C. myself - so I understand. That said, it seems that the admirable coverage of the terrorist attacks on this country during the first few days after the attacks was an oddity. News networks banded together and shared footage, and pretty much all reporting was timely and accurate. Unfortunately, that was short-lived. Turn on CNN, Fox Newschannel, MSNBC, even your local news, and it has degraded into "Inside Edition" type reporting. Sensationalized tear jerker stories on the terrible losses that individuals are facing, and the "what if anthrax came here" stories...it's turning into a movie of the week right before our eyes. It is unfortunate when political types use the media as a shameless self promotion tool in general, but recently it has been taken to an extreme. Our fearless leaders (when not in hiding) are seemingly always on the tube, whether it is to condemn what has been condemned before, or to give out blurred information. It is really all just to do self promotion. What is even worse is that the news media is jumping all over these people. In the quest to out-do eachother, these bottomless wind bags are getting tons of airtime. It has boiled down to shamelss self promotion by the politicians, shock-value tabloid reporting by the press, and the ultimate dumbing down of the worst tragety in recent history. It is O.J. and Monica all in one for the press.....only this time it's a real story. Too bad that it reads more like fiction than fact.

It seems that radio stations "tweak" and change formats on a more regular basis these days. The Country station is now an Urban station, the Rock station now an Oldies station, etc. It's everywhere....and it's only going to get worse. The big corperate owners don't seem to be willing to let a station find an audience. If a station isn't performing well, it's gone. Just that simple. If a station is doing well, but research says that it can do slightly better by changing - done deal. The only stations that seem to largely be unaffected by this are Religious stations! Every other commercial station seems to have a shakey future. One station near me has altered its format ever six month for the past four years. A long-time heritage Soft AC station fliped to Urban Oldies, then less than two years later, flipped to Top 40. You never know what you'll get when you turn your radio on now. Listenership is down across the board. By the constant changes in format there is little "brand loyalty" left in radio. People don't like change, it's a proven fact. Just another thing to help prod along this slow, painful death that is radio.

What do CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS have in common? The answer: stupid job cuts. How is it that a network or local station can all of a sudden decide that it doesn't need X amount of people? Why would they hire these people to begin with if they really weren't needed? I can understand how some lower level technical people can become obsolete when technology takes over their duties (like forms of automation doing Master Control), but stations all around the country are laying off studio techs, editors, and camera people to save a few bucks. This trend wouldn't be so wrong if another trend that is a complete 180 degree wasn't happening. This other trend is the ever-increasing salaries of station General Managers, Network Executives, and the basic top brass. The average studio technician makes around 30K per year. The average camera person doesn't make much more. For one Turner sized bonus, CNN could have kept a staff of 10 people for a year. Instead the top brass are getting more money, and the worker bees are being forced to double up on jobs or face the corporate axe. A good example of this happened recently at PBS. PBS announced company wide cutbacks of 9%, pink-slipping just over 40 people, and placing a hiring freeze on new positions. Two new positions were created in naming John Wilson and Jacoba Atlas as co-chief program executives. Two executives and not just one? I would bet that those two people make about what those 40 people combined made in yearly income. Eventually, when the head becomes too big for the body, something has to give. Now that the FCC has a new Republican Chairman, and mergers are going to be "sped along", maybe the big wigs will get their due when McTV and McRadio squeeze everyone out......but that's another rant.

Classic Rock, Jammin' Oldies, Classic Hits, Oldies, All 80's, Urban Oldies, etc, etc, etc. Oldies stations are popping up all over the country these days. The problem with each oldies format is that they each only play 200 or so songs. I would like to hear the music that I grew up with as much as anyone else, but these stations seem to not play any of it. If I didn't know any better, by listening to a Classic Rock station I would think that core artists of that format only had two or three songs. The same goes for any of the other Oldies stations. Most of the music that I would consider "Classic" isn't even played at all. Does everyone who listens to the Jammin Oldies stations want to hear the same Sister Sledge song every day? Do Classic Rock listeners consider the music released between 1967 and 1980 the only "Classic" music, and of that music do listeners want to hear Lynerd Skynerd's "Gimme Three Steps" every day? When will an oldies station start playing more than "Mack The Knife"? When will Classic Hits stations realize that more people than Billy Joel had hits twenty years ago! Maybe the reason that some of these oldies type formats are getting dismal ratings is that people want some variety in oldies, or at least more than the same songs every day!

