What can public radio do to diversify its audience?

[Michael Arnold]

In a September 15th CURRENT article, we make a point that diversity is everybody's business in public radio. To illustrate this, we discuss a PRI analysis that shows that college-educated people of color are not served equally by public radio, despite many people's beliefs that educated listeners' attraction to public radio transcends race.

What do you think we should do about this?

[Will Wright]

Hello Mr. Arnold,
There are many ways to respond to this. As a public radio listener and storyteller of color, I think that another question may help just as much: how much do you think the "NPR" sound turns off some of us? My tracking sounds more like "NPR" than it does the low-income and under-educated areas, where most people of color are.
I'm very close to being a committed pessimist about the power holders in our public radio community wanting to upturn the status quo in order to attract more people of color. I hate to feel like that.
I think that, aside from the enormous obstacle of communities of color having public radio off their radar, is that when it is on their radar, it nearly never sounds like their neighborhood. People often talk about the dulcet tone of public radio. If you don't hear people who sound like you do, why will you keep tuning in? The public radio brand sound must change. NPR was delighted to boast about having Tavis Smiley until they noticed he kept his characteristic sound; he was conversational and casual.
Until someone aggressively acts on the need for this brand and cultural upturn that is needed, I think that few acts of substance will come. I fear that there are far more power holders who want to keep their middle-class and affluent Anglo audience than are those who are brave enough to upset those Anglos by changing the beloved and "calm" sound that brands public radio. Does public radio value or covet its Anglo audience and money so much that it has hobbled itself?
I hate being this cynical or jaded, but I also hate hearing how many people like you, Mr. Arnold, want to change things and finding nothing bold comes from it. Thank you for asking the question. I fear that some people who ask this question want to hear safe answers not those which throw down the guantlet. I don't think I can wait 20 years for changes in mainstream public radio, that we deserve now, to finally come.
It reminds me of how often the "negro problem" perplexed Anglos; they wouldn't accept that negros were not a problem.

[Richard S Mitnick]

In the music area, for those of us who still value the power of PubRadio in serious music, diversify the music.

If anyone needs to here an example of where this is working, tune in to Evening Music at http://www.wnyc.ord. Listen to Terrance McKnight Monday-Thursday 7:00PM-11:00PM, or David Garland, Friday-Sunday, same time.

[Mike Marcotte]

Mike,
This is a critical question. I happen to think we can diversify the listenership by diversifying a) the on-air staff, b) the management, and c) the content choices. I am NOT suggesting a weakening of radio talent or management experience or journalistic values. This is not a new suggestion -- it has been the operating principle throughout our system for several decades. So why isn't it working? Well, perhaps it is, slowly. I don't have the numbers (I bet someone does) but my personal observation is that we have made progress on a and c above. Management is changing too but takes the longest. But, there is a still a lag in how that translates to listeners... AND chances are we haven't really reached the "tipping point"in diversity to make the serious difference we hope to make. My advice is to redouble our efforts, train-and-recruit like our future depends on it (it does -- take note of the example set by Doug Mitchell and the Next Gen Project), and keep fighting the good fight. You may be surprised; the tipping point may lie just ahead.

[Cecil hickman]

What a dumb question !!! It's not brain surgery !!!!

I trained in all manner of mainstream news including public radio.. It was only after I left public radio and consulted with numerous minority, religious, commerical and nonprofit organizations that I gained an understanding of the profound disconnect between public radio news and the target audience it purports to want to attract.

One minor example, I spent a year attending weekly meetings of black ministers...treating it like a city hall beat. I developed sources, and learned what a blind eye mainstream news media has. I was surprised to see national political and civic leaders of all colors dropping by these meetings to curry favor with whom they clearly saw as the power brokers in the community. I also learned how different minority priorities were from the mainstream press who seemed to practice parachute journalism at best... And this is just one example. The key I learned, is to consistently go where minorities are, listen to what they say, and develop news stories from it. Hanging out with minorities is just not something public radio journalists and editors want to do.

Attracting a diverse audience is not brain surgery at all it turns out. Applying traditional journalism to minority communities is something successful minority publications have done for decades. This tried and true technique leads to increased circulation (cume ratings), develops new funding sources, and makes public radio truly public and less elitist. I know, I've done it successfully many times. But traditional journalism is out of favor in our engorged digital environment. The sad irony is, that traditional journalism works even more lucratively than any other coverage scheme.

[Ron Perrone]

Truly, traditional journalism is in decline. The younger audiences thumb twiddle their info. For some its a convenient shortcut in a hurried world. For others its a reflection of their linguistic and intellectual abilities as taught to them by their elders. Set against the collapsing biology of the planet, the resurgence of apocalyptic religion, the rejection of science, and the victory of the multinational corporate movement, America has been gazing into its electronic navel and discovered only what has been sold to them . . . the joys of fried food, mass entertainment, and willful ignorance.

As the Vietnam War was the searing and decisive cultural schism and a loss for the progressive movement in the US for my generation, the decline of the information sharing organs of our culture are setting the field for another kind of battle of world views. The cacophonous babble of garbage spewing from the TV and Radios have young folks tuning out. Among them are a brilliant cadre of disillusioned, angry and articulate thinkers. They don't listen to the news. They don't watch TV, they don't read newspapers. They don't even own telephones or radios. If it isn't on line or on the I-pod, they aren't interested because in their experience, it has all been a lie and the world around them is falling apart. They are new and different and this will be their world soon. Public Radio and Television should think about diving into that new paradigm if it wants to change its fate.