It was a nice night. The current crew are pleasant, clear-headed, and there seems to be a lot of talent. I was impressed by how many are already building paths into the industry. I approve heartily, but then I would, because that’s what I did too.

College radio has, of course, been feeding mainstream broadcasters for some time. My first paid job was at a US station which regularly hired DJs from the local college stations. Of the six ancients at the URY dinner, two, me included, are still in the industry. And among the younger alumni who attended, there was an impressive sprinkling of industry-specific email addreses. That’s not too shabby for what is, after all, a volunteer radio station. A station, moreover, that has developed its own sequencing software for overnight automation.

It strikes me that we may be missing a trick or two. College Radio is there for fun. It has has absolutely no statutory obligation to be a training ground. But URY and its counterparts are clearly functioning exactly this way. These stations run all the time (well, during term time), broadcasting online or with very restricted coverage, only venturing out on RSLs once in a while. To join in calls for time and commitment. Like others, I only bailed out in my final year to concentrate on actually getting a degree. Often it also calls for volunteers’ money, like many student organisations. But that sort of commitment is exactly what most real-world stations are looking for.

So here’s a thought. Many Universities run Media Training courses. They tend to go on air with short term restricted service licenses – maybe two weeks each year. But across the campus, there are these kids doing radio for love, 24/7… at least during term time. Maybe it’s time for the teaching wings and the student radio stations to come together? Nowhere else will there be such a convergence of disciplines and interests.

Breaking the output down to work out how they put it together seems to go like this: lots of short, produced speech items, concise studio links, urban music never more than a few minutes way. All local people and local issues, with sympathetic production linked by comfortably confident presenters. To start I was less than impressed with the output – neither Jamiroquai nor Michael Jackson paedo gags would be my first choice – but some punchy social issue audio drama, with live studio commentary and discussion, tightly produced, picked up the pace. And now I don’t want to switch off, because it’s interesting, and I have no idea what’s coming next, and it’s doing what I want my radio to do: painting a picture.

Over on the website, there are loads of archived podcasts – with maybe not quite enough context – and the whole thing looks not unlike a Myspace page, full of graphics and user input. This is probably not the first attempt to mix up web 2.0 with radio stream; clearly they have given it a LOT of thought, and it shows. It’s web first, radio second: the stream idents the website, not the FM frequency.

If this is the new face of public radio in the US – where, according to the New York Times, listenership is up – then there’s grounds for some serious optimism. As long as they’re hitting their audience, not just old hippie liberals from the UK like me, that is. At least they’re not playing the same Amy Winehouse material everyone else is playing. Is this the future of community radio? I bloody well hope so.

I’ve never been very good at predicting the future. Witness all the failed lottery tickets for a start, never mind all the old technology and pieces of kit that litter the loft, supposedly both cutting edge and future proof.

But now I need some assistance in predicting life in 2012.

Over the next few months I will begin to re-appraise our current Media Production Professional Practice degree here at the University of Teesside. The current degree has served its purpose well with strands in radio and television, but it is coming to the end and a new one must be written for an autumn 2009 start.

The new degree will still have radio and television in it, but it’s the area where these two sometimes meet – we’ll call it new media for want of a better term – where I need help.

What skills will students graduating in 2012 need? Clearly they will need to know one end of a microphone from the other; they’ll have ideas on editing, packages, documentaries, news bulletins, music, podcasts, commercial production and all the other myriad programming and technical aspects of radio. But how will this interface with the internet? Will graduates seeking radio jobs need a variety of web skills? Will the software simply do it for them? Will there be new ways of listening to radio that will influence what they need to know in their undergraduate years? How will this connect with television?

Or, as some people have said to me, radio is radio is radio – why worry? The skills remain the same; it’s just the platforms that differ.

I’m not worried about programming and production styles that might go in and out of fashion – if you’ve observed the industry any length of time you’ll know what goes around comes around and this month’s flavour is last month’s bad taste. But that aside, it’s important to get this right for any number of reasons.

I was at a conference in January and in one of the workshops a senior BBC editor was asked what skills she wanted graduates to have. “Just give me people who can think,“ she replied. This was less than helpful. All our graduates can think. It’s impossible to graduate without being able to think, despite what you might read in the popular press.

So what do 2012’s graduates need to know?

Any ideas, anyone?

Lottery ticket, anyone?

I recently attended the annual IBS Conference in New York. (You’ll be pleased to know my digestion’s fine – it actually stands for Intercollegiate Broadcasting System). I was surprised to hear representatives from University Radio across America sharing the common concern that many students no longer own a radio. What!? No radio? At first I couldn’t believe it… but of course why should they? They’re all ipod’ed and wifi’ed with more than enough music and can find out what’s happening on campus from Facebook etc.

