The news that Rush Limbaugh is to add video
to his podcasts brought to find the old saw about faces made
for radio: it may be that the gift from God likes to look
at himself in the mirror but we can't really see 60 seconds
of video adding that much. That however is almost inconsequential
in that his subscribers can presumably choose not to bother
with the visual podcast.
More serious is the effect concentration on adding other extraneous
elements may have on the core benefits of the medium and thus
on the prosperity of commercial radio itself: We can only
hope that there remains sufficient pressure to keep the better
public broadcasters financed well enough to produce the range
of radio they do and that is just not going to make air in
the commercial sector.
In either case, the extras involve a cost in effort and resources
and either they are self-sustaining in covering the costs
of the latter and a good return on the former or they detract
from the overall: As we don't find them worth bothering about
nearly all the time - we occasionally succumb to a minor bout
of curiosity - but others do, there is always the issue of
whether, like a web site, they are becoming a must-have to
which our response is "Up to a point, Lord Copper."
We certainly accept that fans being what they are - and radio
benefiting from keeping them - it is almost essential to post
some stills of on-air personalities on station web sites but
are less enamoured of streaming video of them at work for
the simple reason that the first doesn't affect the on-air
performance but the latter may.
Downsides of adding
video.
We see a number of potential drawbacks
to adding video, the most important of which is the side effect
the visual has on those potential stars of audio who just
don't happen to look particularly attractive: Before MTV it
seems to us, the balance of appearance and vocal and musical
ability was different in much of the pop world - indeed in
the classical world also as we'd ask whether knowing from
a photo of Vanessa Mae in the water playing a violin that
she had breasts particularly improved the music.
The point is not to do with Mae but the effect this particular
sales pitch had on perceptions of the market on those making
classical recordings and the same is true for many of the
female groups now around whose vocal talent seems somewhat
limited compared to that of those with more vocal talent less
glamour.
The other point worth making repeatedly is the difference
between something pitched perfectly for listening and that
which is well made for TV: the first draws in the listener
through a combination of description and scene-setting, audio
- be it reality or effects, and the listener's imagination,
whereas the last omits much of the description and scene setting
since the visual gives this information.
Those elements have not changed since we first trained in
radio or TV but the use of the same reporter's work for both
media has certainly made well constructed items rather more
scarce: Far too often the radio report lacks information that
has been carried by the pictures and the TV report includes
descriptions of the obvious that is in the pictures. In entertainment
programmes where attempts have been made to syndicate the
audio of a TV show, we can't think of a really successful
transition, a sign to us that the audience, probably without
analysing why, does find something significant missing: Equally
where radio shows, especially comedy shows that have relied
on anarchic and wacky humour or indeed anything that relies
on a listener's imagination, have been moved over to TV they
have often fallen flat because the "visions" that
could be conjured up using words couldn't be matched by the
"visuals" that TV could provide.
The positives of
adding video.
Here we find ourselves having significant
difficulty in coming up with any sensible suggestions in aesthetic
terms since our view is that the combination of words and
vision is film, cartoons and TV and if to be of high quality
is better on TV anyway.
So what does that leave? Well, except for drivers - and the
evidence there is that even pushing a button to change a channel
can be a dangerous distraction so we would cautious with receivers
in an automobile about adding any visual information that
takes the eyes away from the road - we can see some commercial
advantages in having the ability for provide text - which
it should be possible to store for later retrieval - be it
for giving song information linked with download sales or
additional information to go with adverts: Why clog up the
airwaves, for example, with details such as phone numbers
or URLs when the advert can be made aurally more attractive
without such clutter yet the details could be available later
at the touch of a button.
But as for the rest, well that's not radio but might it be
profitable for radio to use its delivery system to provide
services in areas that others could move into. We can see
benefits here from using radio spectrum, especially in countries
that have adopted the Eureka 147 DAB system that uses separate
spectrum, to deliver such services as news, weather and sports
updates to cell phones and mobile devices, since these can
be received without "interruption to normal service"
using the radio spectrum and then be instantly available from
built-in memory and the return path can be used for selection
purposes, which make less demand.
The same system could also be used as a method of delivering
songs since the information could easily be transmitted and
stored but need a return signal to unlock it.
Not much is it? If you disagree please send your own comment
to us. In the meantime we'd rather have radio that's used
the medium properly, promotes its virtues as distinct from
those of other media, and gives as wide a range as possible
- not just narrow music formats plus sport and talk with a
sprinkling of news headlines but also comedy, current affairs
drama, documentaries, in-depth news reports. We already have
it in the UK - thanks to the BBC - and elsewhere public broadcasters
also deliver a reasonable range, although nothing had the
depth and breadth of the BBC. And thanks to the Internet,
most of that range is available round the world. Long may
that continue!