[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Swprograms] FW: World Service Feedback
- Subject: Re: [Swprograms] FW: World Service Feedback
- From: Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:37:48 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=jBtWo2eSzKYS4lWjuByIYKZtGCepBRCEU5RQ3he93fPKEZrCHvbKVuINBztrlI1lwIZcH+gAhrjiTmvhptG5vVnCob4BzEpJlko/ckD8lTjzqBVkatLgnyYXjEUJ2pKkgwcPcZ5jp+KhhG5bA5OWwvLTVxwNE3co/hdRO12cRCY=
This is one of the reasons I wanted to get that discussion going
regarding "what it means to be a public broadcaster".
Inevitably broadcasters of all sorts have to wrestle with the
"bang/buck" dilemma.
The challenge for a public broadcaster -- because it has more latitude
in its metrics -- is what does "bang" mean? Number of listeners?
Average listener IQ? Number of "opinion formers" who listen at 2 AM?
Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA USA
On Apr 11, 2005 3:22 PM, Scott Royall <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I must concur with you on this. I found the email to be quite eloquent in
> its description of the BBC's reasoning. I've actually resisted using the
> "bang/buck" cliché, but I'm glad you did because that's what this all comes
> down to. The BBC is just trying to the most people it can on a finite
> budget. Understanding that doesn't infer agreement, of course. It just
> acknowledged a feality.
_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
To unsubscribe: Send an E-mail to swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.