Connect with us
BSM Summit
blank

BNM Writers

Stop Pretending There’s Only Negative Police Coverage

I’m curious as to what constitutes this position that the news media is perpetually in the wrong when covering police?

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

You will not see this from me very often as I don’t wish to snag onto someone else’s column for BNM. But, as I’m not taking exception with the author/columnist and since I wore a police uniform for a dozen years, I feel qualified, perhaps even justified. This is in response to the question raised in last week’s column from BNM columnist Rick Shultz “Should the Media be More Supportive of Law Enforcement?”  

It leads me to reply, not to Mr. Shultz, but to the question itself.

In fact, it really appears that Fox News anchor Trace Gallagher raised the actual questions while speaking with Retired Police Lieutenant Randy Sutton, a law enforcement analyst and supporter of the police community.

Mr. Sutton, in my opinion, is a great representative of law enforcement in general and frankly, of the community as a whole.

He’s a professional who has done his time in service, enough I’m sure for multiple cops.

He, like many law enforcement officers, first responders, and public servants are well in their right to question the media about its coverage of police activity, shootings, and use of force incidents.

Sutton made a statement to Mr. Gallagher, “They’ve (cops) been shot, they’ve been stabbed, they’ve been beaten. And yet, you don’t even see it in the newspapers. It’s barely covered because it’s not politically expedient for the political left and for the mainstream media to even cover.”

In some instances, he may have a point. But in other instances, I’m afraid he doesn’t.

Frankly, I don’t think there could ever be enough air, screen, or print time devoted to the heroics of those who watch over and protect us. So many acts of great service and bravery never see the light of day.

This is a common observation and an even more common complaint and sentiment from members of law enforcement.

Perhaps that’s what Mr. Sutton or Mr. Gallagher mean by the media’s “support” of law enforcement.

But, is it the news media’s place to “support” or are we here to tell you what’s happening?

I’ve lived in half a dozen states, worked just as many news markets and I have not experienced one where news of a cop, firefighter, or first responder of any kind injured in the line of or even off duty did not make the A-Block or at minimum the B-block based on the severity of the injury or circumstances.

Don’t make me get into the tragedies: the deaths. Wall-to-wall coverage at the outset, followed by updates, reaction and advancement of the story. The investigations, the arrests and the prosecutions of criminal suspects in high profile cases get significant exposure. We always want the perp walk, the body cam of the take down and the soundbite from the Detective, the Chief or the P.I.O.

So, I’m curious as to what constitutes this position that the news media is perpetually in the wrong when covering police?

Are we measuring local versus national interest or coverage? What News Director, Beat Reporter et al is willing to stand for this type of allegation? When cops do something bad or questionable, I’m sorry, but it is news, too. Is it the ratio of coverage of bad or criminal conduct by police to the actions of good cops?

The old saying is just as true for cops as it is for everyone else, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.

The feelings and the comments from my fellow officers were always pretty standard whenever one of us in blue got into trouble, was accused of wrongdoing, or involved in a questionable or controversial shooting or use of force incident.

“They only cover us when it’s bad”. “Why don’t they tell the good stories about us?”

I used to ask the very same questions. I felt the very same way. It’s not easy to have your picture in the paper or on the screen when you’re accused of doing something wrong.

But the absence of positive police news is not always the fault of news outlets.

Think about it. Media Relations and Public Information Units don’t always clue us in on the above and beyond calls, arrests, saves, acts of humanity. Remember, we are short staffed too.

And some police bosses still exist who think “they shouldn’t get an Atta Boy for just doing their jobs”, How many times did we hear that at an Officer of the Month Ceremony?

But just what about the “War on Police” is not receiving coverage? Where and when is this not happening and to what level is this not happening?

It’s easy for social media posts to cry, “Why isn’t the media covering this?” or “You won’t see this on mainstream media!”

Most of the time it’s something heavily covered by the news media, in fact their source articles are all coming from a news media generated story.  

I am not a regular defender of the news media by any stretch, usually just the opposite. Truth be told, my knee-jerk reaction after more than twenty-years out of the uniform is still to initially defer to the cops.

There are police officers who do wrong and to deny that would be ridiculous. There is equally plenty the news media does wrong and the same rule applies.

In each case, when that wrong happens it should be investigated and explored, and yes, covered.

Every time a Derek Chauvin comes to light it’s bad for all officers but for every Chauvin there are a hundred like Eugene Goodman, Richard DuChaine, or Jesse Turano.

