Slashdot Mirror
Who Needs Radio?
DragonMagic writes "MSNBC asks what many /.ers have been asking: Who needs the radio anymore? Rather, it goes on to really ask, who needs the RIAA anymore? With online music distribution sources, television, and the internet itself, how much longer will it be before the radio, and the RIAA, will be an obsolete means to promote artists?"
Why do you assume that only music is played over the radio? I listen to NPR for hours every day on my daily drive to/from work.
Anyone who doesn't have fast internet access or a television (or who doesn't want to pay for cable television).
Anyone who likes to camp and take a $5 transistor radio along, rather than lug a satellite uplink system for online-access.
Anyone who drives, and likes to have music or blather going while doing it (driving, that is).
In short, a LOT of people.
The problem is that the 25 mile long ethernet cable running to my car gets tangled too easy.
Or, to be more specific, I love a few radio stations. WFMU (wfmu.org; 91.1 in the NYC/NJ area), KFJC, a few other great stations. The radio we don't need is all the monopolized Clear Channel stations. We all know they suck. But great, personal, free-form radio is still out there, and with web streaming is thankfully more available than ever. Maybe I'm crazy, but I like to be surprised by what I like once in a while. Without WFMU, I'd be listening to the same stuff over and over. If you're tired of radio, you're listening to the wrong stations.
... or did everyone in the world become a computer user/music downloader over night?
...
Not everyone has a PC and not everyone get's their taste of new music from the interent.
In fact I would say that most people hear music on the radio then either buy the CD or download the mp3.
I doubt that services iTunes will make radio stations disappear
"Yeah Tommy, before Zee Germans get here
Maybe I just starting to get old, but NPR is a good way to stay abreast of the latest news during my daily commute and provides some sanity, compared to TV news stations like FoxNews. As for commercial radio, besides to occasional classic rock channel, I've found that local college radio has the best offerings.
IMO the RIAA should be turned into a reality tv show on which the executives slowly get voted off until none are left.
geek wear
How does that change the question? Can't you theoretically get talk radio content over, say, the Internet?
While driving?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Radio will be used for a long long time to come.
Ever try to watch TV without using your eyes? It is a visual medium. Most TV shows are unexciting and moronic without the visuals. Try this the next time you watch tv, tape your eyes shut, and just listen. How long before you are bored.
Radio, requires more imagination, more intellegence, and is better stimulation for the brain. Leftwingers have NPR, Rightwingers have Rush (well not at the moment).
Try making sense of beer commercials while blind. "And twins!". Lame. And don't get me started on Porn. What is the point of THAT if you are blind?
You see TV requires more attention while using less brain. Radio requires LESS attention while using MORE brain. Ever try taking apart an engine while watching TV?
I think you get the picture.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Almost every university campus has an independent radio station where almost anybody can get airtime for a few hours, and say/play what they want. I know that very few people tune in, but I really enjoy it. You get a very eclectic collection of music, and usually some "interesting" individuals. I don't think radio will ever die, even the commercial stations, mostly due to car drivers and the ability to hear music that you didn't have to actively search out, even if the music is only being played because RIAA lined that radio station's coffers.
For those Slashdotters from foreign lands just tuning in:
NPR is a good way to stay abreast of the latest news during my daily commute and provides some sanity, compared to TV news stations like FoxNews.
NPR is left wing (although it seems middle-of-the-road to liberals). Fox News is right wing (although it seems middle-of-the-road to conservatives.) NPR is commercial-free, being underwritten by corporations, donations, and tax dollars (to the great dismay of conservatives). Fox is a commercial enterprise owned by Murdoch and the top-rated newschannel on cable/satellite (to the great dismay of liberals).
Now, draw up sides, and... engage!
In case you weren't affected by the GREAT FEARSOME BLACKOUT OF 2003 , those of us who were crowded around radios to get news.
Don't forget the 20 million so-called "dittoheads" that hang on Rush's every word every day. Republican shill talk radio has never been so popular (depending on where you read your stats).
There's big money in radio and the guy who owns it is raking it in.
Speak truth to power.
Clear Channel stations are certainly not worth listening to. I used to think local call-in contests were bad enough, but Clear Channel has made them nationwide. Combine this with their highly censored playlists, their blind dedication to the war in Iraq coupled with sensationalist misreporting (a Clear Channel station here reported four buried vans in the desert as "Vindication for Bush: underground chemical weapons Labs were found today in Iraq") and their propensity for hiring the most moronic, annoying DJs possible, and you have the recipe for a radio station I never want to listen to. Contrast this with our local independent station, 99.5. They don't have call-in contests, you simply sign up as a "community member" of their station and they randomly give away concert tickets. They play an enormous variety of music, and it's rare to hear the same song played more than once in a single month. They have knowledgable DJs who discuss things you never knew about the music they play in a calm, conversational manner so it's pleasant to listen to. I conclude by saying, in the words of Frank Zappa, "KILL UGLY RADIO"
For sure. News stations that feature only news all the time are a godsend when commuting, and important in emergencies as well.
Remember The Blackout? I was at work patching the office for the Blaster worm when the lights went out. If it wasn't for radio and other wireless communication, we would have had no idea wtf was going on. Thankfully radio stations with reserve power managed to transmit so everyone could get into the car or use battery powered tranceivers to get the news updates.
I used to drive to and from Toronto all the time across a strech of the 401 and if it wasn't for 680 news I would have gotten into a lot of traffic jams.
Thus radio is still needed because it is an important way of disseminating information quickly, especially when only battery or small generator power is available.
(yes, I'm old enough to remember more than one) everything failed. My internet connection went down, my TV went black, my electric lights went out ( my oil lamps chugged along like always).
My portable radio worked like a charm and the emergency generators the radio stations employ kept them on the air.
Promoting RIAA "stars" is hardly the only use for radio. In fact, small radio stations are still the most used medium for promoting obscure music unaligned with the RIAA, why do you think they oppose the proliferation of small neighborhood radio stations?
Radio is one of the true modern marvels, its usefulness is far from past.
KFG
How about dialup users like me?
C|N>K
Well, it's a bit unfair to tout noncommercial radio on this discussion. But Pacifica Radio is full of fresh surprising viewpoints, and my local Houston affiliate kpft.org actually plays great music. It gives you a sense of how fun dj's used to be.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Rather, it goes on to really ask, who needs the RIAA anymore?
No, it doesn't. If the the submitter had read the article without his anti-RIAA glasses on, he would've realized that the article just questions the relevance of radio in a world dominated by the internet and visual media.
The article specifically mentions Kelly Clarkson and Clay Aiken. Kelly received quite a bit of radio play, while Clay was seldom heard on the airwaves but still outsold Ms. Clarkson. Quote:
But the heir to her throne, runner-up but reigning king, Clay Aiken, didn't have as much luck with radio. Deejays across the country mocked him, didn't take him seriously, and often refused to play his music. Well the joke just might be on them.
Despite little radio play, Aiken's debut album went double platinum in its first week of release, out-selling Clarkson's album by a landslide. Aiken's success serves as a shining example of the power television now has over the music industry, and the arguably insignificant power radio has these days. (emphasis mine)
This article addresses radio's lessened impact on the recording industry, and not the recording industry's impact on society.
Yeah, three groups that vote overwhelmingly liberal. I hope that's a troll, and that you're not actually as stupid as you seem.
Check out For example, according to the report (pp 13) 67 percent of Fox News listeners think there is an Al-Qauda Iraq link. only 16% of NPR-PBS listeners/watchers had the same wrong idea. If you think that there was such a link you may care to kno that the President of the United States said there was no evidence of any such link. All right, mod me down as not conservative now.