I believe what JHrusky is saying is the news media has been driven by creating an attractive to viewers format that creates water cooler talk and builds viewer loyalty. Naturally this is needed to compete for the ad dollars but I have noticed it has dominated over journalistic integrity where the presentation of some facts and convenient omission of other facts is the norm.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Starting a New SW Station
- Thread starter JHrusky
- Start date
There are Christian groups which are anarchist in theology, as well as Christian groups which are tightly focused on the second coming and the end-times.
I don't know whether OP subscribes to either theology, and I won't throw stones. Just pointing out that there are groups, who might be interested in this sort of broadcast.
Just to frame the question a bit:
Suppose that the second coming is tomorrow. How would you know?
Oh, I forgot that Fox, Alex Jones, and Russian media are the only beacons of truth...
As I stated, I wasn't trying to get into a political debate. Ratings tell the tale of who is more trusted today. None of the mainstream has growing ratings that I am aware of. I mentioned no names. Perhaps we should try and keep it that way instead of trying to bait someone into an argument. I thought this forum was better than that.
I don't disagree, but there are organizations out there like Reuters, the BBC, NPR etc. that do tend to be objective, pride themselves on "fact-based journalism" rather than sensationalism, and have been found to be centrist (NPR center to slight left), or to at least offer several perspectives and viewpoints in their presentation. The primary concern when moving too far away from "mainstream news" and from networks and organizations that practice fact-based journalism is that you then start to move into fringe "news" organizations and conspiracy theorists who may present their points of view in a way to make them appear to be well-researched, supported by facts and believable, but in reality they're not based in fact at all.
I would add the AP to that list.
Then don't. IMO in your original post and your followup posts, you've outlined your vision of starting a SW station, and you explained it would have a "Christian prepper" bent to it in order to lend context to the fact that you feel your programming may be unique and attractive to others. You received lots of solid feedback from many people about the idea of staring a SW station specifically. If you don't want to immerse yourself in the political or religious chatter, then don't get involved in that - but again, I'd take the advice you've been given about the SW station idea seriously. Especially from those who've "been there/done that" and have issued strong cautions against it.
A guy in their basement is the truth but a company with an actual reporting staff isn't. I'm taking it you would think Natural News, anti-vax stuff (I have a Constitutional right to cough in your face). It was 12 years ago tomorrow (Sunday) that one Harold Camping, practically brought about his Family Radio's own end times by using that date as the "Biblical" rapture. He recruited people to travel the country and even world to spread the message, bought billboards, had videos produced, did social media....the day came and went, and nothing.
I happen to believe the book of Revelation meant something when it was written, rather than being a puzzle that subsequent Christians were supposed to figure out 2000 years later.
Not at all @gr8oldies..And I think we can all name cases where someone started out with a fringe message or conspiracy theories that people bought into, and ended up leading themselves and others to a tragic end.
My comment was simply in response to @JHrusky. He explained that he'd come here hoping to get advice and guidance on setting up a SW station, but didn't want to get involved in a political debate. My comment was that he doesn't need to enter into a political or religious debate if he doesn't wish to, or defend his viewpoint on "preppers". He asked for advice about setting up a SW station of his own, and he got lots of responses and advice. Politics and religious discussion aside, he got the guidance he came here to ask about and if that's all he wishes to take away from this particular discussion thread, that's his prerogative.
as typical, people believe what they have is so sp[ecial and unique people will flock to them and or itll be so profitable.. but as often the case, it isnt. and they hold onto their sincerely held beliefs so hard with their vision that they cant accept its wrong.
I get it, im hard headed and sometimes when i get an idea in my head, im hard to be convinced otherwise, because i believe it so passionately.
And people think "worldwide" coverage means worldwide listenership.. worldwide availbility doesnt mean junk.
There is less than zero chance this persons ideas would be able to even cover expenses if they built their own station.
If they lease 2 hours a day 7 days a week from WRMI at the right time of day, could they at least cover expenses? Maybe.
But... outside of public radio and some long estbalished non controversial forms of religious radio (like Klove, and some of the bigger preaching programs).... listeners generally dont donate enough to cover costs.
Id wager i have more listeners on my tiny FM signals in tiny towns in remote alaska then this proposed SW venture would.
I get it, im hard headed and sometimes when i get an idea in my head, im hard to be convinced otherwise, because i believe it so passionately.
And people think "worldwide" coverage means worldwide listenership.. worldwide availbility doesnt mean junk.
There is less than zero chance this persons ideas would be able to even cover expenses if they built their own station.
If they lease 2 hours a day 7 days a week from WRMI at the right time of day, could they at least cover expenses? Maybe.
But... outside of public radio and some long estbalished non controversial forms of religious radio (like Klove, and some of the bigger preaching programs).... listeners generally dont donate enough to cover costs.
Id wager i have more listeners on my tiny FM signals in tiny towns in remote alaska then this proposed SW venture would.
I've posted before about this, but it warrants repetition.
I was part of an informal group that included the local or regional correspondents of AFP, Newsweek, AP, Reuters and several local news operations that gathered after every incident in Ecuador that got international coverage. We compared the reports in our own affiliated groups and that from Prensa Latina, Time, TASS and others.
What we saw, always, was that each source looked from their inherent perspective. TASS and Prensa Latina saw everything from the viewpoint of the downtrodden proletariat, while Time reflected middle-class American ideals and ideologies. While some omitted key details, most reported on the same thing but with different perspectives and differently colored lenses. However, reading some gave the impression of totally different events.
I would not. They are increasingly prone to using "colored" adjectives and terms in their reports. And they tend to give more "word count" to specific aspects of some stories that change the focal point of the report.
I'm glad you don't mind bluntness, because the last thing this nation needs right now are anymore citizens buying into ridiculous doomsday scenarios. You want to invest all this time and money to spread conspiracy theories and negativity to those most mentally vulnerable. I do not wish you success in your endeavor.
100% correct. There's a Rhythmic CHR where I live that constantly runs promos for potential advertisers saying "broadcasting to 1.2 million people across the region", and it means absolutely squat. It's just the number of people who theoretically live in the 54dBu contour of the transmitter - they aren't subscribed to ratings, so who knows how many people are actually tuned in?
They also stream, so I'm surprised they don't trumpet their listenership of 8 billion.
Okay, then on the basis of the AllSides Media Bias Chart (which I just looked up), we should remove NPR from @Mikey Radio's list as well.
I agree. My first choice now is Reuters for online breaking news. Follow that, somewhat closely with the BBC. And, for Latin America and International news. INFOBAE from Argentina.
David, because of your continuing ties to Ecuador, I will note that the BBC has been doing quite a bit of reporting about that country lately, due to the current political conflict between its President and the National Assembly.
Yes, I have noted that. I also subscribe to Primicias, a newer Ecuadorian online "journal" that is better than the local newspapers.
But, for Spanish proficient people, INFOBAE, published by Daniel Hadad who was the original owner of Mega 98.3 and Radio 10 in Buenos Aires (which I programmed) is the best international source of all.
Had Harold followed the Bible and what he was told in it, he'd have never set a date for the Rapture.