How to Set Fire to a False Flag

It was about 1 year ago when I first heard public service announcements (PSAs) on Radio One's WMMJ 102.3 alerting listeners to 'Reality Radio' -- a call to arms against the Performance Royalties Act, H.R. 848, as introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. John Conyers.  The PSAs frame H.R. 848 as a direct threat to Black broadcasters (and by extension, 'urban' radio) with its proposed royalty schedule's supposedly onorous effect on station operating expenses.   According to the PSAs' announcer, Radio One chairwoman Catherine Hughes, the royalty is prohibitive to the point Black broadcasters, many with already tenuous financial situations in a tight economy, will end up going out of business.  Implicit in Hughes' arguement is the fallacy should Black broadcasters disappear,  urban radio formats will disappear with them.

Listeners were instructed at the end of the PSAs to contact U.S. Representative Donna Edwards about H.R. 848.  I wrote the following to Rep. Edwards:

July 1, 2009

The Honorable Donna Edwards
U.S. House of Representatives
318 Cannon House Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

I am writing to urge your support of H.R. 848, the Performance Rights Act bill, introduced by Rep. Conyers. Your name is provided as the contact person in a commercial currently being broadcast on WMMJ 102.3 FM in Washington, D.C.. I telephoned your office to provide my comments on the issue, but feel more explanation is needed than a simple rejection or endorsement of legislation..

As you may know, many performers ‘cover’ lyrics published by third parties when creating recordings, and that unlike songwriters and composers (and in many cases, record labels), these performers do not receive performance royalties when their work is aired by broadcast radio and television stations. I have a minor philosophical objection to paying a royalty to someone for whom as a broadcaster I’m otherwise (1) providing a forum for exhibition but (2) not generating income from sales of their production. However, the objection is mooted by certain realities of the recording and broadcast industries. Radio stations like WMMJ indirectly earn tens of thousands of dollars annually from the exhibition of songs from performers covering lyrics owned by a 3rd party. Broadcasters currently pay publishing royalties, so I fail to understand the rationale for their not paying a performance royalty, especially since Internet, satellite, and cable radio stations pay performance royalties -- to a much more prohibitive and regressive schedule in the case of the webcasters. Over-the-air broadcasters should not be exempted from the same requirements.

I propose you endorse H.R. 848 with two caveats: that the tax be progressive -- with marginal rate brackets created to avoid creating disincentives for small- and medium-sized radio stations; that similar modifications be made to the current law as pertaining to performance royalties for web- and satcasters in order to ensure more competition between all these radio media.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not reside in your district. But I have worked in broadcasting and presently consult on various new media projects, including Internet radio, and IPTV. I would be happy to make myself available to share my knowledge and experience on these industries upon request. Thank you for your continued service to the public.

Sincerely,

William L. Tucker, Jr.

My point in writing to Rep. Edwards was not to call out Hughes or RadioOne for hypocrisy and demagoguery.  Given the dynamics between broadcasters and their audiences, there's no way for me as a listener to affect significant reforms upon Hughes and Al Liggins' style of management or programming decisions.  I am guided by a larger principle: performing artists are entitled to a royalty from broadcasters just as are lyricists and composers.  There's no valid justification or philosophical rationale for exempting broadcasters from the same copyright regulations satcasters and webcasters are obliged to follow.  Hughes, Liggins, and other broadcasters are certainly aware how the status quo benefits them while it exploits countless numbers of performers.  So since copyright law is a political issue, I felt the most effective venue for action is our political system.  I voiced my opinion to a member of Congress.  I urge every reader of this essay who feels similarly moved to do likewise.

Radio Wars, Episode II: Radio Narcissus

Just the other day I weighed in on Facebook link to a blog thread about new media.  The blog, Darryl Williams' Full Cirkle Media Group, features various news and issues about radio as it promotes Williams' media consulting services.  What piqued my interest was Williams' comments on streaming, podcasts, and Internet radio.

Apparently, Williams sees himself as some sort of patron saint-gatekeeper for reconciling traditional radio with today's technologies.  A Stanley Crouch for radio, as it were.  In his essay New Media , Williams distinguishes between Internet radio and podcasting as streaming versus prerecorded content, insinuating podcasts shouldn't be recognized as Internet radio programs because they aren't 'live'.

I responded on the Facebook thread with a more complete presentation of streaming and podcasting, explaining them as separate, but complimentary technologies: podcasts are digital media files which may be downloaded onto media players and other devices but are ultimately streamed when played back.  I went on to note podcasts can be 'live' or prerecorded, and cited BlogTalkRadio as an example whereby a general consensus of both media and IT industry pros, and laypersons consider audio-only podcasts Internet radio. 

