Over the past several years, I have had the pleasure of sitting in Pacifica LAB meetings and national board meetings. In these meetings, I have listened to endless impromptu lectures by various experts who profess special knowledge about the science of radio usage. As I have learned more, read more, and seen more, I have come to believe that radio, in its present form, seems to have become ossified into a static form of communication leaving many unconsidered possibilities and potentialities. I argue that a model of radio for real people requires a reciprocal relationship between the listener and the station. In such a model, the listener and station constantly interact and it is this interaction that drives the media forward into new possibilities that touch other people's lives. I also hope to demonstrate how the now-dominant commercial model of mass communication does not do that.

In the early days of radio, the medium was used as a tool for different things than it is today. Labor unions, churches, and community groups owned many radio stations. These groups "used" radio to educate, share information with one another, join together, and do some of the things that Pacifica is supposed to be doing. As time progressed, corporations saw the possibilities that radio presented for making money. These corporations colluded with government regulatory agencies to force communities off so that these commercial interests could control the majority of the radio dial.

Over the years, radio has devolved to greater levels of commodification. This "use" of radio reverberates throughout both "public" and private radio. I will treat each separately for clarity sake since each is a little different.

Needless to say, commercial radio is packed with advertisement. However, heavy commodification has also brought sanitized output with a few narrow formats that sound the same whether you are in Beaumont or Boise. Market researchers at Arbitron and other consultants inform this type of programming based on careful counts of who is listening and who is buying. Some stations are managed entirely by persons or entities outside of the communities where they broadcast. It is a no-brainer that consolidating management and programming makes good bottom-line business sense. The cost savings of one-size-fits-all programming aimed at targeted groups and consolidated management would make any Wall Street stock monger happy as a lark. However does this type of programming, the market research, and the resultant statistical constructs that advertisers believe to represent America, actually reflect the real concerns and needs of Americans? Although I am sure the executives, stockholders, and advertisers are happy, the needs and real desires of listeners are not really addressed by this faux feedback because:1) the feedback from listeners to stations is heavily constrained by existing formats and marketing models; 2) it is possible (if not highly probable) that samples are biased toward commercially viable demographic groups.

Sadly, NPR has been completely commodified, as well. The approach to broadcasting at NPR is again informed by Arbitron ratings and the various audience consultants hired to help them discover and exploit their market niche. The current programming illustrates this clearly. All Things Considered and Morning Edition are crammed with a form of advertising, corporate sponsorship. Certain segments of airtime are brought to you by Dynegy, BP, Frost Bank etc. These corporations get a plug every time they fork over a contribution. Given their underwriters, it is not surprising that the content of NPR’s "news programs" are weighted heavily on human interest, sports, music, business and the opinions of talking heads. Investigative journalism, hard-hitting reportage, and thoughtful commentary are all on the wane at NPR. Coverage of local news at KUHF, the Houston NPR affiliate, is practically moribund. Consider the recent KUHF series on the Texas Medical Center, which was more of an infomercial for various Medical Center institutions. It made no attempt at a serious treatment of the history and current relationship of the Texas Medical Center to the community.

The remainder of the programming on KUHF is classical music that appeals to a small and very selective audience. The music programming is again, partially funded by business interests as well as by the narrow sector of affluent listeners that they target. Not much care is given to the notion that everyone antes up for NPR through their taxes and that KUHF really only serves a small fraction of the population (i.e. their business benefactors as well as individual listeners, and contributors from the artistic and cultural elite). Out of this deal, NPR and its affiliates can maintain solid fiscal footing and thus are saved from the oblivion once threatened by Jessie Helms and others. The big donors get a business or ego boost. A selected population gets to hear their Bach, Car Talk, and Cokie Roberts.

When the legions of professional radio consultants penetrated the bowels of Pacifica management, their message to the PNB was that the network had to get in sync with the way people "use" radio. As I understand it, the media consultants brought their focus groups, Arbitron, and the usual commercial methodologies to bear on the grave problems at Pacifica. The result has been the dumbing-down of the network as well as actual commercialization of some aspects of programming. As was true with NPR and the commercial stations, no one bothered to ask Pacifica listeners how they felt about all of this and what they believed were the key issues for the survival of the network. Instead, they, in effect, told listeners, programmers, and other stakeholders to stand aside and give them the space to apply their special knowledge. What they actually did was fire the listeners as they went about making the stations healthy (read, marketable).

It is obvious that the manner in which people "use" radio is determined in part by they way it is offered. However, being that the airwaves are indeed publicly owned and are supposed to be operated in the public interest, their content and direction should be shaped by wants and needs of the listeners as opposed to owners, programmers, advertisers or cultural élites. This second part of the reciprocal relationship is what seems to be missing today. The problem is that the same persons who evaluate radio's success as a medium for reaching people do so from a business and commerce model. Thus, they ask only one type of question, constrain the range of possible choices, and therefore, partially determine the answers. In effect, they create a faux feedback system that serves no purpose except to reinforce and reify one model of radio "usage". Thus, the input of such consultants and their commercial broadcast models cannot provide a true picture of how radio can work in the public interest.

Nobody really asks people the very important question: If radio could be whatever you want, what would you want? Not all of us might like some of the answers we would hear. However, such tough questions are key to creating organic people centered media.

With the current changes at Pacifica, we are working to bring the network back to its original purposes. I ask all who read this to think about what radio is and could be to you. Ask yourself if you are really happy with what you hear? Make a list of new radio uses. Talk with friends and family. The product of your deliberations could be offered up for publication here if you wish, or provided as community input at an iLAB meeting, or remain as food for continued thought.