Thank you for another very insightful Three Things article.
I find it very difficult to be enthused about the mergers and acquisitions. For over four years I’ve worked at a small station in Pittsburg, KS not unlike the stations that were swallowed up by larger ones you write about. I’ve often wondered if my little station could one day become a repeater for better-financed neighboring stations KCUR, Kansas Public, or KMUW just to name stations in Kansas.
Also, why is station consolidation in commercial media viewed one way and portrayed another way in public media?
They both serve similar purposes. To save money for one party and try to make more money for the party that takes over. KSU didn’t want to support their station anymore, so Cap Radio stepped in. When you’re hired at North State Public you’re actually a Cap Radio employee. Who does that benefit? The GM and station management that pulls deals together to consolidate and work to create huge, sometimes statewide networks.
It doesn't likely doesn’t benefit, my friends and colleagues who have been laid off as a result of some of the mergers and acquisitions you’ve written about. Surely, you know some of these individuals as well.
I appreciate your very thoughtful comments on this very complicated matter.
First off, and perhaps I should have said this in my post, if it's financially viable with the resources to invest in the digital future confronting all media, a local operation with local ownership is and should be the best solution for public radio.
With that said, there are a lot of small stations (many of them University-licensees) that do not have the resources to make the needed investments for the future and are one University cut away from being in significant financial distress.
Suppose a situation occurs that a station can't sustain itself. In that case, I think it's vital to keep it in the public radio system instead of going dark or being sold to an entity outside of public media. That's where the models I wrote about come into play.
I've personally been in a situation of taking on two stations that were going to go dark unless the organization I was leading stepped in to take over the operation. Was that better or worse? It depends on who you ask. But the service was maintained for the community, which is how I define "audience-first."
Beyond the mere fact of not losing the frequency and the license, we need to keep exploring different models that help us maintain the connection with the local community while reducing some of the overhead operating costs of the station. Colorado Public Radio's work with KRCC in Colorado Springs is an excellent example of a model worth looking across public radio.
The KRCC website lists 11 staff for the station <https://www.cpr.org/krcc/contact-krcc/> maintaining the local connection to the community. In addition, CPR provides back-office and statewide resources that support the local operation.
This is precisely the type of model we should be looking at to bring about the most effective public service outcomes in communities.
We need to be creative in our approach so that public radio isn't going down the same path as newspapers, resulting in news deserts across small and rural communities across America.
There's too much at stake for us not to be thinking about how to keep our service strong in small communities that depend on public radio.
Thanks again for reading and for commenting on this week's post.
Hi Tim,
Thank you for another very insightful Three Things article.
I find it very difficult to be enthused about the mergers and acquisitions. For over four years I’ve worked at a small station in Pittsburg, KS not unlike the stations that were swallowed up by larger ones you write about. I’ve often wondered if my little station could one day become a repeater for better-financed neighboring stations KCUR, Kansas Public, or KMUW just to name stations in Kansas.
Also, why is station consolidation in commercial media viewed one way and portrayed another way in public media?
They both serve similar purposes. To save money for one party and try to make more money for the party that takes over. KSU didn’t want to support their station anymore, so Cap Radio stepped in. When you’re hired at North State Public you’re actually a Cap Radio employee. Who does that benefit? The GM and station management that pulls deals together to consolidate and work to create huge, sometimes statewide networks.
It doesn't likely doesn’t benefit, my friends and colleagues who have been laid off as a result of some of the mergers and acquisitions you’ve written about. Surely, you know some of these individuals as well.
Hi Fred -
I appreciate your very thoughtful comments on this very complicated matter.
First off, and perhaps I should have said this in my post, if it's financially viable with the resources to invest in the digital future confronting all media, a local operation with local ownership is and should be the best solution for public radio.
With that said, there are a lot of small stations (many of them University-licensees) that do not have the resources to make the needed investments for the future and are one University cut away from being in significant financial distress.
Suppose a situation occurs that a station can't sustain itself. In that case, I think it's vital to keep it in the public radio system instead of going dark or being sold to an entity outside of public media. That's where the models I wrote about come into play.
I've personally been in a situation of taking on two stations that were going to go dark unless the organization I was leading stepped in to take over the operation. Was that better or worse? It depends on who you ask. But the service was maintained for the community, which is how I define "audience-first."
Beyond the mere fact of not losing the frequency and the license, we need to keep exploring different models that help us maintain the connection with the local community while reducing some of the overhead operating costs of the station. Colorado Public Radio's work with KRCC in Colorado Springs is an excellent example of a model worth looking across public radio.
The KRCC website lists 11 staff for the station <https://www.cpr.org/krcc/contact-krcc/> maintaining the local connection to the community. In addition, CPR provides back-office and statewide resources that support the local operation.
This is precisely the type of model we should be looking at to bring about the most effective public service outcomes in communities.
We need to be creative in our approach so that public radio isn't going down the same path as newspapers, resulting in news deserts across small and rural communities across America.
There's too much at stake for us not to be thinking about how to keep our service strong in small communities that depend on public radio.
Thanks again for reading and for commenting on this week's post.