April Sims -- provider of the link on Facebook and proprietor of WAGTIradio.com -- then Williams replied to my post with crypto-insults of varying acerbity.  Sims asked if my intention was to "flex" my knowledge (suggesting me as intellectual bully) or solicit Williams' services; Williams attacked my credibility on the account of not having foresight about Internet radio's future.... before backpeddling away from his own definitions as those of, "... all major recording platforms regarding digital media".  At least Sims had the presence of mind to stumble and trip through a half-apology after reading my motivation for adding in my two cents.  (Which leads me to ask -- with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek -- why is it so many bloggers to sites like Facebook reflexively attack dissenting opinions that, hypothetically, they're eliciting with their commentaries?)

I suppose Williams also experienced a subsequent moment of clarity, for he invited me to link up with him on Facebook.  Accepting his invitation, I took the opportunity to expound on my earlier point and get to the root of his objection to podcasts as Internet radio.  Williams dismissed the technical explanations as sophistry, alternately posing himself and the aforementioned secret cabal of media people as reliable sources.  He didn't want to get into a battle of wits or "so-called expertise" over semantics, to let him tell it, as if his semantics and so-called expertise was sufficient authority to ignore the evidence.  It was at this point when I thought qualifying my credentials as a fellow professional in media and information technology would calm the rising current of umbrage I sensed coming from Williams.  I had peed in his cornflakes you see, by deconstructing his psuedo-technical rhetoric, and nothing short of me sacrificing myself on the Altar of Political Correctness would exonerate me as a radio/new media heretic. 

I ended my exchange with Williams by asking the practical value in defining Internet radio so narrowly.  He sent a message, again demurring from a war of words with a (suggested) radio/new media dilettante and would-be agent provocateur while resurrecting an opaque defense on behalf of the radio industry.  And then, in the passive-aggressive tradition of intellectual frauds/roadside montebanks like Professor Marvel, he 'defriended' me while providing his phone number to talk further.

If I hadn't yet become fully skeptical about engaging Williams as a peer, imagine my attitude upon discovering my defriending his post-mortem: "Why some people feel the need to appear to have the corner on technology and understanding is beyond me".  To which I say, pot, meet kettle.  Good luck protecting the future of radio from innovation.

D.C.: A Music Mecca's Unrequited Love

A number of prominent, internationally-known musicians have claimed the greater Washington, D.C. area as their home.  Representing nearly every genre, they include Duke and Mercer Ellington, Marvin Gaye, Tori Amos, Billy Eckstine, Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters & Nirvana), Roberta Flack, Patsy Cline, Jelly Roll Morton, the Blackbyrds, Bo Diddley, Henry Rollins, Denyce Graves, and others.  Venues like Bohemian Caverns and the Lincoln Theater were the basis of the U Street corridor's reputation as "Washington's Black Broadway".  The nation's capitol even has its own native music genre -- Go-Go -- and has a significant (though underground) House/Electronic music scene.  According to Wikipedia, the D.C. area, "... is also an important center for indie music and culture in the United States", and, "... a prominent center for national and international media".  So, it's disappointing that even with the recent emergence of D.C.-based acts like Wale, Good Charlotte, and Raheem DeVaughn onto the national scene that local 'indie' artists get relatively little support from the local media outlets and purpose-built entertainment venues. 

As a member of r.e.a.c.t.'s advisory board, your input will help shape D.C.'s music scene for the benefit of the region's emerging artists, fans, and entrepreneurs.  Our individual resources can be combined to:

• promote music and performing artists of the Washington, D.C. region
• develop a network of affiliate performance spaces, media outlets, and business/professional services that support local independents
• establish a viable minimum compensation formula for 'live' performances in area venues
• fund grants and endowments.

r.e.a.c.t. is open to input from anyone in any part of the greater D.C. community.  For consideration as an advisory board member, add to this thread a brief factoid about yourself, or your organization, your interest in local music, and your ideas in support of the organization's cause.  Submissions are open now through May 28, 2010.

r.e.a.c.t. to be Established as a Non-Profit Organization

An informal consensus of local performing artists, media and entertainment pros, and otherwise inquiring minds I've spoken with over the last several months has convinced me to form Regional Entertainment Arts and Community Telecom -- r.e.a.c.t. -- as a non-profit organization.   r.e.a.c.t. will serve as the corporate framework for the Death Star, providing administrative, financial, marketing, and technical support to its individual chapters and affiliates.

As r.e.a.c.t.'s acquisition (or launching) of an over-the-air radio outlet in the D.C. metro area is the first objective, the process of seating a board of directors and drafting articles of incorporation has become urgent.  I anticipate those individuals whom make commitments at the inaugural meeting will become the organization's directors, and they'll go on to craft policies consistent with my ideas on media, content, and community.

