Radio World Redux

I was reading the July 14th radio world, online because I still haven’t subscribed, and found this blog quoted by the editor.  More specifically, on page 4, the editor writes about this post where I debate keeping my radio world subscription.  Without actually naming the blog, asks how well he (the editor) is doing his job.

One of my aims in writing this thing is to provoke thought.  The fact that the editor of Radio World is asking his readers about the direction the publication is heading is a sign that, at least in one case, I have been successful.

My other aims are:

  • pass along useful information
  • tell my story
  • write stuff (I am compelled to write things)

Regarding Radio World itself, I still read the digital version of the magazine found on the Radio World website.  The importance of impartial reporting of radio broadcasting’s technical issues cannot be overstated.  These days there are many pressures being applied to Radio in general from things like the FCC, Big Group Radio, MMTC, Ibiquity, NPR, the recording industry, and others.  Some of these groups do not have the radio industry’s best interests in mind, but rather are looking to improve their take.  Indeed, some of the schemes proposed are technically flawed or downright destructive.  Biased reporting degrades the integrity of any publication and diminishes its value and when it comes to the most-read technical trade magazine, that is alarming.

I applaud Radio World for its recent publication of articles that bring to light HD-Radio’s technical issues.  That is a welcome development and such things should continue.   Technical writers need to be technically minded people, not someone that retypes press releases.  When it comes to new technology, the hard question need to be asked and answered, that is a reporter’s job after all.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 thoughts on “Radio World Redux”

  1. Over the past few years I have seen RW become a huge shill for HD Radio. The more I have learned about HD, through research for my my blog, the more sinister HD Radio has become. I have been hugely disappointed in RW’s backing of iBiquity. Of course, I realize that many of RW’s advertisers are HD Radio hardware manufacturers, but that is no excuse for RW’s blatent and dishonest promotion. The first casualty of HD Radio: truth. The second: reputations of those who should know better.

  2. Radio World shouldn’t be blamed for HD promotion. If the station owners, programmers, and others want to jump on the HD bandwagon, let them. AM-HD will be a washout, but FM-HD is slowly gaining momentum and will probably be viable. Articles related are newsworthy, and advertising is to be expected in a free publication. I do however wish RW would dig a little deeper into FM-HD technical topics as well as IT (Internet Technology) topics as they relate to broadcasting.

  3. I appreciate the followups to this topic, as well as John A.’s suggestions about I.T. content and the opportunity to comment. I dispute Greg’s contentions about “blatant and dishonest promotion” of HD Radio. People looking for sinister conspiracies will find them where they don’t exist. Radio World covers HD Radio as a news story, one of keen interest to people on both sides of the issue. Coverage does not equate to unbridled support. Radio World in fact has published more critical guest commentaries, anti-HD letters and online comments about IBOC than any publication; look at the comment field under almost any of our digital radio articles, or read our letters pages. (Printing critical comments is not the characteristic of a publication “covering up the truth” or being dishonest with readers.) However, I have also explained in print, on multiple occasions, that my *personal* opinion is that HD Radio, though flawed, is the best choice available today, assuming U.S. radio owners want to go digital. Still, RW is committed to covering the topic, pro and con, and providing space to critics AND supporters. I don’t pretend IBOC is an easy answer or an uncontentious techology, nor that there aren’t problems with it. But my attempts to be fair and to report these nuances are ignored by a few who have made up their minds about this and further choose to describe me and RW as “dishonest.” That’s a shame.

  4. Since Newbay Media has been visiting my blog from this article, I’de like to post another comment. A fine example of RW’s dishonest promotion of HD Radio was from that recent posting from Apple Insider that Apple was supposedly interested in including HD Radio directly in its products, which anyone could tell from the patent’s title that was simply not the case:

    “The Dark Secret iBiquity Doesn’t Want You to Know”

    “Hot in the news is a new patent application from Apple for what has been portrayed as HD Radio capability in iPods or possibly even iPhones. What’s left out of the news is one important point: We’re talking about an accessory here – not a core functional piece of the iPod hardware. That’s abundantly clear from the title of Apple’s application and completely missed by most of the radio industry trades.”

    This was just an updated patent that was filed in 2008/2009. Any reputable organization would have done a bit of reseach before posting an article under Google News, simply quoting Apple Insider. This sounds like an “insider” job, the likes of which was pulled two years earlier about Apple manufactureing an HD Radio boombox.

    As far as HD Radio, DAB was initially the chosen standard, but it was undermined by iBiquity and their cohorts. The most unprofessional indication of RW articles, has been the attacks from anonymous Guy Wire against Bob Savage and WYSL, some of which was personal. Any professional organization would not let this happen. I’m done with RW and will continue to spread the word about this flawed and destuction scam called HD Radio.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *