1. Public radio seems pretty neutral to war in my not-so humble opinion.
2. It's not that they're news stations trying to report on a possible future news event, it's that they're trying to increase their audiences, particularly during ratings periods (cumers are long-term listeners...faithful listeners that get counted in the CUMUlative audience). I can't really remember what a P-1 is...
3. I've worked in radio, it disgusted me that everything is so market driven in commercial radio, and sadly, public radio is heading down that sordid path.
4. They're saying to take advantage of people's fears and anger in order to boost ratings with more fear and anger.

I listen to public radio sometimes, and I almost seem to detect a hint of an anti-war slant. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just me?

Sorry, Adam, but I'm not seeing the part where the memo directs the marketing of a war. What I see are directives to provide the best coverage they can (with a lot of references to cutting to the network to get the best coverage, and to following the major news channels closely), and to marketing the radio station along the way.

Which, surprise, is exactly how news media are supposed to work.

This is not preparing to cover the news. This is marketing a war.

That's just the way things are done and you're naive to be shocked. That's just the way things are done and you're complicit to be blase'.

Edited by author 02-13-2003 03:51 AM
Wow, shocking. Radio newspeople preparing to cover a big story that everyone expects is going to happen. I always thought magic pixies reported the news. This memo really tears the wool from my eyes.
</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, this is why the news business doesn't listen anymore when people have legitimate concerns. They're so hardened from endless criticism by the hopelessly ignorant that when real problems do happen, no one listens to the self-appointed watchdogs anymore.

Crying wolf doesn't help anyone, and all this memo shows is preparation by a news team to cover what will be a really big story.

Ulysses? Gimme the anthrax ;)

Hmph. I spent this evening listening to a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) report on James Joyce's ten years in Triest. Suits me much better than hourly updates on the impending calamity that is U.S. history.

Comes the Big Gassing (tm), I'll have my mind full of ULYSSES. Better brain fodder if you ask me.

I live in range of both these stations. If the presets on the radio in my car had categories they'd look like this:
3rd tier news station - KFBK
Drivel - KSTE
NEWS - KQED (NPR from SF)
NEWS - KXJZ (when I can't hear KQED)

Sure, $FAKE_NAME, but how will this hunger for listeners bias their coverage?

News, be it print, TV, or radio, has a purpose beyond generating an audiance for advertisers.

It sounds like they're going to be offering up a steaming heap of alarmism, designed to keep people alarmed and on-edge.

I want to know what other kinds of things I can be besides a "P-1" or a "future cumer."

If you don't think every radio station, tv station, newspaper, and commercial news website has a similar document, you're sadly mistaken. it has nothing to do with wanting war to happen. If you took the time to use a search engine, you'd see that KFBK is an AM news station, and KSTE is an AM talk radio station. News radio stakes its reputation on PROVIDING NEWS. If they don't report on their home country going to war the second it happens, they're a fucking joke and don't deserve any sort of listenership. The same goes for any other news outlet. as for talk radio stations, guess what: they TALK about things. usually current events. like when there's a war, they talk about it.

I know clearchannel is "evil" and all, but they do employ journalists. Employing journalists who do their job is not what makes clear channel an evil company.