In an article about Ira Glass and his show This American Life looking for a new national distributor, I was quoted saying that “distributors” aren’t as important as they once were.

The exact quote was “’Distributors are no longer as critical as they once were — the technology of distribution in the digital world has become child’s play,’ said Jim Russell, an independent program consultant, via email. ‘But the imprimatur that comes with distribution is still trusted by many program directors who are the gatekeepers of the airwaves. It’s like the old Good Housekeeping Seal of approval.’”” .

Check out the full article.

Recently retired after two decades as VP Programing at WTOP in Washington, D.C., Jim Farley led the all-news station to become the top-billing news station in America. Previously, he was Managing Editor and General Manager of News at ABC Radio, and Vice President of Radio News at NBC News.

As the guest speaker at a recent Intensive I led in Sacramento, CA, Farley made a number of interesting observations. His experience competing against public radio WAMU-FM in Washington led him to say that commercial and non-commercial media should “stay in their own lanes” because commercial radio, with its heavy commercial schedule, simply cannot compete with the depth and length of NPR-styled reporting. However, he pointed out that the average time spent listening for both is comparable, between 10:00 and 11:00 minutes per occasion. Farley said the radio business had changed substantially during his career: Stations “are not the gatekeepers any longer.” He also feels TV news, with its “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality, is dying.

WGAS?

Farley’s major advice is to ask about every story “WGAS” (who gives a shit?) and avoid “process stories” in favor of personal or “outcome” stories. He pointed out that Former House Speaker Tip O’Neal’s quote is usually misstated. Actually, he said, it is that …

“All politics are personal.”

Here’s a fun list — and 11 of the best in American work for public radio or TV stations. The Washington Post solicited recommendations from readers,  journalists and even politicians. Check it our: best capitol reporters.

I have been working with Michael O’Toole, President and CEO of PJA Advertising, on a new program he is developing called

Current Newspaper recently ran an article about the new program’s development. Check it out at Current.  And, if you’d like to hear the full pilot, click on Unconventionals Pilot.

I have been working with Mike O’Toole, President of PJA advertising + marketing of Cambridge, MA and San Francisco, as he develops a new public radio program. Called The Unconventionals, the program a public radio series designed to showcase unconventional entrepreneurial thinking. It is about great and surprising ideas that spur new startup companies and refresh new ideas from established companies.  Mike O’Toole, who hosts the program, says “The best business stories are not about market domination, scale, or share price though. They are about the element of surprise. These surprises happen when a company questions basic assumptions or prevailing wisdom. These counter-intuitive moments are the stuff of ingenuity, and they lead to innovation, change, and outsized results. The Unconventionals tells these stories.”

Host  Mike O’Toole talks with Founders or CEOs to discuss the insight behind their innovation, and how their contrarian approaches have captured imaginations and driven impressive business results. The show features two kinds of stories:

• Market-changers. Start-ups who are taking full advantage of internet technology to disrupt traditional categories and change how we buy as consumers. Featured companies include Dollar Shave Club, Warby Parker, or RelayRides. Web-based businesses that are reinventing the way we can buy razors, order eyeglasses or rent a car, respectively.

 • Brand innovators. The revolutions in social networking, digital technologies and mobile computing have changed the way consumers communicate with brands. Traditional marketing tactics are losing sway — it is harder than ever for companies to stand out. We’ll look at large, established companies who are forging new ground in how they market. Examples include Converse and its Rubber Tracks Studio initiative or Intel with the Creator’s Project. Both companies are deemphasizing traditional advertising and promotion in favor of long-term investments in arts and music initiatives that are important to their core audiences and help them reach new generations of consumers.

What all the companies have in common is outsized influence on their markets, and the deep passion of their fans. And they all make for great stories.

The Unconventionals program is currently being tested on public radio stations in select markets. You can listen to the pilot at http://is.gd/eXovBl.

Raul Ramirez, the executive director of news and public affairs at KQED Public Radio, died in November at 67 after an impressive and inspiring 40+ year journalism career. From a speech that he had prepared for the Society of Professional Journalists, Ramirez said to his fellow journalists:

“We cannot be mere stenographers to the powerful. Journalists must be agents of the truth in all its forms, wherever it resides, and we must work harder and more consciously to seek out the stories that don’t come to us because they lack the resources to bring them to our attention.”

See the full text of his speech.

BJ Leiderman is the composer extraordinaire and principal performer of such well known public radio themes as NPR’s Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, Wait Wait … Don’t Tell Me, Car Talk “Stump the Chumps” theme, and Science Friday and APM’s Marketplace. As his Wikipedia profile says, “Leiderman grew up in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and is the only child in a musical family, studied journalism at American University then became known as a composer and songwriter.”

I claim the credit for finding Leiderman when I was at NPR in the 1970’s, working on the early development of Morning Edition. I asked the young Leiderman to create a theme that helped stations move from their classical music overnight formats to a jazzier, more-alive morning sound. I (and hundreds of thousands of listeners) agree — Leiderman scored a knockout with the theme for Morning Edition. He went on to work in NYC in the mid 80’s, where he was a composer/jingle writer. His clients included Nickelodeon, Tyco Toys and the Cartoon Network.

Leiderman has now moved to Asheville, North Carolina. He is currently in production on his
debut album, “Natural Public Leiderman,” due to be released Spring 2014 He has formed a band that is performing … next up, at a New Year’s Eve Bash at the White Horse Black Mountain (www.whitehorseblackmountain.com.)

