BOB PAPPER: “I DON’T REPORT AUDIENCE”

Our post last Friday about the RTDNA’s latest survey [link] – Local News By the Numbers – received higher than usual reader attention. In that post I was critical of the value of this RTDNA survey and the conclusions of its author Bob Papper. 

I notified Papper about my post and this led to a spirited email debate.

I have included the entire verbatim email exchange with Papper in the lower portion of this post. Here are major points on which we disagree:

1.) Papper’s study does not consider the size of the audience reached. He says: I don’t report audience. Using this methodology, five minutes of news content on a station in rural Oklahoma has the same weight as five minutes of news on WAMU in Washington, DC.

I believe this fact makes the RTDNA study virtually meaningless. Papper, on the other hand, feels there is value in his methodology and findings because they reveal long-term trends. Papper has been using the same methodology for 23 years. and, for him, this provides an apples-to-apples comparison that he believes is meaningful. 

Many aspects of radio and news have changed in 23 years. In 1994, when the RTDNA Local News By the Numbers survey was first conducted, commercial radio had yet to experience the hyper-consolidation of ownership. Today many commercial radio newsrooms have been decimated by debt-ridden, shareholder-driven clusters of stations such as those operated by iHeartMedia and Cumulus.   

Public radio has also experienced many changes since 1994. Format focusing at NPR stations has led to 24/7 news operations on NPR stations in most major markets. NPR stations are hiring and commercial stations are still firing.

Since 1994 the public radio news audience has more than doubled. The commercial radio news audience has gotten smaller. The RTDNA study never mentions this fundamental change.

RADIO FORMATS RECOGNIZED BY BOB PAPPER

2.) Papper’s study arbitrarily defines stations into out-dated formats. He puts stations into baskets of “commercial” and “noncommercial” stations. 

The chart on the left is how Papper categorizes radio formats today. To me, his definitions don't jive with reality.

For instance, Papper believes that NPR News/Talk stations are, by his definition, the same as commercial news/talk stations. 

Using this rationale, conservative talker WOR-AM and WNYC AM/FM are lumped together as "news/talk" stations. Both of these stations have similar size audiences, but their programming and audience characteristics are completely different.

Papper believes that his methodology worked 23 years ago and it still works now because [paraphrasing]  we've always done it this way.

Radio formats are in constantly in flux.  NPR News stations have been very successful expanding their reach and impact on digital platforms. “NPR News” is now a national brand that is recognized by listeners from Seattle to Miami and Boston to San Diego.

3.) The RTDNA study – Local News By the Numbers – never defines “local news.” Is content “local” because it is broadcast on a local station, or is it "local" because it is delivered by local reporters, or is it "local" because it arises from a specific geographic area?

4.) Is Papper’s view of public radio news shaped by his personal experiences at WBST, Muncie a/k/a Indiana Public Radio. Public radio news and even WBST have changed since in the past 20 years. I hope Papper does not have a grudge against NPR stations based on his own experiences in Muncie.

KEN’S CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Bob Papper has made, and is still making, terrific contributions to journalism and broadcast news.  But, just because something has “worked” for 23 years doesn’t make it useful today. I know that Bob Papper is a person of good will, has sound judgment and knows the landscape continually changes.

I suggest Papper and RTDNA examine their survey and refocus it on factors that matter such as the reach and impact of news content.  Why not stratify results by market size? Or, even better, weight data by using an index based on Nielsen Audio ratings. I recommend they do perceptual studies to measure the impact of news provided via broadcasting and digital devices and systems.

VERBATIM EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH BOB PAPPER

(Note: Some text was garbled when it was converted from the original emails)

Message #1 Mills to Papper

From:: Ken Mills
Sent:: Friday, June 9, 2017 8:40 AM
To:: Bob Papper
Subjject:: Criticism of Your RTDNA Survey

Hi Bob -- Just a quick note to tell you my blog today on my noncom media blog has a review of your recent RTDNA survey about news on radio. You can see it at: http://acrnewsfeed.blogspot.com/2017/06/rtdna-radio-news-research- misses-point.html

I would appreciate your feedback. I have great respect for you and your work but your survey is sub par. Thank you, Ken Mills.

Message #2 Papper to Mills

From: Bob Papper <Bob.Papper@hofstra.edu> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 1:23 PM
To: Ken Mills
Subject: RE: CriPcism of Your RTDNA Survey

Ken,
I’m always delighted to hear from people commenting on the RTDNA/Hofstra University Annual Survey of local radio and television news.

