Doc Searls Weblog

24 responses to “More on WNYC(s) + WQXR(s)”

1. Friends of Dave (friendsofdave) ‘s status on Tuesday, 21-Jul-09 20:07:13 UTC – Identi.ca

   July 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm

   […] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2009/07/21/more-on-wnycs-wqxrs/ […]

   Reply
2. 

   Britt Blaser

   July 21, 2009 at 10:02 pm

   I grew up in the early 50’s in Manhassett, LI, listening to my father listening to WQXR, which opened each morning at 6, incomprehensibly, playing “Sleigh Ride” by Andre Kostelanetz, 365 days a year.

   The new WQXR has an opportunity to reprise each afternoon’s suave, chatty descriptions of New York’s restaurants and watering holes. Rather than those diffident, but paid, messages so attractive in the 1950s, they could be similar in tone, derived from Zagats, blogs, etc.

   Cities are cultural and commercial centers, deriving their texture from pleasing commercial efforts and accidental cultural delights. Noncommercial radio need not ignore what happy patrons are saying about the best commercial services.

   Reply
3. 

   Doc Searls

   July 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm

   QXR was part of my life too, growing up in the 50s. I had one friend whose mom insisted that her kids go to sleep with the sounds of WQXR playing by the bed, no matter what. They could rock all day, but at night: classics, regardless. (That was in Connecticut, where QXR — the old AM signal on 1560 — came in well, from the transmitter in Maspeth, Queens. It was kinda beat-up and faint over in Jersey where I lived, especially at night. We lived in the northwest notch of WQXR’s night pattern.)

   Funny thing is, our youngest does this now, voluntarily. Every evening is a new classical piece, played through the stereo on the iPod or CD player through the stereo.

   I am sure WNYC will curate and expand WQXR’s franchise, and role in The City, far more than the Times would have — at least going forward.

   Again, this was a rescue, and a rather elegant one.

   Reply
4. 

   Edward Rosten

   July 24, 2009 at 1:00 pm

   Well, I hate to be the “ants” at the picnic, but boy I, never thought that “Doc” was likely to sport rose-colored glasses – certainly not on his very fine blog!

   Here’s my “rebuttal,” and then I really will (try to) hold my piece – if there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that “time will tell.”

   1) $11.5 million is a bargain for any FM signal radiating from the center of Manhattan, even in these depressed economic times.
   > Golly, I’d like some “evidence.” More importantly, “comparables” are ideal (maybe, are only really useful in those instances) when key variables match up. [Year ago prices must be deemed suspect for at least TWO reasons!] The fact that (and here I am *INDEBTED* to Doc) we are arguably very close to a paradigm shift – one where broadcast radio is a “5th wheel” makes me wonder WHAT ON EARTH NYC’s share of the $45 million purchase price got it. Again, I compare it to “walkmen” – even one in its original box TODAY only has value as a collectible.

   2) [I’ll not copy/paste further] – I am not a lawyer [methinks, Doc is] but this is the kind of thing Perry M. would have risen to cry out “calls for speculation.”

   Yes, we’re all doing some of that, but *I AM IN NYC* and Doc is not; I listen to WNYC entirely too much, but EVERYBODY agrees that WQXR and WNYC have diverged further and further as time has gone on. One can argue that the divide is now more like that between talk radio and music – I’m sure some “classic rock” devotees could adjust to some “contemporary rock” stations and vice versa – not so WQXR and WNYC. Both in terms of content and style the 2 are like oil and water. And here I come back to something I feel strongly about – WNYC *DOES* have a high-handedness about it. They are not about to retain either the people or the “product” in the interest of “diversity.” They’ll butcher it – rightly or wrongly – because they hold most of it in a kind of contempt.

