WBEZ: High Fidelity or High Tail? Counterpoint

I listen to live radio less than I used to. My cell phone's alarm replaced my bedside clock radio, podcast subscriptions long ago supplanted appointment listening and, since I don't own a car, I don't even find myself in front of a radio all that often. When I do, WBEZ is always the first place the dial lands (unless I'm picking up the Chicagoist staff in a borrowed hoopty, in which case it's obviously V103 time). Maybe I'm just getting to the age where the higher frequencies are harder to hear. Maybe I'll file it under habit. Or hope. Or "Honor, Blue State Badge of."

While my relationship with WBEZ may not have gone on for as long as Kevin's (or yours), it has been an important one to me since I arrived in Chicago ten years ago. So much so that I remain a High Fidelity member despite listening with less regularity and even though I found the Vocalo misadventure more than a little disheartening. Maybe Torey Malatia is the Jim Hendry of Chicago Public Media (where Vocalo is his Soriano, solve for Zambrano), as the Michael Miner-led chorus seems to tell us. While I'll grant that the station's programming could and should be better, I find the moment when they try to do something about that an odd time to punish them for it and feel obliged to say point out that Malatia has not been talking about cutting local programming, but reconfiguring and potentially expanding it.

Taking apart Eight Forty-Eight and Worldview may be a bad idea, but if it is done with a mind to improve the station's local offerings we should at least level our attacks properly. Skepticism of the Malatia administration's ability to pull it off well is healthy and, should this turn out to be a diluting of the programming, we should cry foul, and loudly.

I spent the first 23 years of my life being served by legitimately second-rate public radio outfits, and I'm sometimes surprised at how WBEZ is taken for granted by the locals. I would love to play Clarence from It's a Wonderful Life and replace WBEZ with dead air or, worse, a public radio station more moribund and lacking in, at least, Chicago Public Media's imperfect ambition (say what you want about Vocalo, but it did not lack for ambition). But since I can't, and since I don't want to imply that WBEZ should be spared the vigorous criticism it needs to be the station a market the size of Chicago deserves, the only argument I want to make is going to sound an awful lot like a pledge drive. If you believe there should be local public radio, you should give money to local public radio.

Period.

You can't treat a noncommercial enterprise as if it were a commercial one. Not that public radio is immune to market forces, but there are no competitors who do what they do, much less operate on a social contract with listener support. Being a supporter gives your criticisms more weight, since you have something to withhold, after all.

I do not believe you can positively influence the direction of the station by denying them your support. If the public schools are terrible, do they magically get better if I stop putting money into them? If I enjoy a street musician's performance several times over the course of a day while saying to myself that once I hit the ATM I would drop a dollar bill in his trumpet case, but then withhold my crumpled single because I find him playing my least favorite Brandenberg Concerto, do you think he's going to internalize that as a critique of his chosen repertoire? Or that I don't care about music?

If you were raised on NPR, payback for years of freeloading is itself a major reason to contribute when you can. If you care about making it better, having a greater likelihood of effecting that is another. Most of all, thinking of public radio as a public good whose existence is positive for the community, even if it can always be improved, seals the deal for me. If you want to cast it a vote for WBEZ's prioritization of strengthening its local offerings, now is as good as any time to do it.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Steven Pate in News on November 2, 2011 1:00 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

chee1rs

close it down

JDG

is there a link to the article that this is a counterpoint to??

stevenpate

here you go: http://chicagoist.com/2011/11/...

Deep Throat

Flaws and all I love WBEZ programming. When they stop trading their subscriber lists as the default and make it an opt in and not an opt out, I will return to supporting them. It is a bad practice and hints at other mismanagement of their subscriber information. From their FAQ: "...we do exchange some member names and addresses with other local non-profit institutions."

twocee

All major charities exchange their donor lists, not just WBEZ. WTTW, NPR, and PBS exchange their donor lists. American Cancer, United Way, Susan G Komen, ASPCA, the Nature Conservancy...the list literally goes on. This is not mismanagement, it is how charities find new donors. And just like other contact preferences, these charities are going to automatically opt you in unless you tell them otherwise.

If you don't want your name exchanged (or sold, or rented), simply give their donor relations a call and they can very easily flag you so your name is not exchanged. It should take 30 seconds.

Or, you can continue to use that as a really lame excuse for not supporting them.

ChicagoD

Interesting. If you don't like what they are doing, you should give them money. If you do like what they are doing you should give them money.

How about, if you think they are headed in the wrong direction give the directors the scare of their lives and force them to change direction?

Joshua Covell

"Interesting. If you don't like what they are doing, you should give them
money. If you do like what they are doing you should give them money."

Come on. I think your first line should be: "If you don't like what they are doing, you should withhold money with the understanding that they might just close shop altogether."

I think the public school connection is solid. Public radio isn't run like a corporation, so that motivation to change-or-die isn't fueled by the prospect of fat cats losing revenue. If they don't have the funding, they'd simply shut down, so though voting with your dollars may help, it's also a very dangerous road to go down.

Boris Ogon

"Come on. I think your first line should be: 'If you don't like what they are doing, you should withhold money with the understanding that they might just close shop altogether.'"

And? Unreel it. The license transfer from the Board of Education seems to have gone smoothly. The current board of directors is surely as soft as well-kneaded butter, but they might actually have enough of a proto-spine remaining to effect an orderly hand-over in the event of impending collapse.

ChicagoD

My recollection is that most public radio funding is from foundations, not the $50 they get during the pledge drives. That is not to say that pledges are not an important part of the budget, but they are not 100% by any stretch. Voting with pledge dollars might be exactly the market pressure they need.

Besides, if I don't like what they are doing and they close up shop . . . that's the breaks of the game. To the extent they are filling the airwaves with national content and Car Talk and This American Life have podcasts and means by which I can donate directly to them, why should I filter my money into a local station that doesn't provide local content?

The age of internet radio means if you don't provide good local content, I don't need you.

rickX77777

Pledge dollars from listeners make up over 50% of the station's budget

ChicagoD

Oh, so they should listen to disgruntled former donors. Interesting. Also, a percentage of 50% is unlikely to close them down.

Speedstr

"If you don't like what they are doing, you should consider withholding money with the understanding that they might just close shop altogether."

That is something to take into account, and is the main point of Steven's counterpoint. (very well written BTW) However, I disagree with the street musician analogy. Obviously, if a street musician receives less tips for a particular song, that song will eventually drop out of the playlist. His other songs aren't going to do the heavy lifting for the other song that nobody likes.

If you donate during a particular time slot of your favorite show, is that money going to the expenses of that particular show, or the station that airs it along with several other shows that you're not fond of? Mind you Torey Malatia has already cut established shows from the station's programming in favor of his pet project, Volcalo, a show with mixed results and challenging growing pains.

Boris Ogon

"If you donate during a particular time slot of your favorite show, is that money going to the expenses of that particular show, or the station that airs it along with several other shows that you're not fond of?"

The latter.