Media Grab Bag: WMNF and Why Cavemen Is Still Drawing Breath

In case you missed it, my colleague Brendan Watson did an interesting story last week about community radio station WMNF, noting that its latest fund drive marks the second time this year the station has failed to meet its fundraising goals.

The shortfalls are relatively small -- $50,000 in the spring and $22,000 this fall. But the trend is alarming, because the station joins public radio station WUSF-FM as Tampa's largest alternatives to the soul-deadening stuff clogging most commercial radio stations.

Brendan's piece cites a bunch of possibilities for the problem, including too-ambitious fundraising goals or the Columbus Day holiday. But I've always wondered about the way WMNF's fundraising works, which can make it difficult for new listeners to grow attached to the station.

When programming is supported by direct pledges, you can wind up with a schedule filled with programming which appeals to a small audience willing to pay for it. So WMNF winds up airing lectures by deceased Buddhist Alan Watts because a dedicated cadre of listeners ponies up pledges. But that doesn't help the station develop new listeners at lunchtime, and if the old supporters falter for any reason, you're really in trouble.

I have no idea whether that's a factor here. But I often wonder how a station like WMNF can feature more inclusive programming at key hours, if it gets too closely tethered to contributors whose tastes are more eclectic.

Today Show Goes to Earth's End for Story

The email we TV writers all got was enigmatic, telling us to call in at midday Tuesday for an conference call with all the marquee names on the Today show, along with it's executive producer Jim Bell. Industry blogs theorized that Bell was losing his job -- though I doubted that, because the networks never hold big, glitzy press conference to fire somebody. Turns out, Today's anchors will simultaneously broadcast from the top and bottom the world in early November as part of a green initiative by NBC parent NBC Universal.

It seems nobody has even done such a broadcast before. I'm wondering if that's because its actually kind of a boring idea....

Borderline TV Shows May Thank Writers Strike for Continued Life

Wayne Friedman at Mediapost's TV Watch theorizes that one reason why we haven't seen many new show cancellations in the new season's fourth week -- only Fox's Nashville has been yanked; only CW's Gossip Girl has been picked up for a full season -- is because of the looming possibility of writer's strike in Hollywood.

Friedman notes marginal new shows have been given orders for additional scripts -- allowing networks to stockpile material for a while. The by product of that for series, is that nets may resist canceling shows at such an uncertain time, giving some borderline shows a bit more time to find an audience than they would normally get.

Usually, that would be a development I'd champion as a TV critic. But that also means we may have to suffer through Cavemen for a few more weeks -- which is a bit more sacrifice than I had planned.

Comments

[Lin Young]

I enjoy listening to WMNF sometimes, I think its a great station. But it's a niche station, which is sometimes just a little too intense. For example, I can listen to 1 polka song every year or so, but not an entire show full of them. WUSF is good, but it lacks variety and both stations are stuck too much in the past. Increasingly, I tune into WNYC for its diverse cultural and classical music and its thoughtful talk shows with guests who are discussing relevant issues, especially the Leonard Lopate and Brian Lehrer shows.

[Rob Lorei]

Hi Eric,

No offense taken. The dilemma over Watts gives an insight into what non-commercial tv/radio programmers face everywhere. If our mission is to not play to the lowest common denominator- when we have a "niche" show with a loyal following- how do we handle it? Do we cancel it? Do we move it outside radio primetime- where it might fail? WMNF does tend to "whipsaw" listeners because our programming changes swiftly from genre to genre. Some people like it (in the same way that people would like to hear Miles Davis/Lee "Scratch" Perry/Esquivel in the same set.) Others wish we were more homogenous.

As for Tom's point that we don't offer an alternative to the mainstream media because they are "predominantly liberal". I'm sure many true liberals would disagree. The liberal position (if you read the liberal magazines/blogs)is: end the Iraq War quickly, call torture what it is: unAmerican, restore habeus corpus, provide health insurance for all, pay all workers a decent wage, stop corporations and the wealthy from buying elections, end urban sprawl, stop outsourcing good paying jobs, protect the social gains of the 1940's and the 1960's, etc. We can watch weeks of television without these positions being put forward in a forceful way. Instead, the media gives us big doses of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Oliver North, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, J.C. Watts, Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, Neil Boortz, David Brooks, Kate O'Bierne, etc. And plenty of moderate to conservative Dems (Thomas Friedman, Mark Shields, David Broder, et al) are represented in the media while truly liberal commentators are kept in the margins. A balanced media would include Paul Krugman, Barbara Ehrenreich, Naomi Wolf, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Tom Hartmann, Jonathan Kozol, Norman Solomon, Rami Khouri, Robert Fisk, Jeff Cohen, Phil Donahue, etc. in discussions about national and international politics. These commentators are well regarded, thoughtful, write best sellers, and draw big crowds when they speak. Why are they not on television and in the newspapers as often as the conservative list?