   6. (and your last sentence: “[the fact that] WQXR will be a public station soon should give you more influence than ever before.”) – Wouldst that it were so. I admit that having a vision is a wonderful thing…. But if, for example, Terrance McKnight staying in Walter Cronkite’s old chair were put to a listener vote after 6 months, I don’t think he’d have a snowball’s chance…. Doesn’t matter – just as the station consulted – tops – 5 or 10 people when they embarked on spending $15 of other people’s money, they consult even fewer when it comes to critical programming decisions. Because classical music has been the “tail on the dog” forEVER in terms of WNYC’s finances and self-image, it appears not to be worth the station management’s time to ensure that it’s not self-destructing. (A more cynical person than I am would assert that mgt. wants to see it self-destruct – honestly, I think it’s just that mgt. doesn’t give a rat’s.) EVIDENCE of this is that there have been many fundraisers where they don’t even bother to “pitch” after 7 PM when classical music goes on. In short, WNYC isn’t neglecting classical music “benignly” – they’re neglecting it malignantly. I know it’s a little ungracious to throw people’s words in their face, but Doc said that FM radio in Manhattan was barely listenable in the past – clearly, a much weaker station has got to make a bad situation worse…. and yet he seems to have “turned tail” in this regard.

   I’ve predicted that post-consolidating, the number of listener-hours that the combo’s BROADCAST operation generates will decline dramatically from what WQXR and WNYC currently generate – FOR THIS, WNYC’s management spends $15 MILLION?! … This is our local version of US saves Chrysler – minus any of the RATIONAL part of that deal…. or the possibility that it may turn out well.

   8) HERE, we go from agreement on one major point to the most pronounced difference on the even more crucial point – FUNDING. That is, I agree with Doc as to WNYC’s “plans to be one of the country’s public super-stations.” … But how does spending $15 million move that forward?! Answer: It doesn’t – but it’s worse than irrelevant, because management and listener focus and resources are squandered in the process. AND – when (as I obviously fear will prove to be the case) people start to compare the WNYC/WQXR “combination” with the soon to be undone Time-Warner combination with AOL, what do you want to bet that WNYC retrenches and the powers that be insist that it go back to working in concert with WGBH or KCRW or some other viable claimant to “America’s public radio station.” … Which, by the way, may be a good thing in the long run. Because WNYC in terms of its current leadership is like a bull in a china shop. UNFORTUNATELY, they will be asking (stridently, I’d bet my last dollar) New Yorkers to pay for all the damage that they’ve embarked on doing. It’s almost as if they crave a crisis, so they can alter their very tired appeals mantra (back to) “Save Our Station!”

   Reply
5. 

   Doc Searls

   July 24, 2009 at 11:07 pm

   I’ll find some “comps.”

   Meanwhile, if you were running things at WNYC and the NYTimes, what would you have had either — or both — do?

   Reply
6. 

   Edward Rosten

   July 25, 2009 at 10:09 am

   Obviously, the Times HAD to sell. Who knows how far things (negotiations and the like) had gone before WNYC got involved, so things that appear possible may really not have been!

   I know it would raise SOMEbody’s hackles, but I have to think that 820 AM (WNYC’s frequency on that dial), sandwiched in between 2 of the 5 top NY stations – 770 WABC and 880 WCBS – could have and should have been thrown in the pot to do one of these 2 good things – avoid WNYC being on the hook for megabucks (in my book) and/or winding up with a more credible (and viable) FM frequency. If the question is – “What should WNYC do with 105.9, candidly – that barely interests me. My comparison with the AOL/Time-Warner merger strikes me as more apt than ever. NOTHING will turn this sow’s ear of a “purchase” into a silk purse. A happy ending would be to offload it (105.9) – maybe in a year or 3 if things should recover and some new technology not strip it of almost ANY value – and do something intelligent with the proceeds.

   Oh yes, one alternative – if I’m altogether (or mostly) wrong about the disparity between the 2 frequencies – I can’t quite bring myself to believe that WNYC had ZERO engineering input (I’m torn on that score, since the deal was obviously put together super super fast in JULY) – then even though Laura Walker (Ms. WNYC) ruled it out, SOMEbody should fight hard to have the pros and cons weighed judiciously:

   Putting the almost all talk stuff on 105.9 and the music on 96.3 might make a skunk of a deal merely putrid. The station mgt’s rejoinder that THAT would be too disorienting is insulting to their listenership, but they’re serial offenders in that regard.

   There’s a lot of “old money” listening to 96.3; I’ve argued as best I can that WNYC, in its arrogance, has all but kissed it off, but the “juggle” I’ve just suggested could be a financial home run for public radio.

