The vehemently anti-union Post-Star would have you believe that the only people with concerns about slashing school spendings are the greedy, overpaid teachers. Managing editor Ken Tingley, in his typically pompous style, orders people to STFU about cuts and lectures parents to tell their kids to take one for the team. (Speaking of Tingley: here’s a way to make his head explode. Tell him you’ve figured out a way to cut the school tax levy by 0.04% but that it involves cutting his beloved baseball)
But other regional media, without such an overt agenda, are painting a more nuanced portrait.
North Country Public Radio has a story on the reaction of students to heavy budget cuts in the Beaver River district in Lewis County. Imagine that: doing a story about education cuts in which the students' point of view is mentioned!
The Plattsburgh Press-Republican had a story about the opposition of ordinary residents in Beekmantown, Clinton County, to the district's plan to slash jobs and programs.
The NCPR story is particularly poignant since the more common complaints against kids today is that they DON'T care about school or education.
Showing posts with label NCPR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCPR. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Journalist continues to poke holes in questionable Post-Star anti-APA series
Another followup* on the controversial two-part series on the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) written by The Post-Star's Will Doolittle.
(Note: I've offered Doolittle the opportunity of a rebuttal to be published here but he's so far not done so.)
North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann has continued to fill in a lot of the holes that plagued Doolittle's pieces. Mann, a reporter without an open, long-standing contempt for the APA, has provided depth and context that was sorely lacking in the original piece. Mann asked questions where Doolittle accepted answers uncritically from anti-APA interviewees.
Mann's latest piece is definitely worth a read.
Maybe this is why I'm a paid member of NCPR but no longer subscribe to The Post-Star.
**
Update: When I questioned the wisdom of assigning Doolittle (who's well-known for his outspoken and regular criticism of the APA) to do this purportedly objective story about the APA, most people, including Brian Mann himself, dismissed my concerns. These concerns which were less about overt bias (at least at the time... now I'm starting to wonder) but about less conscious decision making based on the assumptions and preconceived notions of someone who's firmly established that he's one on side of the issue. I remember explicitly wondering if Doolittle had failed to ask follow up questions or pursue further, perhaps not consciously but because he assumed that any accusation against the APA was in and of itself credible, because of his own notions about the Agency and what it represents. The excellent follow up reporting done by Mann makes me feel completely vindicated in my concerns. I know self-appointed watchdogs generally bristle at anyone watching them, but I'm glad NCPR's Mann is performing that service to the public. It's just unfortunate that the excellent journalism in NCPR's blog will get only a fraction of the audience as the daily's piece.
Further update: I've refrained from using the phrase 'hit job' to describe the original piece, but some are less circumspect. One anonymous poster at NCPR's blog writes:
While I'd like to commend you on excellent investigative reporting on this post, the sad fact is that this contradiction to Douglas's claim should have been paragraph 2 in the original Post-Star story. And not so hard to dig up, at that.
What disturbed me all along about the series in the P-S was how thoroughly orchestrated it was: first the series, then the story about reaction to the series (with no reaction from the organization the original story had defamed); then the editorial; then the online poll: "Should the APA be disbanned (sic) ?" Even that peculiarly emasculated Don Coyote had something to say. So over-the-top, you half expected Mark Trail to chime in from the funnies page.
This was a crusade, pure and simple. It left me feeling like I'd been bludgeoned by a Pulitzer medallion.
Thanks for exposing the rot at the core.
Anonymous should be reminded that the paper's Pulitizer was not for journalism, but for editorial writing.
**
*-OTHER PIECES ON THIS BLOG ABOUT THE SAME SERIES
-My original critique of the series and the journalistic ethics involved;
-The piece in which the Nature Conservancy refuted accusations of criminal collusion in a letter to The Post-Star;
-Questioning why the daily's website has exceptionally failed to publish an online version of said letter.
(Note: I've offered Doolittle the opportunity of a rebuttal to be published here but he's so far not done so.)
North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann has continued to fill in a lot of the holes that plagued Doolittle's pieces. Mann, a reporter without an open, long-standing contempt for the APA, has provided depth and context that was sorely lacking in the original piece. Mann asked questions where Doolittle accepted answers uncritically from anti-APA interviewees.
Mann's latest piece is definitely worth a read.
Maybe this is why I'm a paid member of NCPR but no longer subscribe to The Post-Star.