Say Chuavin’s name and everyone knows the story. Goodman, DuChaine, or Turano…most will need Google.

Some of that responsibility is the media, some is on the police but most I think is just on society.

Dislike or institutional suspicion of the police by members of the news media is nothing new but it’s far from what I would call pervasive. I have seen and continue to see it first hand but it’s largely based on ignorance.

On the flip side of that, a side I find to be more common, is a genuine affection and interest in the law enforcement community. Reporters are almost protective of the job. Who hasn’t seen marvelously produced, multi-part stories on police suicide and P.T.S.D., Community relationships with officers and the constant worry about staffing shortages and health concerns?

Not uncommon to the human condition; we remember the bad much longer than we do the good.

But back to Mr. Sutton’s position for a moment, a claim he immediately politicized by criticizing one side of the aisle and using a tired and antiquated put-down for a perceived type of news media. He made these claims before Mr. Gallagher, a member of the media, seemingly serving his own agenda, with his own political leanings and using the very people he used to walk amongst as a backdrop. And he used the news media to do it.

Who is and who isn’t supporting law enforcement here?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

BNM Writers

Market Still Finding 2023 Footing

After some rigorous data analysis, the thoughtful, numbers-based host was able to formulate some potential conclusions.

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

While it’s hard to imagine 2023 being as painful for investors as 2022, experts still cannot say for certain we are destined for blue skies ahead. Many in the media are starting the year by sifting through the stock market tea leaves; trying to figure out what historical data can tell us about probabilities and expectations for the next twelve months.

Some think the United States is poised for a market rebound, while others remain quite bearish, feeling that negative policy implications have yet to be fully realized.

Peter Tuchman of Trademas Inc. joined Neil Cavuto on his Fox News program Friday, to offer his thoughts about where the American stock market might be headed in light of the newly-divided United States Congress.

“Markets have a sort of a gut of their own,” Cavuto opened. “Today’s a good example. We’re up 300 points, ended up down 112 points. What’s going on?”

“Markets don’t like unknowns, and markets need confidence. The investing community needs confidence,” Tuchman said. “And I think it’s going to take a lot of work to rebuild that. And as we saw the other night with what went on in the House, it feels like people should get busy governing as opposed to all this posturing.”

Six months ago, Tuchman didn’t have a solid feel for the direction of the market. And just two trading weeks into the year, he still doesn’t believe any real trend has been established.

“The market has yet to find its ground. It’s yet to find its footing,” Tuchman told Cavuto. “And still, even coming into 2023, the first week of trading we have not found our footing. We have come in on a couple of economic notes that were a little bit positive. We opened up with a little bit of irrational enthusiasm. By the end of the days we were trading down.”

Meanwhile, some financial outlets, such as CNBC, have dug into the data showing what a market rise during the year’s first week – such as what we experienced this year – potentially means for the rest of 2023. They published a story last week with the headline, Simple ‘first five days’ stock market indicator is poised to send a good omen for 2023“.

On an episode of his popular YouTube program late last week, James from Invest Answers dug into 73 years of stock market data, to test that theory and see if the first five days of yearly stock market performance are an indicator of what the market might do over the full year.

“Some analysts pay attention to this, the first five trading day performance, can it be an indicator of a good year or a bad year,” James began last week, “I wanted to dig into all of that and get the answer for myself. Because some people think yes. Some people swear blind by it. Some people think it’s a myth or an old wive’s tale. Some people think it’s a great omen.”

After some rigorous data analysis, the thoughtful, numbers-based host was able to formulate some potential conclusions.

Based on James’ analysis…

If the gains from the first five market days of the year are negative, the market rises 86 percent of the time over the full year, with an average gain of 6%.

If the first five days are positive, the market increases 92% of the time, with an average yearly gain of 16%.

Most importantly, in this year’s scenario, where the first five days saw a jump of more than 1%, the market traditionally ends positive for the year 95 percent of the time. Those years see an average yearly gain of 18%.

“Is it a good omen, does it look bullish?” James asked. “Well, yes, based on history. But remember, there are factors like inflation, interest rates, geopolitical turmoil, supply chains, slowing economy. All that stuff is in play. But history also says that the market bounces bounces back before the market even realizes it’s in a recession. That’s an important thing to know.”

On his Your World program, Cavuto wondered if the recent House speaker voting drama has added to the uncertainty facing markets.