My biggest hope, however, is that r.e.a.c.t. is eventually seen as a model of organization and social responsibility for its members and the general public.  For example, there are numerous groups dedicated in some fashion to the cause of indie music, and many of them are, IMO, correctly concerned about the conventional business practices of modern media companies.  What goes unaddressed is the legitimate roles institutions play in our society, and how best to adapt those institutions to achieve specific results.  So if the goal is to ensure performers are paid fairly for their live performances, effort would be better spent on organizing to open proprietary venues rather than lobbying the status quo to change.  He who has the gold makes the rules, right?

Radio Wars, Episode I: Attack of the Drones

I know several people who are podcasting through the social networking outlet, BlogTalkRadio.com.  Frankly, I don't know what to make of it.

I'm a huge advocate of podcasting.  Podcasting has unlimited potential and jells with my beliefs about technology's value to society.  Podcasting, in practice, empowers a lot of people, just as I imagine Gutenberg's invention of the printing press empowered a lot of people centuries ago.  I'm not as much sold on social networking sites, i.e.; Yahoo! 360, MySpace, Facebook, etc., even though I have accounts with eight (?!?!) different sites.  I'm inactive on two of these sites -- Ning and Multiply -- and rarely active on BlackPlanet.  I'll deactivate my accounts on those sites shortly.

The remaining sites I visit with varying frequency, each for a slightly different purpose from the others.  I've been on Yahoo!360 the longest.  I kept a blog there as a public sketch pad of sorts on various ideas.  I use LinkedIn for professional contacts; prospecting and referrals.  Over at MySpace, I maintain a page for r.e.a.c.t. (the Death Star's radio network), and correspond directly with performing artists and music industry professionals.  On Meetup, I participate in groups representing specific interests of mine.  I meet a lot of individuals in the process of building up r.e.a.c.t. and as best as I can tell, not many are immune from the novelty appeal of each new social networking site as it launches.  They migrate like a herd of cattle to sign up with whichever site that's currently anointed as The New Hotness.

One such site is BlogTalkRadio, which combines the conventional features of social networking sites with audio podcasting.  With BlogTalkRadio, anyone with just a computer and broadband access can host an Internet talk radio show.  No microphone, studio equipment, or podcasting software is needed.  Best of all, you can podcast on a limited basis for free.  At this point, I must emphasize again that I believe the technology of podcasting is great and holds a tremendous amount of potential for users.  In practice, though...

BlogTalkRadio has enabled a virtual wave (no pun intended) of self-promoting Oprah wannabes, most of whom are looking to establish themselves as name brands using the 21st century equivalent of playing 45s on the family record player with a few of your best friends in the den.  I do understand the appeal of amateur broadcasting, but unlike ham radio operators, BlogTalkRadio members appear to be focused on a higher goal, e.g.; MAKING MONEY.  I don't begrudge anyone from making an honest buck, but a lot of the BlogTalkRadio crowd will have you believe differently, as if they're a) promoting a charitable cause or, b) really providing you with an outstanding advertising opportunity.   Another of my best friends who happens to be a professional journalist has been so seduced by the BlogTalkRadio craze, he dutifully reports for weekly debates on another member's podcast (!) like he's getting paid.  (He's not.)

I've attempted to network with several BlogTalkRadio podcasters under the assumption they would welcome the opportunities to leverage r.e.a.c.t. as a conventional media resource.  Silly me.  I have my doubts as whether they recognize n-e-t-w-o-r-k-i-n-g is a two-way ('interactive', for you nerds) endeavor that requires users to cede something in consideration of the resource.  I am regularly spammed on Facebook by four different individuals to this end, and I find it a bit annoying, if not all out hypocritical, because they aren't about returning the love.  When you throw a dance, you gotta pay the band, right?

I'm content with feeling BlogTalkRadio's podcasters aren't much different from those who ran out and bought CB radios in the 70s, only to waste the bandwidth blabbing on and on about their various personal melodramas.  The people serious about radio, music, and/or webcasting are on a different frequency.

Bill Press Hits the Bullseye on D.C. Radio

Bill Press absolutely makes a spot-on commentary here writing on the state of talk radio in D.C.

To summarize, political discourse was one of the casualties resulting from the deregulation of broadcast radio and television. Until 1987, broadcasters were required to abide by a F.C.C. rule called the Fairness Doctrine whereby a small amount of time was to be reserved by the radio or TV station for public comment. The idea behind the Fairness Doctrine was to protect the public's interest from gov't and corporate propaganda.