**
Update: When I questioned the wisdom of assigning Doolittle (who's well-known for his outspoken and regular criticism of the APA) to do this purportedly objective story about the APA, most people, including Brian Mann himself, dismissed my concerns. These concerns which were less about overt bias (at least at the time... now I'm starting to wonder) but about less conscious decision making based on the assumptions and preconceived notions of someone who's firmly established that he's one on side of the issue. I remember explicitly wondering if Doolittle had failed to ask follow up questions or pursue further, perhaps not consciously but because he assumed that any accusation against the APA was in and of itself credible, because of his own notions about the Agency and what it represents. The excellent follow up reporting done by Mann makes me feel completely vindicated in my concerns. I know self-appointed watchdogs generally bristle at anyone watching them, but I'm glad NCPR's Mann is performing that service to the public. It's just unfortunate that the excellent journalism in NCPR's blog will get only a fraction of the audience as the daily's piece.
Further update: I've refrained from using the phrase 'hit job' to describe the original piece, but some are less circumspect. One anonymous poster at NCPR's blog writes:
While I'd like to commend you on excellent investigative reporting on this post, the sad fact is that this contradiction to Douglas's claim should have been paragraph 2 in the original Post-Star story. And not so hard to dig up, at that.
What disturbed me all along about the series in the P-S was how thoroughly orchestrated it was: first the series, then the story about reaction to the series (with no reaction from the organization the original story had defamed); then the editorial; then the online poll: "Should the APA be disbanned (sic) ?" Even that peculiarly emasculated Don Coyote had something to say. So over-the-top, you half expected Mark Trail to chime in from the funnies page.
This was a crusade, pure and simple. It left me feeling like I'd been bludgeoned by a Pulitzer medallion.
Thanks for exposing the rot at the core.
Anonymous should be reminded that the paper's Pulitizer was not for journalism, but for editorial writing.
**
*-OTHER PIECES ON THIS BLOG ABOUT THE SAME SERIES
-My original critique of the series and the journalistic ethics involved;
-The piece in which the Nature Conservancy refuted accusations of criminal collusion in a letter to The Post-Star;
-Questioning why the daily's website has exceptionally failed to publish an online version of said letter.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Post-Star series on the APA and NCPR follow ups make waves
"Never attribute to malice what can easily be ascribed to incompetence."
Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle recently published a pair of pieces regarding the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) and two cases in the town of Black Brook.
(Part one is here and part two here)
The choice of Black Brook was unusual, as it's in Clinton County, far outside the Post-Star's circulation area. The choice of Doolittle, who has a long history of publishing harsh anti-APA columns, to do a purportedly objective investigation into the APA was also questionable.
The title of part one: 'Under attack by the protectors.'
When I raised this issue, Doolittle defended his ability to be objective despite his point of view. Doolittle is a good journalist, but I maintain that an important, purportedly objective story about the APA should not have been assigned to someone with a open, public contempt for the APA. If the Adirondack Council's John Sheehan had done a purportedly objective report for the same paper on the exact same cases, its appropriateness surely would've been called into question too.
Anyways, Doolittle's first piece uncritically echoed claims by one of the aggrieved parties that the APA and Nature Conservancy were colluding but did not offer a shred of evidence to that effect.
North County Public Radio's highly respected Brian Mann further investigated some of the claims reported in Doolittle's pieces and came to a different conclusions.
Mann's research conclude that 'No, the APA did not conspire illegally with the Nature Conservancy'.
Additionally, Doolittle reported on a four year enforcement case by the APA on a John Maye, a former forest ranger and Clinton County landowner. The case dragged on but was dropped abruptly after a meeting between APA and Black Brook officials in which the latter accused the former of colluding with environmentalists.
The unwritten implication is that the threat of 'exposure' caused the APA to drop its patently unfair case.
Another piece by NCPR's Mann suggested otherwise. During the meeting, town officials shared a key piece of information with the APA rep. The APA claims that it was because they received that key piece of information that they dropped the case.
They claimed that Maye had refused to allow APA officials onto his property and failed to respond to APA inquiries. Both of these are his legal right but it's a bit dubious for him to then claim that the APA was prolonging the case simply to harass him.
I suspect Doolittle was guided, perhaps even subconsciously, to fail to ask the questions and investigate further that Mann did.
Mann wrote, Will Doolittle has expressed a firm opinion about this episode. He thinks the APA mistreated the Mayes and was then suspiciously eager to drop the case.
For my part, I'm just not sure.