   Reply
7. 

   Doc Searls

   July 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   Edward, your arguments against WNYC’s position (also its imputed plans, and motives) are ad corporis, or whatever one calls an ad hominem argument against a corporation. So much of what you’re saying is based on WNYC’s “arrogance” and worse that I’m beginning to doubt we can find much common ground here.

   My assessment of the deal is based on assumptions of intelligence and good will on the parts of both WNYC and the New York Times. I believe that includes WNYC’s good will toward WQXR’s legacy and listeners. Whether good judgment will follow is an open question. I happen to believe that WNYC could do more for its online listeners (such as myself — for example by dropping the annoying “pre-roll” promo every time the stream comes back on after a connection is dropped), but that doesn’t mean I think WNYC is a “serial offender”. I think they’ve done a helluva job, overall.

   As for what they’ve done with the AM signal, I think it’s pretty good, and still with room for improvement. For many in New York, AM is a better medium for reception than FM. The biggest AM stations (WFAN, WCBS, WABC, WOR) have signals that stretch from Baltimore to Providence. Even the biggest of New York FM signals are small compared to those of Dallas, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Raleigh. Even WQXR on 96.3 has trouble in the outer suburbs. A few years ago, WNYC-AM was a 1000-watt pipsqueak of a daytime-only signal that radiated from a decrepit facility across the East River at Greenpoint. Moving to share WMCA’s three-tower site across the river on the Belleville Pike in New Jersey was inspired and resourceful engineering. (Much more of that story can be found here in Scott Fybush’s report on the transmitter.) Again, given the signals WNYC-AM needs to protect, I think it has room to increase both its day and its night coverage by quite a bit. Given its history of engineering innovation, I would assume that they’ve already on that task, as well as improving 105.9. The jury (namely the FCC) is still out on that one. I don’t know if it’s possible for the FCC to allow 105.9 to oupgrade its class from B1 to B, which would allow it to radiate at higher power (all the other main New York FMs are B), but that’s certainly worth looking into. If the class change were allowed, the signal would probably need to become directional to protect another station (WHCN) on 105.9 in Hartford, which already has a directional dent toward New York City. (That station is owned by Clear Channel.) But it would certainly be stronger in other directions. And, again, WQXR as a noncommercial station will have much more leeway for translator transmitters on its coverage fringes.

   By the way, the Wikipedia entry on WNYC is pretty good.

   The bottom line here, at least for me, is that WYNC saved what could be saved of WQXR, which has far more promise as a WNYC property than it had as a property of the New York Times.

   As for the AOL/Time-Warner merger, I can’t think of anything less relevant. All mergers have problems. This one will too.

   Reply
8. 

   Sean Reiser

   July 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm

   Thanks for continuing the discussion on this, Doc. I think the thing I will miss the NY Times content on WQXR as it becomes a WNYC property. I know they got away from broadcasting the news from the floor of the Times and it’s down to a few features, but newspaper content on the radio was always a little unique because of FCC regulations and something I’ve appreciated.

   I also wrote up my thoughts of the station sale last week. I agree that this was probably the only way to keep and the spirit of WQXR alive in NYC.

   Reply
9. Doc Searls Weblog · Why WQXR is better off as a public radio station

   July 26, 2009 at 12:14 am

   […] his comment to my last post about the sale of WQXR to WNYC (and in his own blog post here), Sean Reiser makes […]

   Reply
10. 

    Chick Foxgrover

    July 26, 2009 at 1:03 am

    As a classical music lover who lives in NYC all I can say is that I hope this a save for us. QXR’s play list while comforting was pretty stale and having a heavy metal car commercial following a Chopin prelude made me turn the station off in disgust many times. NYC has reduced it’s classical music time but upped the quality of it’s “classical” programming in a way I can only think a music lover would applaud. Personally I can’t imagine a serious classical music lover would really respect much QXR’s current programming. I find it hard to understand the notion of arrogance here from an artistic point of view.

    I don’t listen to talk radio and have basically turned to internet radio for day to day listening. Now I hope to have a local station I can listen to any time of day and that is worth cheering… if I can get the signal! If there is no getting this signal then I imagine everything the critics are saying will be true.

