WGN Radio Is Hell-Bent On Self-Destruction, Story In The New York Times

Sunday’s edition of The New York Times underscores what many in the midwest have been talking about for many months.  WGN radio is hell-bent on self-destruction.  There are some that say any PR, is good PR.  When it comes to WGN radio that is not the case.  No one….and I mean NO ONE….is applauding the changes to on-air talent on the once powerhouse Chicago radio station.  There is nothing but scorn and dismay at the ripping apart of a once proud and much-loved radio station.   The fact is the management at the station gets a hefty check to destroy a name brand institution.  That perhaps is the most baffling part of all of this.

The folksy banter from talk-show hosts — who in some cases have stayed with the powerhouse station for more than 20 years — helped build a special bond with an audience that became the envy of others in the industry for the long hours Chicagoans spent listening each day. Until recently, WGN was the city’s most lucrative and widely listened to station, one that seemed to deserve its familiar tag line “The Voice of Chicago.”

But a spate of changes — the recent ouster of a well-known daytime host, the hiring of a former jailed politician to replace a popular sports show at night, and an unfamiliar name from out of town occupying its prized morning slot — has produced a negative response. Some observers question whether the city is witnessing the beginnings of one of the biggest radio blunders in Chicago media history.

“At some point, this will be a case study of how to dismantle a radio station,” said Paula Hambrick, a longtime local radio media buyer. “People were such loyal listeners, 10 hours a day. They’re upset and angry, and they are going to look for places to park themselves.”

Last year, WGN was the only Top 5 station in Chicago to lose market share. It dropped to 8.1 percent of advertising dollars billed from 8.5 percent, good for second place in the market, according to data compiled by BIA/Kelsey. At the same time, the news station WBBM-AM 780, the No. 1 biller in the city, increased its share of the advertising pie to 8.9 percent in 2009 from 8.6 percent in 2008.

WGN’s 2009 advertising revenue was $36.5 million, compared with $44.5 million in 2008, an 18 percent decline in a year when the overall market was down.

Book Readers Vs. Internet Users

Yesterday David Brooks wrote a column in The New York Times that deserves a ponder.  Over and over again many of us discuss the impact of technology on our society. I lament the lack of communication skills that results from the use of gadgets and devices that limit the use of full sentences in either verbal or written form.  I cringe at the lack of newspaper readers, or the fewer number of those that bury their nose in a book.  I was pleased to read Brooks’ column that echoes my underlying concerns and assumptions.

These two studies feed into the debate that is now surrounding Nicholas Carr’s book, “The Shallows.” Carr argues that the Internet is leading to a short-attention-span culture. He cites a pile of research showing that the multidistraction, hyperlink world degrades people’s abilities to engage in deep thought or serious contemplation.

Carr’s argument has been challenged. His critics point to evidence that suggests that playing computer games and performing Internet searches actually improves a person’s ability to process information and focus attention. The Internet, they say, is a boon to schooling, not a threat.

But there was one interesting observation made by a philanthropist who gives books to disadvantaged kids. It’s not the physical presence of the books that produces the biggest impact, she suggested. It’s the change in the way the students see themselves as they build a home library. They see themselves as readers, as members of a different group.

The Internet-versus-books debate is conducted on the supposition that the medium is the message. But sometimes the medium is just the medium. What matters is the way people think about themselves while engaged in the two activities. A person who becomes a citizen of the literary world enters a hierarchical universe. There are classic works of literature at the top and beach reading at the bottom.

A person enters this world as a novice, and slowly studies the works of great writers and scholars. Readers immerse themselves in deep, alternative worlds and hope to gain some lasting wisdom. Respect is paid to the writers who transmit that wisdom.

A citizen of the Internet has a very different experience. The Internet smashes hierarchy and is not marked by deference. Maybe it would be different if it had been invented in Victorian England, but Internet culture is set in contemporary America. Internet culture is egalitarian. The young are more accomplished than the old. The new media is supposedly savvier than the old media. The dominant activity is free-wheeling, disrespectful, antiauthority disputation.

These different cultures foster different types of learning. The great essayist Joseph Epstein once distinguished between being well informed, being hip and being cultivated. The Internet helps you become well informed — knowledgeable about current events, the latest controversies and important trends. The Internet also helps you become hip — to learn about what’s going on, as Epstein writes, “in those lively waters outside the boring mainstream.”

But the literary world is still better at helping you become cultivated, mastering significant things of lasting import. To learn these sorts of things, you have to defer to greater minds than your own. You have to take the time to immerse yourself in a great writer’s world. You have to respect the authority of the teacher.

Right now, the literary world is better at encouraging this kind of identity. The Internet culture may produce better conversationalists, but the literary culture still produces better students.

Sunday Echoes: Rona Barrett

Here is a name from the past.  As we sat with friends recently for late-night chat the name Rona Barrett came up.  I had not thought of her for many years.  As a teenager I recall her few minutes allotted to show-biz gossip on “Good Morning America”.  It was always tinged with scandal and surprise.  I always hoped the segment would run before I had to catch the school bus, and was disappointed when it did not.   But somewhere along the way she slipped off the national radar.  She is now living full-time on her ranch and raising fields of lavender.  Today she is back…..on Sunday Echoes….. doing what she did best…..giving up the gossip.