The APA had been asking for a chance to look at that foundation for four years and they finally got it. That's a significant fact.
The accounts by Doolittle paint a portrait of a power hungry bureaucracy out of control, opposed only by heroic Clark Kent-like property rights defenders. Mann offers a more nuanced picture; his pieces reflect an agency whose real failings in the case seemed more about understaffing and general bureaucratic inertia.
And this perfectly illustrates the difference between pieces on the APA written by an openly anti-APA journalist and those written by one with no apparent agenda.
There are very real issues with the APA.
The fines it can impose should have a cap or at the very least, should have some kind of explicit structure. The Agency's defense of exorbitant fines ($2.9 million in one of these cases) is that it never actually collects the huge amounts; this is unpersuasive. Perhaps, fines above a certain amount can only be imposed by a court (see below).
There should be some legal obligation of responsiveness by the Agency to inquiries from property owners and municipalities. Perhaps there should be an independent ombudsman to address complaints where such responsiveness was not forthcoming or other unfair treatment alleged.
The APA board should comprise entirely full-time residents of the Park. Localities and counties should have some input into the Agency's staffing and board composition.
Most importantly, there should be some sort of judicial review available of the Agency's decisions, within the context of state constitution's Article XIV ("Forever Wild"). The APA is described by some as the zoning board for the Adirondack Park. But most zoning boards have zoning boards of appeal and this one should too. One of the reasons for the very real resentment of some Park residents is that the APA is viewed as judge, jury and executioner. Judicial review would help alleviate this.
I believe in Forever Wild. And I believe that the APA should play an important role in maintaining this. The Agency has its faults and should be reformed. And Doolittle's pieces really did expose a few disturbing facts that should be a addressed. I believe that in trying to protect the little guy from abuse by a government agency, we shouldn't go too far and expose the little guy to abuse from big developers who can do much more long-lasting damage.
But The Post-Star's inexplicable decision to assign this legitimate story to its most adamant anti-APA reporter to do this investigation was a journalistically indefensible, one clearly illustrated by the omissions that Mann revealed.
I urge you to read Doolittle's and Mann's pieces and judge for yourself.
Post-Star projects' editor Will Doolittle recently published a pair of pieces regarding the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) and two cases in the town of Black Brook.
(Part one is here and part two here)
The choice of Black Brook was unusual, as it's in Clinton County, far outside the Post-Star's circulation area. The choice of Doolittle, who has a long history of publishing harsh anti-APA columns, to do a purportedly objective investigation into the APA was also questionable.
The title of part one: 'Under attack by the protectors.'
When I raised this issue, Doolittle defended his ability to be objective despite his point of view. Doolittle is a good journalist, but I maintain that an important, purportedly objective story about the APA should not have been assigned to someone with a open, public contempt for the APA. If the Adirondack Council's John Sheehan had done a purportedly objective report for the same paper on the exact same cases, its appropriateness surely would've been called into question too.
Anyways, Doolittle's first piece uncritically echoed claims by one of the aggrieved parties that the APA and Nature Conservancy were colluding but did not offer a shred of evidence to that effect.
North County Public Radio's highly respected Brian Mann further investigated some of the claims reported in Doolittle's pieces and came to a different conclusions.
Mann's research conclude that 'No, the APA did not conspire illegally with the Nature Conservancy'.
Additionally, Doolittle reported on a four year enforcement case by the APA on a John Maye, a former forest ranger and Clinton County landowner. The case dragged on but was dropped abruptly after a meeting between APA and Black Brook officials in which the latter accused the former of colluding with environmentalists.
The unwritten implication is that the threat of 'exposure' caused the APA to drop its patently unfair case.
Another piece by NCPR's Mann suggested otherwise. During the meeting, town officials shared a key piece of information with the APA rep. The APA claims that it was because they received that key piece of information that they dropped the case.
They claimed that Maye had refused to allow APA officials onto his property and failed to respond to APA inquiries. Both of these are his legal right but it's a bit dubious for him to then claim that the APA was prolonging the case simply to harass him.
I suspect Doolittle was guided, perhaps even subconsciously, to fail to ask the questions and investigate further that Mann did.
Mann wrote, Will Doolittle has expressed a firm opinion about this episode. He thinks the APA mistreated the Mayes and was then suspiciously eager to drop the case.
For my part, I'm just not sure.
The APA had been asking for a chance to look at that foundation for four years and they finally got it. That's a significant fact.