    Reply
11. 

    Doc Searls

    July 26, 2009 at 7:11 am

    Chick, I’m guessing that NYC/QXR will have multiple classical streams, one of which will be the live one on QXR’s air. As for reception, kinda depends. Since you live in the city, reception shouldn’t be much different. Do you get the signal on 105.9 now?

    Reply
12. 

    Edward Rosten

    July 26, 2009 at 9:10 am

    Doc – I’ve learned a lot from the back-and-forth, and for that I’m very grateful. In particular, the “hope” you hold out that 105.9 can/will be upgraded is appreciated – how you know what you do is both beyond me and very impressive. (And I stand corrected on everything I said about WNYC-AM.)

    My comparison to the Time-Warner/AOL combination is, however, I believe, apt, in that any synergies there (as here) were more in the “wished for” (“it’s so *obvious* that 1+1 would = 3”) category. I’ll assert that I know more about mergers than you do, but it’s a truism (and true) that differences in “corporate culture” are the shoals on which the failures run aground. And when “culture” itself is involved, having a shared vision is always against the odds – here, the fact that WQXR “limped on” for however many years (most of the laudatory comments about it go back 2 or more decades) with a playlist with next to no overlap with WNYC’s makes me pessimistic, but let’s all hope for a good-to-excellent outcome.

    Honestly, I’m not unremittingly negative. I’ve noticed that wherever this combination is discussed, almost NOBODY grapples with the financing. Because, as is obvious, you and many interested parties are smart listeners and click once or twice to avoid pledge drives and the like (MUCH tougher for folks relying on OTA), maybe it is almost irrelevant TO YOU, but public radio is not awash with $, and I’m inclined to think that the key decision makers should pick their spots/shots with care – and that they did not do so in this context.

    For people who “came late” to all this, please note that on the earlier thread, Doc provided a list of classical music on the internet alternatives that is little short of being a goldmine!

    Reply
13. 

    Doc Searls

    July 26, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Thanks, Edward.

    First, I’ll defer to you on the matter of mergers and acquisitions. My only direct experience with one taught exactly the lesson you do here. (It didn’t work.) And I’ve watched many others over the years, most of which have also failed.

    The synergies here are those of two New York civic-minded radio institutions. The divergences are around playlists and personnel. Again, I think this can be bridged with multiple streams. But, I dunno. We’ll see.

    I think money matters enormously, and it could be that WNYC overpaid for 105.9. But it’s essential to note that the license gives WNYC/WQXR eormous leverage for building a classical network much like those of Minnesota Public Radio, Vermont Public Radio, KUSC and WGBH. This is something WQXR as a commercial station would have found impossible.

    While public radio stations all plead poverty during their pledge breaks, many actually do quite well, considering. Meanwhile commercial radio is suffering terribly. Look at who’s buying what from whom. These days noncommercial stations are buying up commercial stations and expanding networks on them (incuding classical ones, such as KUSC’s). Perhaps you’ve heard that minority broadcasters are appealing to Congress for a financial bailout. Ignore tha politics of that and look at it as a symptom of a larger problem. Minority broadcasters are canaries in the coal mine of commercial broadcasting in general. Their problem is that advertising is a bursting bubble. That’s what’s killing commercial radio stations all over the place. Rather than looking for handouts that only delay the inevitable, these broadcasters should be looking for help converting to noncommercial status. Let them collect their income directly from listeners and donors looking for warm fuzzies and tax deductions. It’s not only a better deal in general, but a more directly accountable business model. (More about all that in my latest post.)

    Reply
14. 

    terrance McKnight

    July 28, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    This thread of conversation is enthralling, but i must tear away soon and get some music programmed. thanks to all of you for this elevated discussion of wnyc’s latest acquisition. we’re all very excited with the many possibilities.

    Edward – please elaborate on your statement:
    But if, for example, Terrance McKnight staying in Walter Cronkite’s old chair were put to a listener vote after 6 months, I don’t think he’d have a snowball’s chance…. Doesn’t matter – just as the station consulted – tops – 5 or 10 people when they embarked on spending $15 of other people’s money, they consult even fewer when it comes to critical programming decisions.

