Am I alone in thinking that the likes of BBC Radio, which seems to archive it’s programs a mere week after OTA broadcast, yet keep the meta-data alerting the world to the existence of the program seems to be retained for much longer, is counterproductive and a poor use of public monies. I’d suggest that a better outcome would be to make the archives freely available hereafter via the web, which would also hasten the development of a taxonomy for the web, as it seems we seem to be developing more content without yet making large strides in the ways we organise and subsequently consume that information.

The impact of the change in listening habits, particularly the impact of filesharing which I expect has reduced the amount of money flowing into the large institutions that were formerly important and dominant features of the music industry and also I suspect cause a decline in the numbers of people tuning into commerical-OTA-radio, which will subsequently impact the rates that radio broadcasters will be able to charge , As a result of this, I think that commercial OTA radio may be challenged in the medium term, which will hopefully lead to a rennaissance in Public Radio format, because only they will be able to undertake the sort of special interest program that the freedom from commercial objectives allows them to make. (though perhaps this to some degree already occurs, evident in the low volume of special interest programming and the proliferation of broad/generic formats in the commerical radio sector).

Responses on any of the above welcome/appreciated.

Cheers.

Coupled with Transom.org (which I learnt about from this site) it seems that both existing & new channels for public radio type internet broadcasts/podcasts is at least theorectically addressed.

Increasingly with such a rich variety of content available via the web at a price of either nix, or next to nix, I see it is no longer the economy of money that is my key consideration, it is increasingly the economy of my time.

I am curious to learn what impact the developing utility and richness of the web particularly in changing the means by which society seeks out new music, is having on OTA broadcast radio.

Are the numbers of listeners to radio down relative to the population? Has this had any impact on the rates that commercial broadcasters have been able to charge advertisers and the viability of commercial radio? Similarly what impact(s) if any has the change had on royalty payments from radio to the music industry?
Are there other relevent dimensions that ought to be considered?

I’ve just listened to the premier of the latest series of my favourite show – it’s called Radio Lab and comes from New York Public Radio. All day I’ve been building up to it. I made sure I had eaten before hand, I adjusted the lighting, I turned off my phone, and I closed my eyes to enjoy it. This was heightened by my choosing to hear it as soon as possible, by hearing the live streaming (of a pre-recorded programme).

I have a ton of Goon show episodes on iTunes too and yes this felt a bit similar, to that image of gathering round the valve set – almost like a time machine.

But I’m an exception, right? Over the past year I have been shutting the door and sealing off an hour when the housemates would be away, to listen to Radio Lab – podcasts, going back three years or more.

I’ll come back to podcasts.

Digital technology has somewhat tied my radio listening down – oky so maybe no more than before but it *feels* more so, because listening on a Freeview box or a laptop, in spite of/because of their small size, you need extra speakers or headphones, and you’re stuck in a room. PocketDAB, just like mediumwave, you’re left finding a park or avoiding certain streets to be sure you have a signal!

And podcasts – if you love the show, you know you’re missing out by using tiny earbuds – though of course in years gone by, there were evil tight headphones, maybe patchy AM reception…

Sorry, no answers! Maybe I’ll come back after re-reading and mulling some more.

Good luck!

CT I know Sam to be a very nice man, this is most out of character.

As for being a wimp? Fair comment but if Sam really wanted to draw the readers in he could have featured one of those shots with him and all his lovely dancing girl friends from Memos in Addis Adaba.

As for you Chesterton – you wimp – your comments simply illustrate the importance of editorial freedom. PS. I’m not changing it either – so actually, I did get away with it. Ha!

good comments. I didn’t actually know that photo was going to be used and could have provided one from our training in Ethiopia or Kenya as that photo makes me cringe a little, but I think it was the only one the writer had to hand when he was doing the post.

The photo was taken in Ethiopia at the Awash National Park. The man with the gun was our guide. The weapon is for security purposes, although personally I would have felt more secure without it in the back of the car whilst we were bouncing around!

Your comments illustrate the importance of photographs, that you can’t just place anything anywhere and expect to get away with it.

Benjamin http://www.duckrabbit.info/blog

However, I must add that I find it unfortunate that the sole explanation of the image at the top of the page is “so and so in Africa…”

Where are we in Africa? Who is our producer posing with? Is there some reason for the weapon in this African fellow’s hand? Why can’t we have a photo with our producer training Kenyan journalists in the audio slideshows, which would be both more self-explanatory and much more appropriate to the actual content of the post? If we’re learning here about using images to further enhance listeners’ understanding of a story, why does this image do so little to enhance the reader’s understanding here?

Any ideas anyone?