It's egg-head season again. Every election year the media is bashed by political types for not giving free air time to politicians, and not covering more political events. This year, NBC and FOX decided not to run some of the Presidential Debates. The FCC chairman and others cried foul in a unsuccessful attempt to force the networks into airing the media whores known as politicians. According to FCC Chairman Kennard, the Presidential Debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush were what the people should have been watching, not the Major League Baseball Playoffs, even though the debates were being aired on ABC, CBS, PBS, and cable stations like C-SPAN and CNN. If anyone wanted to watch these debates, they easily could have. Why should the people who do not find it in their interest to hear a couple of press whores beg for votes be punished by taking away what is important to them? Politicians are walking advertisements. Their bumper sticker slogans should all have the "as seen on TV" logo on them. Why should these people, who are advertising a product, be awarded free airtime outside of what they already have? This years debates are the second lowest rated debates of all time. That sounds like the public isn't interested in the public interest. Maybe if the public was given some real choices to vote for, rather than these actor wanna-be's... plasic politicians with hollow promises that seem to only be interested in having the press follow them around...would the public care about these debates. Generic stereotype politician 1 blathering to generic stereotype politician 2 for an hour about nothing seems to speak for itself. Voter turnout will keep going down as long as the public is constantly exposed to lies and corruption from our politicians. The public readily excepts it when right after the debates an "expert" tallies up a count on lies told by each candidate....and these people want (and think they deserve) more free airtime?

RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS NEED NOT EDUCATE:
The House passed legislation 264-159 that would prevent the FCC from dictating religious broadcasters' use of noncommercial TV licenses. Republicans on the House Commerce Committee pushed the bill forward after the FCC last December tried to dictate what type of content religious broadcaster Cornerstone Television would have been able to air over its new noncommercial station WQEX-TV Pittsburgh. Ultimately, Cornerstone never acquired the station and the FCC rescinded its decision after Congress made its objections clear, but Republicans said they wanted to ensure the FCC had no statutory authority to make such a decision again.

The FCC's point was that non commercial stations were set up to be educational and serve the community. Religious broadcasters often import their programming from networks of religious programming, or run infomercials. Shows like "Benny Hinn" and "Morice Cerullo" are packaged 28:28 long commercials to buy the speakers products (usually a video series) and to donate to their ministry. Is that educational? Is that serving the greater needs of the community? In my opinion, those broadcasters are selling a product. That said, they are in fact a commercial station that is getting a free ride at the communities expense. Instead of educational and local community info programs being shown on a non commercial station, there is commercial preaching. Why not just grant "The Home Shopping Network" non commercial status.....it's the same thing...amen!

Spring 2000:
Being around Washington D.C. taught me one thing: nothing gets done unless it can generate press coverage. Politicians, for the most part, are not in Washington to be caring civil servants to help the American people, but are in fact here to build a name for themselves. A big part of doing this is to get media coverage of everything that they do. Some issues that would be of great importance to people get completely overlooked because they wouldn't draw media interest. Politicians have at their disposal huge Public Affairs departments, whose job it is to drum up press coverage. Public Affairs offices in all of the executive branches and their agencies/bureaus were set up to publicize the actual government agency, not the politicians running them - but that's not the case. Unfortunately the Media buys right into this, covering the bogus self promotion as if it were really newsworthy. The people that run news agencies (network and local) actually are dictating what the government is doing. Every time they show up in masses to another shameless self promotion by a politician, they are sending a message to the rest of the politicians to ham it up, and become nothing more than media whores. Playing to the media is nothing new, only it is getting worse. With all of the cable news channels (CNN & affiliated services, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX Newschannel, All News Channel, etc.) out there, the frenzy to get one's face on the tube has never been greater. It's too bad that there is no longer any real substance behind that face anymore.