Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« "Don't Hate Me For Obeying the... | Hey, Housewives! »

Thursday, August 23, 2007

KUOW

posted by on August 23 at 14:05 PM

The following e-mail went out to KUOW staffers earlier this week as I was reporting this week’s story on now-former KUOW staffer Ken Vincent:

From: Arvid Hokanson Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:17 PM To: Programming Staff Subject: Media Inquiries Regarding Ken Vincent and/or Writer’s Almanac Importance: High

You may receive inquiries regarding Ken’s resignation and/or upcoming programming changes. Direct any inquiries to me. Do not comment directly.

Here is the text from our Ethics and Editorial Policy:

KUOW programming staff must get permission from the Program Director or the News Director to appear on TV or other media.

Thanks,

-Arvid

Despite the e-mail, I’ve been getting quite a response from KUOW staffers to the article.

It wouldn’t be kosher to share those. But I’m also getting a big response from KUOW listeners. I was just cc’d on this, for example:

Dear Jeff Hansen, Arvid Hokanson, Marcia Scholl, and others in management:

I’ve been a longtime NPR and KUOW listener. Do you know why I listen? Probably. You’ve done more than a little analysis of your audience. You know what we’re looking for and how to deliver it.

I’ve made a wild guess as to why you’re making the changes described in Josh Feit’s recent article in ‘The Stranger.’ You want a bigger slice of the pie. More listeners. More revenue. You want to be Fox, and the only way is to be more foxy, to jazz it up and dumb it down.

The problem is, the changes will become too painful for your existing audience long before you attract much of your new target audience. You will be forced to change even faster to offset the loss. You’ll be like the smart kid in school who suddenly shows up ineptly attired in new clothes, new interests, and new slang, and the result will be laughable to all.

Here’s an alternate strategy. Attract people to what you are, make them want to be KUOW listeners. It will be hard marketing work, not nearly as easy as going Fox, but it will be better than turning into a wannabe.

And pay your people better. I’m embarrassed that I never gave this any thought. I assumed fairness would be a trait of Public Radio management.

RC

RC’s e-mail seems a bit harsh to me about the changes at KUOW. It’s not clear that the changes staffers described in my article hint at aspirations to be hyper commercial like Fox. As best I could tell, the changes afoot at KUOW are more cosmetic than editorial. At issue, it seems, is an attempt to downplay personality at the station for a more regimented feel. If anything, that seems less like Fox News and more like the AP.

RSS icon Comments

1

Hmmm not kosher to share those e-mails but okay to publish a cover letter for an intern position? Interesting.

Posted by Hmmmm | August 23, 2007 2:06 PM
2

this just goes to show that many KUOW listeners are asshats.

I wrote NPR and KUOW during the Virginia Tech coverage to tell them that it was a bunch of shit and no one will really care in a few months. and i was right.

The reply was, 'it is news for the moment and we will scale it back soon enough'

I definitely dont think telling them they are turning into fox news has any truth to it and it just serves to make the average listener seem like an even smaller person or group than they are.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 23, 2007 2:11 PM
3

i want to hear a big juicy controversy coming out of AM 880 KIXI

Posted by Music of <3Your Life :) | August 23, 2007 2:15 PM
4

@1 - i'm assuming those emails were not critical of josh's article. anyone know if the $tranger has a "how-to-deal-with-dissent" manual like the one the public just got out of the white house?

Posted by situation, meet ethics | August 23, 2007 2:18 PM
5

Well, Arvid's e-mail did say "do not comment directly". I take to mean that folks shouldn't be going on the record. People seem to be commenting indirectly, i.e. off-the-record. Or maybe I'm just naive.

I'm stumped as to why KUOW would want to be making massive changes, considering they are more popular now than they have ever been.

However, it sounds like Ken V. has had issues with his boss for a very long time, not just due to recent changes.

Posted by la | August 23, 2007 2:38 PM
6

Josh - Just forward those emails to Frizzelle. He'll publish 'em for you!

Posted by Not to worry | August 23, 2007 2:45 PM
7

The Stranger is really the only source for news in Seattle. When I moved here from Brooklyn last March I was warned how white and backwards this town is. As a Jew I feel threatened by rural and small town people. The Stranger keeps it real and is the only reliable news source for Brookly transplants like me.

