Re: Fwd: Re: Boston's Newsradio Void

[JTyburczy@aol.com]

Dear TVHD (TV Head):

What you say RINGS SO TRUE, not only in Boston, but in most areas of the US.
Here in LA, we have KNX News Radio1070, which is essentially a network news
feed with a couple of local traffic reports thrown in.

During the big quake of '94, the local radio stations were very slow to
respond, and often did so with confused, secondhand information.  The
longstanding civil defense advice of having a "battery operated radio"
available for emergencies is a joke.  The best solution -- that I and most
people in LA have found ---is a battery operated TV. 

Why? Because local TV news is better equipped for, and excels at emergency
coverage.  During the earthquake, most all of the TV outlets switched their
programming to a live anchor desk IMMEDIATELY.  Most radio stations stuck with
their canned programming for quite some time (sports, talk, etc) but EVERY TV
channel had a live anchor up, even if it was the weekend weather guy in a
broom closet.

My Theory: Remember when TV news was sort of a joke? In the 50's and 60's,
some TV newscasts were only 15 minutes long!  Radio news was superior, in-
depth, and had more resources.  I dunno about you, but as a kid, the RADIO was
where you got the "no school" snow announcements in the morning.  In the 60's
a huge polar shift began.  The music-oriented youth culture helped change the
face of radio (less talk, more music).  Radio management discovered that if
nobody listens for news (except in an emergency) then they can't justify
keeping a crack news staff on the payroll.  

As I see it, there's no way the public is ever going to shift their everyday
allegiance back to radio news. No matter HOW good it is.  (NPR
notwithstanding).  I think it is a case of the public "voting with their
wallets (patronage)".  By favoring TV over radio,  we got what we deserve,
which is essentially lousy radio and better TV.

Joe Tyburczy

------------------------------