The accounts by Doolittle paint a portrait of a power hungry bureaucracy out of control, opposed only by heroic Clark Kent-like property rights defenders. Mann offers a more nuanced picture; his pieces reflect an agency whose real failings in the case seemed more about understaffing and general bureaucratic inertia.
And this perfectly illustrates the difference between pieces on the APA written by an openly anti-APA journalist and those written by one with no apparent agenda.
There are very real issues with the APA.
The fines it can impose should have a cap or at the very least, should have some kind of explicit structure. The Agency's defense of exorbitant fines ($2.9 million in one of these cases) is that it never actually collects the huge amounts; this is unpersuasive. Perhaps, fines above a certain amount can only be imposed by a court (see below).
There should be some legal obligation of responsiveness by the Agency to inquiries from property owners and municipalities. Perhaps there should be an independent ombudsman to address complaints where such responsiveness was not forthcoming or other unfair treatment alleged.
The APA board should comprise entirely full-time residents of the Park. Localities and counties should have some input into the Agency's staffing and board composition.
Most importantly, there should be some sort of judicial review available of the Agency's decisions, within the context of state constitution's Article XIV ("Forever Wild"). The APA is described by some as the zoning board for the Adirondack Park. But most zoning boards have zoning boards of appeal and this one should too. One of the reasons for the very real resentment of some Park residents is that the APA is viewed as judge, jury and executioner. Judicial review would help alleviate this.
I believe in Forever Wild. And I believe that the APA should play an important role in maintaining this. The Agency has its faults and should be reformed. And Doolittle's pieces really did expose a few disturbing facts that should be a addressed. I believe that in trying to protect the little guy from abuse by a government agency, we shouldn't go too far and expose the little guy to abuse from big developers who can do much more long-lasting damage.
But The Post-Star's inexplicable decision to assign this legitimate story to its most adamant anti-APA reporter to do this investigation was a journalistically indefensible, one clearly illustrated by the omissions that Mann revealed.
I urge you to read Doolittle's and Mann's pieces and judge for yourself.
Friday, December 21, 2007
WAMC capitulates on assault against NCPR
I blogged earlier (both here and here) on a dispute between two public radio stations in the Adirondacks.
Dr. Alan Chartock and his WAMC has withdrawn its threat to takeover North Country Public Radio's 91.7 FM frequency in Lake Placid, this according to the business blog of the Albany Times-Union.
NCPR will give its translator license to WAMC to broadcast on a different frequency in the hopes that the Canton-station will get a full-power license on the same frequency, rather than a religious station in distant Rensselaer County.
I'm not exactly sure what happened here. Perhaps it was a case of a bully, Alan Chartock, being shocked anyone would stand up to him. Perhaps, he and WAMC realized that they didn't have a leg to stand on and that the FCC wouldn't take a frequency away from a local broadcaster to one who didn't even cover that region. Or perhaps this was just an attempt to blackmail a license out of NCPR. Who knows.
But the preservation of local radio was hailed by Adirondack Almanack and Adirondack Musing blogs. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise will presumably be happy about it as well.
Dr. Alan Chartock and his WAMC has withdrawn its threat to takeover North Country Public Radio's 91.7 FM frequency in Lake Placid, this according to the business blog of the Albany Times-Union.
NCPR will give its translator license to WAMC to broadcast on a different frequency in the hopes that the Canton-station will get a full-power license on the same frequency, rather than a religious station in distant Rensselaer County.
I'm not exactly sure what happened here. Perhaps it was a case of a bully, Alan Chartock, being shocked anyone would stand up to him. Perhaps, he and WAMC realized that they didn't have a leg to stand on and that the FCC wouldn't take a frequency away from a local broadcaster to one who didn't even cover that region. Or perhaps this was just an attempt to blackmail a license out of NCPR. Who knows.
But the preservation of local radio was hailed by Adirondack Almanack and Adirondack Musing blogs. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise will presumably be happy about it as well.
Monday, December 17, 2007
More on WAMC's war against North Country Public Radio
A followup to my earlier essay on the WAMC-North Country Public Radio conflict.
NCPR has page on the dispute. I could not find a similar page on WAMC's site offering its point of view.
NCPR points out that it's not against healthy competition. Some of its coverage area overlaps with that of both WAMC and Vermont Public Radio.