“Historically, Wall Street definitely is a bit more friendly to a Republican administration,” Tuchman said. “We’re in new ground, there’s no playbook, Neil. And I went over it with you the last time. There’s no playbook for coming out of a pandemic. No playbook for what’s gone on over the last two and a half years. Let’s think about it. March 2020, the market sold off so radically. We had a rally of 20 percent in 2020. 28 percent in 2021, in the eyes of a global economic shutdown due to the Federal Reserve’s posturing and whatnot.

“And now we’re trying to unwind that position. In tech, and in possible recession, and inflation and supply chain issues. So, there’s no way historically to make a judgment on what the future looks like in that realm, let alone what’s going on in the dis-functionality of what’s happening in Washington. I would like to disengage what’s going on in Washington and try and rebuild the confidence in the market coming into 2023.” 

So while the data might indicate a strong year ahead, the fact is that many analysts still won’t make that definitive call amidst such economic turmoil gripping the country. 

Along with U.S. markets, they remain steadfast in their search for solid footing.

Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Does Radio Need A Video Star?

If there’s revenue attached, the debate is over. If there isn’t a deal on the table, and there aren’t already orders to monetize a video stream, it’s likely coming soon.

Avatar photo

Published

on

blank

Last week numerous stories about using video with broadcasting or audio podcasting became a hot topic of discussion.

A Morning Consult poll found that 32% of Americans prefer podcasts with video, compared with 26% who like just audio better. Among podcast listeners, 46% said they favor them with video, compared with 42% who said they would rather listen without video. It’s worth noting that these are podcast listeners, not radio listeners.

Video has become the latest trend in audio. Almost everybody is trying to do some form of video. Many shows already stream online. A few others simulcast on a television or cable channel. It seems nobody believes in pure audio anymore. It’s a wonder everybody didn’t go into television instead of radio.

Before everybody else starts adding webcams in the studio, it’s worth weighing the reasons to move ahead versus slowing down.

The first person to realize they could use video of their show may have been Howard Stern. In June 1994, Stern started a daily half-hour show on E! network, featuring video highlights from his radio show. Stern added slick production values and faster pacing on the E! show.

Don Imus started simulcasting on cable during the same month. It’s possible others that I’m not aware of started earlier.

Stern’s E! show made sense. It answered the most common questions people asked about the show, in addition to what’s he really like; the first questions people usually asked were: 1) Are the women really as good-looking as he says? 2) Do they really take their clothes off? The E! show answered those questions. In addition, it gave a backstage glimpse of the show.

The same month Stern’s E! Show began, Imus began simulcasting his show on cable networks. I would have feared losing ratings. In fact, Imus’ program director did!

I spoke to my long-time friend and colleague Mark Chernoff (Current Managing Director of Mark Chernoff Talent and on-air talent 107.1 The Boss on the NJ Shore, Former Senior VP WFAN and CBS Sports Radio, VP Sports Programming CBS Radio) about the impact simulcasting Imus’ show had on WFAN. Chernoff may have the broadest range of experiences with simulcasting radio programs with video. 

Imus began on CSPAN but shortly afterward moved to MSNBC. Chernoff told me: “When we started simulcasting Imus, I suggested we’d lose about 15% of our radio audience to TV, which we did.” Chernoff added that there was a significant revenue contribution and that the company was content with the trade-off.

WFAN had a different experience simulcasting Mike and the Mad Dog on YES in 2002. “In this case, TV was helpful, and we increased listenership,” said Chernoff. WFAN also benefited financially from this simulcast.

Imus was on in morning drive while Mike & the Mad Dog were on in the afternoon. Keep the era in mind, too. Before smartphones and high-speed streaming, it was not uncommon for people to have televisions in the bed or bathrooms and have the tv on instead of the radio as they got ready for their day. In the afternoon, fewer people would have had video access in that era.

Ratings measurement moved to Portable People Meter (PPM) by the time WFAN started streaming middays on its website. Chernoff reported streaming had no ratings or revenue impact – positive or negative – on middays. However, the company did provide an additional dedicated person to produce the video stream.

The early forays into video by pioneers such as Stern, Imus, and Mike & the Mad Dog are instructive.

There are good reasons to video stream shows. Revenue is a good reason.

If there’s revenue attached, the debate is over. If there isn’t a deal on the table, and there aren’t already orders to monetize a video stream, it’s likely coming soon.

Another good reason is if the video can answer questions about the show, as the E! show did for Howard Stern.