I guess this is one of the main reasons why development radio appeals to me. There are still huge regions across the world where traditional AM/FM/SW broadcasting is still very much king. While many western kids are turning their old radios into landfill – traditional broadcasting is still highly valued in the so called “third world”. Everyday, development radio imparts messages of real substance to millions of receptive, appreciative listeners.

There’s been quite a bit of debate for and against the fabled “$100.00 computer” that’s being designed by MIT for educational use in developing countries. The intention is to create a super-cheap Linux-based, full-screen, full-colour laptop with WiFi capabilities, USB ports, a 500MHz processor, and one gigabyte storage.

A noble enough concept – but how about a “$5.00 wind-up radio” to accompany it?

In terms of education, radio represents a far more practical method of distributing information – especially to highly illiterate populations. It affordably reaches across huge distances and follows the tradition of oral learning that’s fundamental to many African nations. Besides, a radio set doesn’t represent the same risk of theft that a snazzy new computer does.

Sure, wifi-computers and cellular phones open up many exciting new possibilities, but in my opinion the most interesting technological advancements in terms of development are not in new methods of transmitting information, but new ways of receiving old formats. Sir Trevor Baylis should be canonised as well as Knighted for his wind-up radio. What a fantastically simple – yet powerful invention. In regions where electricity is scarce and batteries are often prohibitively expensive, wind-up / solar powered radio sets provide an almost infinite means of communication where it’s needed most. (Green techno-geeks should check out the new “Trevor Baylis Eco Media Player” www.ecomediaplayer.com )

Although it’s easy to get carried away with all the latest radio gizmos and bolted-on extras we shouldn’t forget that all we’re ever really going to do is deliver sound to a pair of ears. (That is, until Apple plugs directly into your temporal lobes – and I’ll be first in line for that upgrade). Good old fashion radio is already a superb conveyer of informative messages and not necessarily in a didactic, “teacher to student” style. There are many examples of NGO’s delivering entertaining and educational radio dramas and programmes in developing nations across the world. However, the radios needed to hear these excellent productions are often in short supply. So, although the “$100.00 computer” is certainly a worthwhile endeavour – wouldn’t it be great to also have wind-up radio’s produced at a low enough cost to enable mass distribution to where they’re needed most?

For more information about wind-up radio in developing regions, check out the The Freeplay Foundation at; http://www.freeplayfoundation.org

My concern is this:

I teach a lot of talented individuals. They produce fantastic work – audio, video, web, podcast. Much of it is up to or beyond professional standards. They all want to work in the “meedja”.

Many never will.

Why?

There are many reasons, but predominantly I think it’s the leap between producing awe inspiring artefacts and selling them and primarily yourself to the industry. It’s having the confidence, chutzpah, or sheer balls and belief in yourself to convince someone, somewhere to give you that first chance.

My question is this:

How do we encourage students to have a realistic view of their own worth and promote themselves in a confident and professional way in the industry?

I have one first year student who took it upon himself to approach the BBC locally (after researching the right contact) and ask for the usual look around and tour. He is very talented and becoming increasingly confident in his abilities. Yesterday he couldn’t attend a meeting with me because he was working on producing trails for their mid morning show. Fantastic, I applaud him. I believe he will succeed in radio.

I have a third year student who recently received a rejection from the BBC. He is quite distraught and is now considering joining the armed forces (I kid you not) as he feels a lack of worth because of this one (first and only) rejection he’s had to suffer. He is a competent student. He produces work to a high standard. Yet it is almost as if he feels unworthy of working in the radio industry because the BBC rejected him. It could just as easily have been an independent radio company; this is not BBC specific.

What made this difference between these two students?

Now I can hear the cynics saying get real, life is full of knocks, whatever happened to realistic expectations, and welcome to the real world. I agree to some extent and I forget the number of applications I made before my first real radio job – as I’m sure you do, too. But if that student does join the armed forces the industry has lost some talent. If most of my cohort decides to do other things, the industry has lost a lot of talent. I suspect this situation is replicated elsewhere and I know that particular student is not the only one in my current cohort who has skill and ability but not necessarily the confidence to get the work.

Ah but kids today – they want it all on a plate don’t they? Well no, actually they don’t. They work hard to produce some great material. It seems to me to be a difficulty in transferring the work ethic into the go and get a job type ethic, if there is such a thing.

We all know what this industry can be like. We’ve probably all suffered in various ways over the years. We can perhaps identify to some degree with each student’s experience.

I have asked a variety of students what they think about this situation. Most have agreed it exists to some degree or other. Their suggested solutions range from “confidence building exercises” to “more mock interviews” to a “fight or flight approach” to “those that can, will”. Even “two years in the army” was one response from an ex-army cadet.

But my question to you – industry practitioners – remains – what can be done to aid and encourage talented students with obvious ability to overcome this situation? Mentoring, perhaps, or some sort of hothouse? And if we can’t or don’t want to solve it, what future for the industry?