Posted by Abijah | August 23, 2007 2:45 PM
8

maybe they should just fire everyone and play endless repeats of car talk and prarie home comp.

Posted by j | August 23, 2007 2:47 PM
9

I quit listening to KPLU because of Bird Note (I fucking hate the intro music and birds). Now, it appears KUOW is run by assholes. I just can't win!

Posted by corporate radio | August 23, 2007 2:49 PM
10

I guess managers at KUOW think trying to gag a bunch of reporters and hoping the situation will go away is better than actually dealing with the toxic situation that they created.

Posted by Union Yes | August 23, 2007 2:54 PM
11

@9... KPLU! I totally forgot about KPLU. It doesn't come in well on my part of Capitol Hill, but you can tune it in through cable...

What I hate is KUOW's awkward tagline: "KUOW: News and Information". It just sounds so badly done.

Posted by brappy | August 23, 2007 2:55 PM
12

I want KUOW to keep the local content. Seems like they pretty much gutted the locally produced shows (Weekday remains, obviously), and I really like the local reporting.

I know Ken Vincent was around for a long time. I like long-timers. They're the best-timers. But, Jesus Christ, he was a close second to Deborah Brandt with the ole stumblemouth.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | August 23, 2007 2:58 PM
13

I think folks can tell this isn't about Ken.

The good work that comes from KUOW hides their dirty family secret. Traditionally public radio reporters and hosts care more about their good work than how they are treated but I guess everyone has a breaking point. There aren't many options for this kind of reporting in Seattle. KUOW, KPLU and the Seattle Channel.

Posted by Union Yes | August 23, 2007 3:03 PM
14

I'm smirking a little because wages have been an issue for years but no one wanted a union. It's ironic that the so called liberals (in management) vote for the right people, take mass transportation, pity the poor can't even talk a good game when it comes to paying THEIR employees well. They take the philosophy that if people aren't leaving why give them raises?

Since there is no social contract, that's why you need a union.

Posted by Union Yes | August 23, 2007 3:39 PM
15

Whatever happened to John Moe? And KUOW's weeknight local programming?

Posted by DOUG. | August 23, 2007 3:54 PM
16

KUOW made a $2.5m profit last year...so what's the need for their semi-annual beg-a-thons, where the inference is they're going "tit's up" if we don't give...what a crock.

Posted by NPR GEEK | August 23, 2007 3:58 PM
17

Are we sure that maybe Vincent isn't just a malcontent? I remember him mocking spotted owl protection while reading the news on the hour a couple of years ago. Now that's Fox News territory.

Posted by chris | August 23, 2007 4:21 PM
18

Doug @ 15:

John is now working for Americn Public Media's "Weekend America", with his old "Rewind" cohort Bill Radke.

Posted by COMTE | August 23, 2007 4:47 PM
19

Moe was a good one. So's Bill Radke. I like Ross Reynolds, too. He's plugged in.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | August 23, 2007 5:07 PM
20

when's their next pledge drive?

Posted by Timmyjoe | August 23, 2007 5:57 PM
21

Doug: Comte answered the John Moe question briefly. The long answer is that John was at KUOW for several years, got an offer from Weekend America to go full-time (KUOW was a producing partner and he was contributing regularly already), and did so.

I appeared on John's The Works show many times over its few years in action, and then KUOW asked me to take over the name at the Beat, which I've been doing since about January.

What's funny reading all these negative comments is that I spend an hour or so every week or so over at KUOW, and find it a charming group of neat people who really care about politics and arts from the local and national angles, and put enormous amounts of time into making sure that smart and talented people (staff and guests) are heard broadly.

It's pretty obvious from listening to KUOW that that's what's going on there, too. That doesn't take away from any individuals' own philosophical issues.

I don't work for the station, so I don't know anything about working there. But I like the people and I like their work.

