writing for radio-- a lost art?

[Donna Halper <dlh@donnahalper.com>]

So this afternoon, I was listening to the news on WBZ Radio and heard 
something that came right from the Department of Redundency 
Department.  There was a story about an MBTA bus driver who was assaulted, 
and the reporter on the scene was explaining that the police had arrived to 
search for the criminal, who up to that point had gotten away.  She then 
said the police were using a "K-9 dog" to track the suspect.  Okay fine, I 
know and many Bostonians know that the police in Boston have a number of 
police dogs which belong to their so-called "K-9 Corps", and with a TV 
story, the visual of the dog tracking the suspect would have explained what 
was happening.  But on radio, the reporter sounded as if she was saying the 
police were using a "canine dog"-- well, I certainly hope so.  I mean, a 
canine cat would be scary, don't you think???

I am not trying to nit-pick, and yes, mistakes happen.  But I do believe 
many reporters today are accustomed to writing for TV, and don't think 
about the fact that it's a different skill to write for people who are 
listening, as opposed to those who are watching.  My blind friends complain 
often that sporting events today are not described eloquently on radio the 
way they used to be-- Ned Martin, Chick Hearn, Mel Allen, even Curt Gowdy 
understood how to make you feel as if you were there; they could paint a 
picture using words. The same talent could be found in the great radio news 
reporters, and even some of the announcers knew how to be articulate 
without talking down to the audience.  But while some contemporary radio 
reporters and announcers do put forth a good effort, it often seems to me 
that respect for the beauty of the spoken word is becoming a casualty of an 
era dominated by clever graphics and eye-catching visuals.