    Why do you think i’d be voted out reality show style?

    Reply
15. 

    Richard Mitnick

    July 29, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Terrance-

    I am glad you are reading this stuff, here and I hope on other weblogs.

    Please check out my post on the merger at my weblog,
    http://richardmitnick.wordpress.com .

    I would appreciate your comments.

    Reply
16. 

    Edward Rosten

    July 29, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    WOW. I’m more surprised than anything else as to being in the odd situation of having written about someone I never dreamed would actually read it.

    But – as they say – I stand by my VERY off-the-cuff remark.

    Terrance – if you should come back here again – I recognize that many people (like me) may have jumped to conclusions when you came on board at WNYC, … and just as athletes sometimes need a little time (sometimes, forever – i.e., they never do) to adjust to “the big city lights,” I’m almost sure that you found yourself speaking to a great deal larger audience than previously. Moreover, you wouldn’t be human if your first week was your best week.

    It didn’t help, either, that you effectively displaced a pretty popular person.

    TO YOUR CREDIT, and I wish it were pivotal, your programming choices are intriguing and thoughtful…. But I’m with a minority of sports-viewers and – I BELIEVE AND ASSERT – a majority of classical music listeners in thinking that the words that come before or during “the action” should be very well chosen or kept to as few as possible. No more beating around the bush – you are, of course, enormously knowledgeable about music – it’s a darn shame that you offer opinions in other spheres. Of course, “it’s your right,” and you may even have gotten encouragement from someone like a producer, but to me, those remarks are invariably superficial, uninteresting, unworthy of airtime and flow-breaking.

    But, if you graze in the blogosphere, you must be aware that others find your music choices dubious or worse. Of course, it’s really not viable for anybody in your position to play music you hold in low regard instead of music you enjoy and hope your listeners will enjoy. UNFORTUNATELY, the balance between leading and following is every bit as tricky (if much less impact-ful) for a music host as it is for a politician.

    I’ve mentioned that Tanglewood plays a fair-sized role in my classical music experience and enjoyment. I’d be out of my depth if I said more than 5 or 10 words about the many talented people who’ve led the orchestra there and chosen the music to be played. SUFFICE IT TO SAY, however, that SOMEBODY must look over their choices and “suggest” that they avoid alienating too many people in the audience on too many occasions.

    I know it’s often cited about how almost anything novel in the arts is often unappreciated at the time it makes its first appearance – Stravinsky (in a music context) would, of course, probably be mentioned in that connection more than anyone else. HOWEVER, in some ways the public radio model of “asking the listeners to support the programming” almost forces people like you to heed at least some of the criticism that comes your way re programming choices. And, unfortunately, if and when you move to 105.9, whether or not it’s called WQXR – and almost regardless of what’s programmed on it BEFORE 7 PM – I’d assuming that that will continue to be your start time, at least initially – you’ll pick up an audience EVEN LESS OPEN to both your patter and your choice of music.

    I’m thankful – of course – that yours is the furthest thing from a “reality show,” where any week could be your last week…. But you walked in on some ranting on my part that WNYC’s current leadership is “all about ratings” and empire building – and I believe I’ve provided considerable evidence on both counts. So THAT is why – while I wish you well, both personally and professionally – I think you would do well to have SOMEONE YOU RESPECT sample your WNYC oeuvre to date and suggest ways in which you could simply be a better broadcaster. Going back to sports – even outside New York – you’ve got to keep your skills up to stay in the starting lineup, and since there is no “bench” at WNYC, if after some period of time, too many listeners effectively do give you a thumbs down, … well – let’s hope that you can avoid having that sentence finished for at least a few years!

    Reply
17. 

    Doc Searls

    July 29, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Edward, I know Atlanta may seem minor league next to New York. But the state has well over nine million people, and GPB — Georgia Public Broadcasting — reaches nearly all of them (plus bonus populations in South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee). It has sixteen signals from stations with their own call letters, and seven translators. It is very much the kind of extensive network that (I assume) WNYC/WQXR would like to be. While I get that you don’t like Terrance’s approach, so far, I suggest giving him, and the stations, more of a chance. And listen around to all those other classical stations online. The Internet’s dial has no limit. There’s a lot out there to choose from.