Since the Fairness Doctrine's repeal, news and public affairs programming on radio and television has become kabuki theater. In its place is something that's supposed to look like news and political debate, but really isn't. News talk radio has become particularly banal with the likes of right-wing carneys like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity dominating the medium. Press tells of Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting's decision to, "... jettison all progressive talk...", on 1260 AM, "... and replace it with pre-recorded financial advice programming". Red Zebra has built rather quickly a regional radio network out of mostly mediocre performing D.C.-area AMers, including WTNT 570, WTEM 980, WHFS 158o, and WWDC 1260 -- probably looking to better leverage the Redskins with advertisers. While the company's motives for buying the stations and making programming decisions are certainly understandable, it's another question entirely whether permitting such ownership groups in a given market is in the best interests of the public... y'know.... the folks who actually own the airwaves.

Press argues -- correctly in my view -- for the Fairness Doctrine to be resurrected by the FCC, and if not by them, by congressional mandate. In its original form, the Fairness Doctrine ensured the discussion of controversial topics and dissenting viewpoints over the airwaves. Because broadcast TV and radio frequencies are scarce physical resources, protecting the public's access to them is an important civil liberties principle. I also believe re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine would make for more dynamic, provocative radio & TV news/talk programming as listeners are more likely to participate in topics they find interesting, once they're provided expanded opportunities for comment. Given what today's broadcasters face in competition from the Internet, Satrad, mobile media devices, PCs, etc., you'd think they'd be eager to embrace any strategy that attracts a larger audience.

Unfortunately, the ownership rules have been relaxed to the point that restoring the Fairness Doctrine by itself might not achieve the level of programming diversity Press and others (including myself) prefer as optimum. It should be 1 part of a vigorous licensing policy applied to U.S. broadcasters designed to ensure maximum competition on behalf of the public interest. For the time being, however, bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would be a good first step.

A D.C. Radio Station by the People, for the People..

First, I can't overstate how strongly I feel this venture is about community. It's about organizing people around a shared interest in promoting music and public affairs of the Washington-Baltimore metroplex. It's about coming together, exchanging ideas, trying new ways of doing things, and learning from one another in the context of a viable business.

I want to thank in advance those of you who'll decide to give this project a spin. Starting a radio outlet is an ambitious challenge for anyone; I'm sure there'll be some who'll discover this is not for them, but will still get something of value from the experience. That's the exciting part about exploration, isn't it? Getting there from here is half of the fun.

To launch and operate our radio station, an energetic stream of input will be needed from musicians, students, record labels, music lovers, performing artists, IT and broadcast professionals, writers, journalists, event planners, civic activists, small businesses, marketing consultants... well, everyone and anyone. I've decided, half-jokingly, to call the project a Death Star because its business model will be a significant departure from broadcasting orthodoxy, and yet its organization will be so fundamental and transparent as to make the whole venture appear commonplace. Not only will the station's operation be influenced by you -- its supporters -- you'll share in the ownership of the venture.

My inspiration comes from many sources: years spent in and around non-commercial and commercial broadcasting; the evolution of the Internet and digital culture; the many D.C.-based musicians and performing artists I've met; untold hundreds of conversations with people from all walks of life, in a variety of settings, about music, media, and radio.  What I've discovered is there's a general consensus that believes mass media generally, and broadcast radio specifically, isn't about local voices anymore.  Radio programming has become increasingly centralized and homogenous... McDonald's-like.  Generic.  If you were to travel between cities, turn on your radio, and scan up and down the dial, it would be nearly impossible to tell you've changed locations.  Not only is the lack of programming diversity apparent across the dial nationwide, the individual stations within a market each feature tightly regimented playlists and syndicated content.   This is the state of the industry today as a result of its control concentrated in the hands of a few, as influenced by broadcasting deregulation and American-style economics.

Now, I'm not an opponent of commercial radio.  Neither am I categorically against a corporation holding multiple licenses, within reason.  I have no objection to a network of station affiliates. But it is clear the conventional point-to-multipoint (P2MP) broadcasting architecture is no longer competitive for content producers, broadcasters, sponsors, or consumers in a world of Web 2.0, digital content, and iPods.  A radical re-thinking of what a radio station does and how it does it is in order, and the solution's more complex than streaming broadcasts over the 'net and offering podcasts.

The Death Star project is my attempt at a solution.  It involves a fusion of various technological and business elements to be sure, but specifically, it's a listener-supported radio station organized as a cooperative.  A limited, and permanently fixed number of memberships will be offered by way of a direct campaign at $25 (student), $50, $100, and $250 (business/professional) levels -- securing for each member a part of ownership, with the more expensive memberships each conferring various privileges onto the member.  The members will collectively split a minimum of 50% ownership in the venture.   An annual membership dues schedule will be decided once a revenue model and budget has been determined through election by members.

The next step is to convene an organizational meeting so that a board of directors may be seated, and an organizational mission statement drafted.  It will be this initial group of organizers who'll help with the inaugural membership drive, as well as help shape the venture's operation and goals.  February 19, 2009 is the tentative date for the first meeting at a location to be announced.  Registration forms will be forwarded upon receipt of all e-mail requests.