You’ve asked some interesting questions about the Survey, so let me attempt to answer. This is my 23rd year of doing the Survey, and there have been quite a few changes over that time. Some of those come as a result of people like you suggesting new questions or alterations to existing ones.

You wondered what percentage of the radio sample involved non-commercial stations. It’s 27.7%. You’re the first person who’s asked.

NPR News/Talk is not listed as a radio format because it is, pretty much by definition, “News/Talk.” That’s where it’s listed. The purpose of that chart was to provide a big picture look at where the radio news in the survey sample was coming from.

I’m puzzled by your complaint about my reporting on radio newscasts. Most local radio news is delivered within radio newscasts – and that includes public radio. I spent more than a dozen years as a public radio news director, and we had local newscasts. The station still does. For the most part, the amount of local radio news can be viewed in two ways: by newscast and by overall amount of news ... and I report both. I’m sorry, but I’m just not clear on your issue here. I also compared commercial radio and non-commercial radio in both areas, so I’m not sure what else I can do.

You first question was why I don’t measure “capacity for news generation” and “total amount of news created.” But I do. The total amount of news – including a comparison between commercial and non-commercial radio – was in the article you cited. Right after the average and median numbers on news, the article noted, “Usually, commercial stations run more local news than non-commercial stations, but this year, the average amount of news was identical ... although commercial stations were one-third higher in median amount of time.”

By “capacity for news generation” I assume you mean staffing. The survey data is broken up in a series of articles ... 9 in all. Eight include TV, and eight include radio. The RTDNA website includes last year’s staffing numbers because the new article hasn’t been published yet. I think it’s coming in the next week or two ... and it does include separate commercial and non-commercial radio staffing numbers – as did last year’s.

But don’t expect those staffing numbers to make non-commercial radio look like MPR. As you well know, Minnesota Public Radio is an operation unto itself. I

doubt there are more than three public stations in the country on a staffing par with MPR.

The answer to your question, “Why did you choose not to delineate NPR News stations in your survey because that is obviously where the most radio news now lives?” is complicated. First, I can’t agree with your premise. If the measure is total number of local radio news staffers, I’m confident that the total number in commercial radio far exceeds the total number in non-commercial radio.

You can probably argue that the median (but probably not average) number of news staffers at NPR stations THAT RUN LOCAL NEWS is larger than the median number at commercial stations, but now we really are dancing on that pinhead.

If the measure is total audience reached (either cume or average), then public radio still isn’t going to win the battle ... especially with giant all-news stations like WINS and WCBS on the commercial side. More to the point, I almost always note whatever the numbers are for public radio versus commercial radio ... in all eight articles.

Your last question, on “Why did you not consider the size of the audience reached with news programming?” is partly answered above, but the bigger point is that I don’t report audience. The RTDNA/Hofstra University Survey reports on the state of the local radio and television news industry. I don’t report on the networks (although I’d love to do so if they would supply data to me), and I don’t get into audience size for either radio or TV. There are others who look at those areas, but it’s well outside the scope of what I can do.

I hope that helps to explain the Survey. As an aside, I used to work in Minneapolis (at WCCO-TV ... as one of the founding producers of a show called “Moore on Sunday” ... a long, long time ago). And I’m both a listener – and member – of my local public radio station. I’m also a long-time admirer of Minnesota Public Radio ... and I appreciate all the efforts you’ve made over the years to help make public radio even better.

Thanks for your note. Bob Papper

Message #3 Mills to Papper

From: Ken Mills
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 2:13 PM
To: Bob Papper
Subject: Re: CriPcism of Your RTDNA Survey

Bob,

I appreciate your kind and informative reply. Thanks for mentioning your association with WCCO and Dave Moore. Moore’s legacy still looms large here in the Twin Cities.

I have one quick question: May I publish your comments on my blog?

Here are my thoughts on some of your questions:

NPR News/Talk is not listed as a radio format because it is, pretty much by definition, “News/Talk.” That’s where it’s listed.

I disagree that NPR News stations are not a distinct radio format. I am not aware of any commercial stations that program long-form news in magazine programs such as Morning Edition or All Things Considered. For example, you might say that WOR and WNYC in New York are both “News/Talk” but they are almost completely different in their programming. I don’t think they can be lumped together in the same basket.

I’m puzzled by your complaint about my reporting on radio newscasts. Most local radio news is delivered within radio newscasts – and that includes public radio. I spent more than a dozen years as a public radio news director, and we had local newscasts.

Perhaps we have a difference in our semantics. To me a newscast is a self-contained, five-minute or so, discreet entity with “spot news.” I can’t think of a single NPR News station that airs this type local newscast.

