Barth made the comment "why shouldn’t NPR, PRI, APM and PRX all merge?" but I'd take that one giant leap forward. Why can't PBS and APTS and others in the TV realm join in that merger?
In fact, I'd be more specific. We need to create a new metaphor and model -- public media -- and we need to absorb all the old players into this new system. It would be the replacement for NPR and PBS and all the other national players, and it would be the replacement for all the "stations" out there from one edge of the country to the other.
All the "stations" (radio and TV) would be collapsed into local and regional public media aggregators and distributors that focus on providing the best mix of public media -- sourced from all over the system -- to their particular audiences.
The localized branches of this public media ecosystem would produce their own media and collect it from producers in their area, whether paid professionals or amateurs. It all gets tagged and dropped into a distributed content management system that has a common backend but a distributed design that does not store all the media centrally but leaves it in a distributed net.
Anyway, the design would roll on from there, but my central point is, why should we merge all the radio units and leave TV behind? Let's finally take on the banner of "public media" in the broadest sense and learn how to both serve and engage the public nationwide with text, audio, video, still pictures and other data, and serve it up via broadcast, download, stream, search, physical distribution, etc.?
Laura Harbert Allen
· 3 years ago
Amen...
Blown away by all of John's points. As a young (less than 40) pubrad producer/PD...I have been asking many of these same questions.
The fear of risk/failure is a biggie. It's so institutionalized in pub rad right now.
I am sure of one thing: If we as an industry don't address many of these issues...they will be addressed in ways we may not like.
Administrator
· 3 years ago
John, I want TV in the mix, too, for a variety of reasons, including public TV's need to find millions of additional dollars to invest in new and existing programming strands. Some of this money could come from a re-imagining of the system. I think it can be argued quite persuasively, that the current models are weighing us down.
All Comments
In fact, I'd be more specific. We need to create a new metaphor and model -- public media -- and we need to absorb all the old players into this new system. It would be the replacement for NPR and PBS and all the other national players, and it would be the replacement for all the "stations" out there from one edge of the country to the other.
All the "stations" (radio and TV) would be collapsed into local and regional public media aggregators and distributors that focus on providing the best mix of public media -- sourced from all over the system -- to their particular audiences.
The localized branches of this public media ecosystem would produce their own media and collect it from producers in their area, whether paid professionals or amateurs. It all gets tagged and dropped into a distributed content management system that has a common backend but a distributed design that does not store all the media centrally but leaves it in a distributed net.
Anyway, the design would roll on from there, but my central point is, why should we merge all the radio units and leave TV behind? Let's finally take on the banner of "public media" in the broadest sense and learn how to both serve and engage the public nationwide with text, audio, video, still pictures and other data, and serve it up via broadcast, download, stream, search, physical distribution, etc.?
Blown away by all of John's points. As a young (less than 40) pubrad producer/PD...I have been asking many of these same questions.
The fear of risk/failure is a biggie. It's so institutionalized in pub rad right now.
I am sure of one thing: If we as an industry don't address many of these issues...they will be addressed in ways we may not like.