[Matt]

Over the past year I have listened to WMNF more and more and really enjoy most of its afternoon drive music. However, I rarely listened to the station during the fund drive because the station got away from what it does best (playing music I don't hear anywhere else) and went into typical public radio panhandling.

I listen to WMNF for music, and for an alternative to the usual garbage I hear on commercial radio. I DON'T listen for one song followed by ten minutes of begging for my money. Honestly, I have to be lured back in by WMNF after that fund drive... that's how turned off I was!

I worked in public radio for three years, and I know how important it is a station such as WMNF (and WUSF) hit its goal. But in today's technologically-advanced society, there has to be a better way to raise money other than crying to the general public to give five or six times an hour.

[tom]

WMNF is now completely agenda driven during the hours Rob mentioned. At MNF you say you provide an altenative view to the main stream media. Are you kidding me? The main stream media is predominately liberal and your station is further to the left.
So it not "alternative" its leftist/socialist. Which is ok with me cause this is America (the land Amy Goodman loves to hate)and I do believe in the right of free speech. I listen to your station at times and find for the most part people complaining and talking about all the things wrong in this country. In fact I rarely hear anything cool about our country. There are cool things about the good ole USA - free speech, right to protest, a happy meal, cable tv, hot chicks and the list goes on... Complaining and offering solutions such as higher taxes/welfare state/blame Bush 4 EVERYTHING is old and tired. But alas I digress. I am a positive self sufficient person who enjoys his life and not let the negativity of life/MNF get me down.

[Eric Deggans]

Rob --

Thanks for posting. And understand, i have nothing but love for WMNF. And I really like a lot of the other programming in your afternoon informational block -- especially your show.

That said, the Watts thing proves my point. Is a general audience really going to be interested in lectures about the minutiae of buddhist philosophy? Your audience may rise during his show, but are you losing out on a bigger potential audience by playing something with such a specific focus?

And I find that some of the early afternoon programming, like the blues and R&B stuff, feels a little old school for a general audience.

I agree with the earlier poster that WMNF might benefit from having more shows that mix up the music played, rather than focusing so much of the day on very specific niche genres.

I know I'm in the position of criticizing something I already like. But it is tough for me to listen to the station outside of the news programs, and if other potential listeners feel the same, I wonder if that isn't impacting pledges...

[Chris Casper]

I enjoy WMNF regularly as long as none of those shows listed in Rob's post happen to be on.

[Rob Lorei]

Hi Eric,

Alan Watts a "deceased Buddhist"? Yes, but online listening goes up by about 20% when he's on.

His half hour is but part of a dynamic 20 hours every weekday between 10AM and 2PM on http://www.wmnf.org. The rest of lineup includes FRESH AIR, Amy Goodman's DEMOCRACY NOW, COUNTERSPIN (media review), a book review program hosted by former SPT staffer Margo Hammond, the only Arab/Muslim call-in program in Florida, an arts program, a gay lesbian program, an animal rights show, and a whole lot more that's worth checking out. This time slot is the highest-listening part of WMNF's broadcast day and the best supported programming strip during the fund drives.

Rob Lorei
WMNF's News and Public Affairs Director

[GlennS.]

WMNF lost my support a long time ago when every time it was convenient for me to listen they were playing acoustic/folk/Americana music. I never understood why their format was so rigid. I would love to hear Lee Perry followed by Miles Davis followed by Esquivel followed by Saint Etienne, etc. Apparently, the powers that be at WMNF must have felt an eclectic format like this would alienate their biggest doners.

Frankly, I haven't listened for more than a few minutes in recent years. From what you say in your post it sounds like very little has changed.

[Patrick]

I love WMNF and am proud to be a volunteer.