When public radio began in the 1970s there were quite a few local newscasts, but now there are very few. Now local reporting is inserted into NPR News magazines. These local reports are not “spot news.” They are long-form programming that mirror the sound and style of NPR.

[The] article noted, “Usually, commercial stations run more local news than non-commercial stations, but this year, the average amount of news was identical ... although commercial stations were one-third higher in median amount of time.”

I disagree. Other than News/Weather/Traffic stations like 1010 WINS and KNX, very few commercial stations carry as much news content as NPR News stations. For example in Minneapolis, WCCO-AM airs maybe a cumulative of three hours per day. KNOW, MPR’s news flagships air news content virtually 24/7.

By “capacity for news genera8on” I assume you mean staffing. As you well know, Minnesota Public Radio is an operation unto itself. I doubt there are more than three public stations in the country on a staffing par with MPR.

Perhaps there was a time years ago when this was true but it isn’t true today. There are now 20–30 NPR News stations that have newsrooms of equal or larger size than MPR. Top-of-mind examples include WNYC, WBUR, WAMU, KPCC, KQED, WBEZ, KUOW and KOPB. Also, there are several regional news cooperatives (sometimes called Local Journalism Centers) that provide news on specific topics and regions. I think the scale and scope of news on NPR News stations has expanded since you were involved in public radio.

The answer to your ques8on, “Why did you choose not to delineate NPR News stations in your survey because that is obviously where the most radio news now lives?” is complicated. First, I can’t agree with your premise. If the measure is total number of local radio news staffers, I’m confident that the total number in commercial radio far exceeds the total number in non-commercial radio.

One of my biggest disagreements with your methodology is to lump all commercial and noncommercial stations into distinct groups. You may be correct that commercial radio stations have more news staffers than noncommercial stations. But this metric is meaningless.

My point in saying “Why did you choose not to delineate NPR News stations in your survey because that is obviously where the most radio news now lives?” is based on looking at listening trends. According to the most recent Nielsen Audio estimates, NPR News stations are now reaching more listeners than commercial News/Talk stations.

In Washington DC, WAMU is beating WTOP (the top billing commercial station in the nation) in average- quarter-hour share. WAMU has three times more listeners than WMAL. In San Francisco, KQED tops KCBS in AQH share. Many NPR News stations now have historically high numbers of listeners. NPR News stations continue to grow audience even as persons using radio declines by one to two percent per year.

Your last ques8on, on “Why did you not consider the size of the audience reached with news programming?” is partly answered above, but the bigger point is that I don’t report audience.

This is my biggest disagreement with your survey. Using your methodology, a station in Peoria counts the same as a station in New York, correct? Are you saying that a station in Peoria has the same impact as a station in New York? No way.

Why not stratify your results by market size? Or, even better, weight your data by an index based on the ratings. This blog and other sources report Nielsen Audio ratings for commercial and noncommercial every month in the top 50 markets.

Despite our disagreements, we both seek to encourage excellence in broadcast news – both is quality and quantity.

Best wishes, Ken Mills.

Message #4 Papper to Mills

Bob Papper <Bob.Papper@hofstra.edu> Fri 6/9/2017 4:55 PM

To:Ken Mills <publicradio@hotmail.com>;

Ken,
You’re more than welcome to publish my comments, but I don’t agree with your further comments here in your email.

First, you’re comparing apples and oranges. I report on LOCAL news ... you’re comparing NPR and a handful of extraordinary local efforts on one hand with mostly local news and talk on the other.

My local NPR affiliate runs two to four 2-minute newscasts per hour during ME and ATC. By the way, each contains two stories ... and the newscasts repeat every other Pme (most of the Pme). Frankly, it’s an embarrassment. In fairness, the staPon also runs a one-hour per weekday call-in talk show ... but no reporter ever steps outside of the staPon with a microphone. I think you’re generalizing about non-commercial news coverage based on a handful of excepPons to the rule. Even public staPons that take local news more seriously sPll just run 10-12 minutes per hour ... mostly, again, within ME and ATC. Many NPR news/talk affiliates run no local news. None.

Sure, I can find a few markets where the leading NPR affiliate beats any ONE of the all news or news-talk staPons, but I don’t believe you can find any market where the NPR affiliate(s) beats all of the news and news/talk staPons. That includes DC, San Francisco and Minneapolis/St. Paul ... which are the only markets I know where the public staPon comes out ahead of the single, top all news or news/talk staPon. It doesn’t work that way in NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, etc. As much as I might prefer it the other way (just to have a more enlightened populace), the aggregated commercial all-news and news/talk audience dwarfs the non-commercial news/talk audience.

Bob