On the other hand, audio companies are going to throw a lot of money at video, based on the notion that it’s what they “should” do because:

  • It’s the latest trend. Being late on this trend is different from missing the Internet or Podcasting. Industries already revolve around video; television and film come to mind.
  • Podcast listeners like it (by a slight plurality).

Before turning on webcams, see what viewers will see. The studios at many stations I’ve worked at were better not seen. Considerations include; the set, lighting, wardrobe, visuals, and a plan.

Too many video streams of studios feature the fire extinguisher prominently in the shot or the air personalities milling about during terminally long breaks.

Before going live, watch the video with no audio. Is it interesting? Compelling? Does the video draw you in, or is it dull?

With program directors now spread so thin handling multiple stations, a dedicated person to oversee streaming should be a requirement for stations streaming shows.

Other considerations:

  • How could this help us, and how could it hurt us?
  • How does the video enhance the show?
  • Will personalities do their radio show or perform for the cameras?
  • What production values are you able to add to the video?
  • What happens during those seven- eight-minute breaks if it’s a live radio show (vs. a podcast)? What will people streaming video see and hear? Does everybody on the show get along?

Do you have revenue attached? What do you expect will happen to the ratings?

WFAN earned significant revenue for two. Therefore, the company wasn’t concerned when the ratings took a hit for the first one and were surprised when they helped the second one. They didn’t see any impact on ratings or revenue the third time.

After all the budget cuts and workforce reductions over the past decade-plus, before audio companies invest in video, shouldn’t we get: people, marketing, promotion, or research monies back first?

Most of us decided to get into radio (or podcasting) instead of television or film. There’s a reason they said, “video killed the radio star.”

Continue Reading

BNM Writers

Streaming Platforms Cannot Be Forgotten By News/Talk Program Directors

BNM’s Pete Mundo writes that if you’re a News/Talk program director, you run two radio stations and what comes through the streaming platforms.

blank

Published

on

blank

If you’re a News/Talk program director, you run two radio stations. Didn’t you know that? Oh. Well, you do. 

I’m not just referring to our over-the-air broadcast but also what comes through our streaming platforms. Alexa, Google Home, apps, computers, etc., are all streaming platforms of our radio stations, which for most of us, are airing different commercial inventory than what is coming through the radio.

I understand none of us are unnecessarily looking to add to our plate, but our streaming platforms are the way we are getting more people to use our product. So neglecting, or forgetting about it, is a bad business decision, especially in the talk space. 

Across all clusters, talk radio is far more likely to have high streaming use when it comes to total listening hours. Listeners are more loyal to our personalities and often can’t get the AM dial in their office buildings during the day, or even if they can, they don’t want to hear our voices through static, so they pull up the stream. 

It’s never been easier to listen to talk radio stations, thanks to our station apps and websites (although welcoming some sites to the 21st century would be a good idea). So, given the challenges many of us face on the AM band, why not push our audience to the stream and make sure the stream sounds just as good as the over-the-air product?

The tricky part in putting together a quality stream sound is trying to balance what ads are programmatic, which ones are sold locally, where is the unfilled inventory and what is filling that gap?

And unlike your over-the-air product, where you can go into a studio, see what’s coming up, and move inventory around, that technology is not available in most cases. So yes, it’s a guessing game.

But as the talk climate continues to change, the best thing we can do to build our brand and trust with the next generation of talk radio listeners is to find them and engage them where they are, which may not always be next to a physical radio. That will be on a stream. How do I know that? Because if they have a smartphone, they have (access to) the stream.

Of course, the over-the-air product remains the massive revenue generator for our stations, as in most cases, the streaming revenue is not close to comparable. But then, if we look years down the road, that will likely start to change. 

To what degree? That’s unknown. But double-digit growth on an annual basis should not be out of the question when it comes to stream listening. It should be a very achievable goal, especially in our format. So our listeners who are P1’s, love the station and want to consume as much of the content as they can, can be on the AirPods in the gym, desk at work, or in their home office and listen to our radio stations. 

Heck, with Alexa and Google Home, they don’t even have to turn a dial! They just speak. So if they’re there, let’s keep them there.

There are simply too many media options today to lose our listeners due to sloppy streaming quality that makes us sound like a college radio station. Instead, listeners, who find us there should be rewarded with a listening experience that is just as high-quality as what they would get on the AM or FM band.

And if we play our cards right, it will be better, serving the industry incredibly well through a new generation of listeners.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

blank

Barrett Media Writers

Copyright © 2023 Barrett Media.