Posted by Glenn Fleishman | August 23, 2007 7:38 PM
22

I love this. I've been a spokesman for two local public agencies for about 13 years. Arvid has tried to put me and the agencies I've worked for on the spot a number of times. It's great to see the shoe on the other foot. How does it feel Arvid? It's fun to air other people's alleged dirty laundry but how does it feel when your laundry is out there for everyone to see? Will it result in any empathy in the future? The news media, especially KUOW and the Seattle P-I, are utterly clueless when it comes to public policy. You're all so eager to get a scoop on some sort of supposed corruption that you let numbskulls lead you around by the nose, but you're all too lazy to do any real work. The result is a misinformed public and a bunch of self righteous so-called "journalists" who don't know the meaning of the term "fact check." The news media is the single greates threat to democracy today.

Posted by Michael | August 23, 2007 7:46 PM
23

NPR! Wrrorwrrwwrwr! It's as if that splendid table lady shat on my friggen noggin. Arvid, Arvid, Arvid! Who is Arvid? I am Arvid. I'm Arvid. I'm Arvid.
Attention KUOW people: get back to talking about traffic circles. You're freaking me out.

Posted by tim | August 23, 2007 8:06 PM
24

The KUOW staff sounds great, sure sounds like they love their work because they are professional. I said before -- there is no social contract and that goes for 90% of companies. When I worked for a radio station in the 80's I needed to rush home because my dad was dying but I didn't have enough vacation time. My boss said: "Do what you need to do and don't be concerned about anything -- take care of yourself."

I had only been there a week. And this was one of the largest broadcasters in the US. Hint: It was founded by a general, who demanded he be referred to General Sarnoff. (google that) So rather to look at KUOW and say "tough that's the way it is today," why not say it doesn't have to be this way? ..... 'Some dream of what could have been and say why not?' Why not treat people as people rather than your means to your end?

Posted by Union Yes | August 23, 2007 10:22 PM
25

I like old what's his fuck who quit. I like the cut of his jib.

Don't give a shit that he bounced though. Fuckin' NPR ain't populist.

The stupid working class, we're pub ed crazy. We like you to talk like us. Maybe deign to suck the shit out of our socialist assholes every now and then, Mercer Dad.

Quit whispering like you're gonna get scolded for talking over Howard Stern or something, pussies.

Posted by Karen E. Sharon | August 24, 2007 6:24 AM
26

One of the prior writers noted the large profit last year at KUOW. I thought it was a million. The writer said it was 2.5 million. No matter - both are large numbers for an organization of their size.

I am on two non-profit boards as well as a commission. I know how finances work and how hard it is to raise money for most. KUOW has no such problem since they use their captive audience and I believe if not lie, clearly misrepresent their situation in their twice annual 'guiltathon'. They imply that times are challenging yet they do not clearly post their audit or state the real facts of their surplus (the term for profit in non-profits) or their plans for this surplus that justifies ongoing fundraising. My concern is that the general public naively gives to an entity that basically does not need so much money.

Don't get me started on some of their programming decisions, but reasonable people can differ on that. I will miss Garrison Keillor's brief spots.

I hope that the writer or someone will do an incisive story on KUOW's finances. That is far more salient to the public than an employer/employee dispute, where reasonable people can differ and one can't really infer any particular systemic problem.

Posted by Lowell | September 4, 2007 10:49 AM
27

One of the prior writers noted the large profit last year at KUOW. I thought it was a million. The writer said it was 2.5 million. No matter - both are large numbers for an organization of their size.

I am on two non-profit boards as well as a commission. I know how finances work and how hard it is to raise money for most. KUOW has no such problem since they use their captive audience and I believe if not lie, clearly misrepresent their situation in their twice annual 'guiltathon'. They imply that times are challenging yet they do not clearly post their audit or state the real facts of their surplus (the term for profit in non-profits) or their plans for this surplus that justifies ongoing fundraising. My concern is that the general public naively gives to an entity that basically does not need so much money.

Don't get me started on some of their programming decisions, but reasonable people can differ on that. I will miss Garrison Keillor's brief spots.

I hope that the writer or someone will do an incisive story on KUOW's finances. That is far more salient to the public than an employer/employee dispute, where reasonable people can differ and one can't really infer any particular systemic problem.

Posted by Lowell | September 4, 2007 10:49 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).