    Reply
18. 

    Richard Mitnick

    July 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    I spent literally several hundred hours in email with Brad Cresswell and George Preston in the development of wnyc2. I am just a listener, but WNYC has always taught us that members have a voice.

    I was thrilled about what wnyc2 became. I was even happier that these influences drifted over into a wonderfully resurgent Evening Music.

    When Terrance came on board, having the investment in time that I did, I sent him an email which basically said, don’t screw it up. George, I believe a mid-Westener, and not used to new York edginess, was pissed at me and I needed to send an apology, which George then said he appreciated.

    Well, Terrance did not screw it up. He has been a breath of fresh air, making the music, as I have said before, from Bach to Bessie Smith, come alive. I hope that we retain “Evening Music” and “Overnight Music” just as they are. I hope for sure that we retain Terrance.

    BTW, “Don’t Screw It Up” is a motto at either General Electric or IBM.

    >>RSM

    Reply
19. 

    Doc Searls

    July 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Thanks, Richard. I hope Terrance comes back and reads what you wrote.

    Reply
20. 

    i.a. jaffe

    August 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    so much of the above discussion is moot. Because so many listeners will hear only distorted, MONAURAL hash signals! listen now to 105.9 and hear what you get, whether in midtown or the burbs. There simply is not enough power. The FCC should monitor the listening area NOW, using 105.9, and check if there is stereo as well.This deal marks the end of WQXR for lack of audience due to the technical flaws of 105.9. The promises of repeaters and translators will never be fulfilled. Why do you think univision is making the deal? They want to increase their listnership and then their advertising revenues. They’ll get their millions back in no time.CONTACT THE FCC in Washington before its too late.

    Reply
21. 

    Richard Mitnick

    August 6, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Mr Jaffe-

    You made the same comment about contacting the FCC on my weblog, http://richardmitnick.wordpress.com .

    I again ask you, when was the last time you saw some sort of mass populist approach get anything done with the FCC?

    Also, if the FCC was satisfied with the operation of 105.9, which it must have been to approve it in the first place, they will be satisfied, no matter who is using the frequency.

    Reply
22. 

    Doc Searls

    August 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    i.a., Richard is right. The FCC will do nothing. Nor should it. This is a deal between station owners. Hundreds of these deals happen every year. Station formats change. Classical stations have been biting the dust all over the place. QXR listeners are lucky WNYC was there to do what it could.

    And listening is moving from FM to the Internet today just like it moved from AM to FM in the 60s. I can listen to WQXR and WNYC (AM, FM or “2” — its Classical station) on my iPhone right now. I listen to those and many more stations in my car, also with my iPhone, here in Boston, in California, and pretty much anywhere with cell coverage. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot less imperfect than listening to any New York FM signal under all but the most ideal conditions. All New York FM signals are weak and compromised by buildings, terrain or both, in much of their coverage areas, none of which are large.

    And if FM is all you care to hear, bear in mind that WNYC, as a noncommercial station, has much more room to add translators other signals to augment and expand what they start with on 105.9. The best thing you can do as a listener is send them money, and tell them you would like them to keep as much as possible of the WQXR that you like, and to work on augmenting the signal any way they can. Trust me, they’re already working on that.

    All of this and much more are explained in this post and earlier ones. I suggest you go back and read it.

    If you want to save WQXR.

    Reply
23. 

    tim

    October 4, 2009 at 1:40 am

    Can we get Mr. McKnight in a class on how to pronounce the composers and artists names? While he does that, I can shop for a satellite radio for my car. Laura Walker is a failure in my opinion. Her cookie cutter news/talk shows… i.e., Tell Me More/The Takeaway etc, have done nothing to enhance WNYC. They are more of the same. WQXR is doomed I’m afraid.

    ” QXR listeners are lucky WNYC was there to do what it could.” Sorry Doc, I don’t think so. WNYC’s programming has be horrendous.

    Reply
24. 

    Doc Searls

    October 4, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Tim, we’re having a “half-full” vs. “already broken” argument here. Let’s just leave it at that and see what WNYC does. The worst that can happen is that you’re right.

    Reply