One of the first questions I ask producers who approach me about help is: “Is your show a hobby or a business?” Either answer is OK, but I think it is important to know the answer from the beginning. A hobby is something you do for pleasure, something you invest in because you want to — not because you have to. A hobby is sustainable as long (or as short) as you want it to be. No apologies or recriminations if you decide to stop.

But, a business is sustainable. It may require investment to start with, but it needs — over time — to pay its own bills and even to pay you a decent income for the time you invest. A great many independent producers in this country think they are in business, but they are really “in hobby.” They work at something else to put food on the table and cover their health care and other needs. The very best of these think they “break even” if their out of pocket costs are covered — but hardly ever realize that a true break-even would include paying oneself!

I saw an excellent and poignant article about this recently. I urge you to read it and think about whether you are a hobbyist or a business person. The article’s author wrote “Podcasters and community broadcasters gotta eat. We shouldn’t expect them to starve for our art.” The writer went on to say:

“Most fundamentally, a potential radio producer or host needs to be able to put food on the table and pay the rent before she can think about making a show. While some people have the means, time or simple drive and wherewithal to create something, sometimes with little regard to their material circumstances, this isn’t something we should expect or demand of our independent media creators.”

http://radiosurvivor.com/2013/11/01/podcasters-gotta-eat-tom-scharpling-to-end-the-best-show-on-wfmu/?

I have a professional lifelong aversion to consultants. But, now I is one! How to reconcile these two polar opposites?

I’ve thought back to my days as a station and network exec. to try to remember what it was that bothered me about consultants … why I seemed capable of smearing all of them with the same brush. Here are some of the things I hated about consultants:

1.  Make Work: Rather than solve problems for me, they made more work for me. They always seemed to come up with tasks I needed to undertake, as if they were the teacher giving me an unwanted additional homework assignment.
2. Credibility: Did they have really credible experience doing what they were advising me to do? Advice is a dime a dozen, but were they really speaking from personal professional experience? Or, were they just “talking a good game” and, like many a substitute teacher, just a lesson or two ahead of the class?
3. No Ownership: They were awfully expensive, and when they blew into town, they did their thing and then left – whether or not the results had been accomplished. They didn’t own the problem as I did.
4. Ongoing: Or, worse, they sought an ongoing consultancy with a substantial monthly retainer. Their work plans often weren’t clear, and ongoing management of them required a large investment of my time.
5. The economy, stupid. I have just laid off staff or face staffing cutbacks. How can I honorably hire a consultant while laying off staff?

I am sure there are more – just get me going over a drink. Or, better yet, add your own reasons.

So, now that I am a consultant, how to I deal with these objections? Well, I have to admit, the broad brush condemnation of all consultants is unwarranted. The biggest problem, I suspect, isn’t them – but rather, how we use them and what we expect of them. Here are some things I think are a good use of consultants.

• You have a particular, well-defined task that needs to be accomplished and it can be outsourced to a knowledgeable person. Getting it done this way really will help you, and the consultant is a self-starter — motivated, professional and mature enough to manage him/herself.
• You are down staff (layoffs, resignations, etc.) but the work still needs to get done. How can you farm some of it out at a reasonable, predictable price that is within your budget? You decide what it is worth to you, and the consultant decides if he/she can do it for that price.
• You need to conduct a staff learning or training exercise, and while you could do it yourself, you face two obstacles: (a) Your staff has heard you say this stuff before and they don’t pay special attention anymore; (b) A consultant who is a specialist and does this training for a living will have the exercise organized and designed into a focused activity.
• You need to do a one-time exercise, like a CPB application, and you want someone who knows exactly what the drill is and how to walk you and your staff through the steps in the most efficient and painless way possible.
• Finally, the economy. Hard as it is to do, layoffs and staff cutbacks may be necessary if your shop can’t afford an ongoing salary and benefits. But, if the work still needs to get done, can you actually save money by working with an outside contractor and not paying continuously for a staffer plus benefits.

Again, I am sure there are lots more good reasons. I’d like to hear both the bad and the good from you. Let me know at [email protected]. And let me know too if there’s anything you like to talk with me about. My associates and I are ready to help you determine if a consultant can help you, and who might be best to meet your needs.

A New York Times article “Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?” is outstanding … a MUST READ for those interested in objectivity versus subjectivity in reporting. Here are some brief quotes:

Greenwald: “Worst of all, this (objectvity) model rests on a false conceit. Human beings are not objectivity-driven machines. We all intrinsically perceive and process the world through subjective prisms. What is the value in pretending otherwise?  The relevant distinction is not between journalists who have opinions and those who do not, because the latter category is mythical. The relevant distinction is between journalists who honestly disclose their subjective assumptions and political values and those who dishonestly pretend they have none or conceal them from their readers. … ultimately, the only real metric of journalism that should matter is accuracy and reliability. I personally think honestly disclosing rather than hiding one’s subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism.”

Keller: “You insist that “all journalism has a point of view and a set of interests it advances, even if efforts are made to conceal it.” And therefore there’s no point in attempting to be impartial. (I avoid the word “objective,” which suggests a mythical perfect state of truth.) … I believe the need for impartial journalism is greater than it has ever been, because we live now in a world of affinity-based media, where citizens can and do construct echo chambers of their own beliefs. It is altogether too easy to feel “informed” without ever encountering information that challenges our prejudices.”