North Country Public Radio broadcasts in many places where other public radio stations are heard, such as Plattsburgh and Glens Falls. We have no problem with this friendly competition; we believe it is good for communities to have public radio choices. However, WAMC's application threatens our ability to continue our service in a core community of the Adirondacks. We did not complain when WAMC signed on in Plattsburgh years after our transmitter was on the air in that community. And, we would NEVER apply for a frequency already occupied by another public radio station-it goes totally against the mission and spirit of public media.
And added that it actually offered a cooperation with WAMC, that the Albany station flat out rejected.
We attempted to negotiate with WAMC to resolve this to both stations' advantage. In return for withdrawing their application, we offered WAMC our translator facility, moved to a different frequency. This would allow WAMC to get on the air in Lake Placid quickly and with minimal expense to the station's listeners. WAMC has unequivocally rejected this offer. WAMC had no reciprocal offer for NCPR.
NCPR has page on the dispute. I could not find a similar page on WAMC's site offering its point of view.
NCPR points out that it's not against healthy competition. Some of its coverage area overlaps with that of both WAMC and Vermont Public Radio.
North Country Public Radio broadcasts in many places where other public radio stations are heard, such as Plattsburgh and Glens Falls. We have no problem with this friendly competition; we believe it is good for communities to have public radio choices. However, WAMC's application threatens our ability to continue our service in a core community of the Adirondacks. We did not complain when WAMC signed on in Plattsburgh years after our transmitter was on the air in that community. And, we would NEVER apply for a frequency already occupied by another public radio station-it goes totally against the mission and spirit of public media.
And added that it actually offered a cooperation with WAMC, that the Albany station flat out rejected.
We attempted to negotiate with WAMC to resolve this to both stations' advantage. In return for withdrawing their application, we offered WAMC our translator facility, moved to a different frequency. This would allow WAMC to get on the air in Lake Placid quickly and with minimal expense to the station's listeners. WAMC has unequivocally rejected this offer. WAMC had no reciprocal offer for NCPR.
WAMC declares war on fellow public radio station
Adirondack Almanack has a good essay on the burgeoning war between this area's two main National Public Radio affiliates: WAMC (based in Albany, NY) and North Country Public Radio (based in Canton, NY).
WAMC wants to take over the 91.7 frequency in Lake Placid, which has been run by NCPR for 20 years. I've been a member of both stations at various times but this is a terrible decision by WAMC.
WAMC's news coverage is decent but cursory. It's a mile wide and an inch deep. This isn't surprising because WAMC's gargantuan coverage area means it must provide local news for people in central and southern Vermont, the Berkshires (western Massachussetts), northern Connecticut, the Hudson Valley (southeastern NY), the Mohawk Valley (Central NY) and New York's Capital District.. WAMC also reports on state politics for those four states.
By contrasy, NCPR is focused almost exclusively on the region in and around the Adirondacks. The station often runs stories that are 5-9 minutes in length and thus offer significantly more depth than WAMC's typically brief pieces.
WAMC almost never reports on issues in Glens Falls or the Adirondacks, simply because there's not enough time. NCPR had extensive coverage of the 2001 Finch Pruyn strike in Glens Falls, even though the station's main headquarters is three times more distant than WAMC's.
WAMC's news department must attempt to be everything to everyone. NCPR's can focus on the Adirondacks. WAMC's president-for-life Alan Chartock piously claims that he's only doing this to offer choice to people in Lake Placid. This is the same Chartock who regularly bemoans increasingly consolidation in the commercial media.
Personally, I fail to see how people in Lake Placid are greatly served by knowing more about local politics in Litchfield County, CT or Massachussetts' state affairs but nothing additional about their own region.
As Almanack pointed out:
WAMC is obviously attempting to take the economic resources from our region to their offices in Albany without returning services to our community. In fact, they will be reducing local news coverage in Lake Placid. They've already done this in Plattsburgh and Ticonderoga. Search for Ticonderoga on the WAMC website - in all of 2007 they've reported just twice about Ticonderoga -both stories about International Paper. Take a look at their events calendar - not a single event in either Plattsburgh or Ticonderoga, or anywhere in the Adirondacks for that matter. Now take a look at NCPR's events calendar.
But Almanack's essay raises an aspect that I hadn't considered but makes complete sense.
WAMC has a much more upscale audience than NCPR. Because of its huge and well-off listening area, WAMC rakes in at least $700,000 during their quarterly pledge drives; I believe their last one brought in over $800,000. NCPR's typical pledge drive take is a much more modest $200,000.
WAMC News focuses primarily on the relatively prosperous Hudson Valley and on the well-off communities in the Berkshires, like Chartock's home of Great Barrington. Lake Placid is the second home for many rich folks in other parts of the state. Is it a coincidence that the only Adirondacks' frequency targeted by WAMC weren't the the ones in modest communities like Blue Mountain Lake or North Creek, but the one in the most monied town inside the Blue Line?
When you listen to NCPR, you know you are listening to a station about the Adirondacks, for Adirondackers. WAMC has become this giant broadcast empire that caters primarily to a few small parts while only paying lip service to the rest. It is based in Albany, but if it were based in Kingston, NY or Springfield, MA or Rutland, VT, you couldn't tell the difference.
I used to be a member of WAMC but am not anymore. I simply found that WAMC just didn't cover news stories that were relevant to my community or nearby ones. When NCPR added transmitters in Glens Falls and Lake George, I found a station that did. I now send money to Canton.
And frankly I'm glad I'm not a member of WAMC anymore. I wouldn't want my membership monies to making the media less local and more homogeneous.
WAMC wants to take over the 91.7 frequency in Lake Placid, which has been run by NCPR for 20 years. I've been a member of both stations at various times but this is a terrible decision by WAMC.
WAMC's news coverage is decent but cursory. It's a mile wide and an inch deep. This isn't surprising because WAMC's gargantuan coverage area means it must provide local news for people in central and southern Vermont, the Berkshires (western Massachussetts), northern Connecticut, the Hudson Valley (southeastern NY), the Mohawk Valley (Central NY) and New York's Capital District.. WAMC also reports on state politics for those four states.
By contrasy, NCPR is focused almost exclusively on the region in and around the Adirondacks. The station often runs stories that are 5-9 minutes in length and thus offer significantly more depth than WAMC's typically brief pieces.
WAMC almost never reports on issues in Glens Falls or the Adirondacks, simply because there's not enough time. NCPR had extensive coverage of the 2001 Finch Pruyn strike in Glens Falls, even though the station's main headquarters is three times more distant than WAMC's.
WAMC's news department must attempt to be everything to everyone. NCPR's can focus on the Adirondacks. WAMC's president-for-life Alan Chartock piously claims that he's only doing this to offer choice to people in Lake Placid. This is the same Chartock who regularly bemoans increasingly consolidation in the commercial media.
Personally, I fail to see how people in Lake Placid are greatly served by knowing more about local politics in Litchfield County, CT or Massachussetts' state affairs but nothing additional about their own region.
As Almanack pointed out:
WAMC is obviously attempting to take the economic resources from our region to their offices in Albany without returning services to our community. In fact, they will be reducing local news coverage in Lake Placid. They've already done this in Plattsburgh and Ticonderoga. Search for Ticonderoga on the WAMC website - in all of 2007 they've reported just twice about Ticonderoga -both stories about International Paper. Take a look at their events calendar - not a single event in either Plattsburgh or Ticonderoga, or anywhere in the Adirondacks for that matter. Now take a look at NCPR's events calendar.
But Almanack's essay raises an aspect that I hadn't considered but makes complete sense.
WAMC has a much more upscale audience than NCPR. Because of its huge and well-off listening area, WAMC rakes in at least $700,000 during their quarterly pledge drives; I believe their last one brought in over $800,000. NCPR's typical pledge drive take is a much more modest $200,000.
WAMC News focuses primarily on the relatively prosperous Hudson Valley and on the well-off communities in the Berkshires, like Chartock's home of Great Barrington. Lake Placid is the second home for many rich folks in other parts of the state. Is it a coincidence that the only Adirondacks' frequency targeted by WAMC weren't the the ones in modest communities like Blue Mountain Lake or North Creek, but the one in the most monied town inside the Blue Line?
When you listen to NCPR, you know you are listening to a station about the Adirondacks, for Adirondackers. WAMC has become this giant broadcast empire that caters primarily to a few small parts while only paying lip service to the rest. It is based in Albany, but if it were based in Kingston, NY or Springfield, MA or Rutland, VT, you couldn't tell the difference.
I used to be a member of WAMC but am not anymore. I simply found that WAMC just didn't cover news stories that were relevant to my community or nearby ones. When NCPR added transmitters in Glens Falls and Lake George, I found a station that did. I now send money to Canton.
And frankly I'm glad I'm not a member of WAMC anymore. I wouldn't want my membership monies to making the media less local and more homogeneous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)