Search Results for: source

By Andy Gladding, Ed.D.
WMCA 570 / WNYM 970 Radio, NY
WRHU 88.7 FM, Hofstra University
Chief Engineer

Following the 2024 election cycle, there has been a flurry of conversation and speculation over the diminishing role linear media played in deciding the outcome of high-profile national races. With both the Trump and Harris teams choosing to heavily engage with social media influencers, digital media outlets and podcasters, campaign operatives have demonstrated that they are willing to shift their political ad spending into newer forms of broadcast messaging. This has called into question just how much influence and effectiveness legacy media has over audiences in the current media market.

However, not every country shares this perception. In 2020, WRHU Radio Hofstra University in New York formed an alliance with 89.5FM Bush Radio in Cape Town, South Africa. Bush Radio is the oldest community radio station in South Africa, having long been an established voice for the Cape Town area since the early 1990s. With programming in three languages and a highly diverse staff, the station is deeply ingrained in the fabric of the Cape Town media space. The parallel goals of WRHU and Bush Radio, specifically emphasis on local journalism, community programming and educational radio training, provided a strong foundation for the stations to build this joint venture. The purpose of this partnership was to explore the power and reach of community radio in each station’s respective broadcast area. Since the inception of this relationship, both stations have enjoyed a continuous flow and exchange of ideas, goals and programming, even co-producing a weekly show called “1World Radio,” which highlights news, talk and music content featured WRHU and Bush Radio.

Bush Radio journalists Jasnine Roberts, Lydia Marwanqana, Renato Van Schalkwyk, and Adrian Louw tour the Salem Radio New York facilities with chief engineer Andy Gladding (pictured in rear) and assistant production manager Alex Garrett (pictured in front).

As part of this alliance, the stations were able to engage in a radio exchange program commencing just before the 2024 U.S. elections. With monies gained from a cultural grant, Bush Radio sent five radio journalists abroad to New York and Washington, DC to cover the national elections. The purpose of this trip was for the Bush Radio journalists to have the opportunity to see the American democratic process up close and later report their findings back to the Cape Town listening audience.

During the New York leg of their journey, I had the pleasure of offering our colleagues from WRHU’s “sister station” an up close and personal look at some of the New York’s finest broadcast institutions. The Bush Radio journalists, using WRHU as their base of operations, had the chance to visit New York Public Radio, Salem Media of New York, Long Island News Radio and fellow NCE broadcasters at WHPC and WCWP. Bush Radio members had the opportunity to interview local politicians, interface with student journalists and even participate in some radio broadcasts, including AM970’s “The Arthur Aidala Power Hour” “The One Leg Up Podcast” with Alex Garrett and WRHU’s Hofstra’s Morning Wake Up Call.

At the beginning of their visit, the Bush Radio team had a number of pre-conceived notions about the American electoral process, national media and cultural ideals. They were all aware of the large impact that American media has had on the rest of the world, with most of their impressions of the USA generally rooted in older idioms of American pop culture, specifically things they had seen on MTV, NBC, ABC and other international network programming originating from the United States. They believed the American elections were similar to the south African cycle, with campaigns lasting only for a few months and a generally receptive population to the post-election outcomes.

However, after spending some time in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Long Island conducting interviews and analyzing news reporting during their visit, their perspective was much different. The Bush Radio journalists were amazed at the drastic differences in reporting they saw across different news outlets. They observed that different stations were geared to provide favorable reporting to targeted audiences, which was something they noted didn’t happen back in South Africa. They were also surprised at how divided and polarized Americans were, summing the experience to how people would choose sides as if they were rooting for a favorite football or soccer team. Finally, they noticed that while the national media seemed to be coalescing around Harris as their preferred candidate, the polling was pointing towards a Trump victory. The stark differences between the bias of the media verses the national momentum was also surprising to them.

According to the Bush Radio journalists, they felt that linear network and community broadcasting carried a much larger influence back home than it did in the United States. They believed that this was partially because much of their domestic population does not have access to broadband internet, which meant that many still relied on terrestrial broadcasting to receive their information. However, they also observed that many people they spoke to had developed a distrust of the media. The South African journalists believed that much of this sentiment stemmed from apparent media bias, since the national reporting didn’t seem to accurately reflect the polling trends. They also pointed out that due to the wide array of media outlets and digital content providers that were available to the public, there seemed to be a dilution of credibility across all media sources, as the sheer volume of stories made it difficult for people to fact check all of the decentralized information.

However, the Bush journalists also observed that many Americans held the First Amendment in high regard. Freedom of speech and expression is a relatively young concept in post-apartheid South Africa. The journalists were amazed at the confidence and accessibility Americans presented when it came to sharing personal opinions or thoughts. This, according to the Bush Radio journalists, was not a widely accepted practice back home.

Many of the journalists were also amazed at the willingness of different groups to cross “traditional cultural lines” to vote for candidates that were from different ethnic backgrounds. They noted that back home, voters from specific racial backgrounds would generally align with candidates that were of a similar race. According to the journalists, this demonstrated that the idea of being “American” alongside the marketing of a candidate was a unique force that could work against ingrained or learned racial stereotypes and biases.

Despite the contentious nature of the elections and the high level of emotion generated by the outcome, the Bush Radio folks believed that the American democratic process was indeed intact and that their role as community radio journalists was now more important than ever. They noted that if they could be the “standard-bearers” of the news and produce reliable and credible content, it would draw greater listenership to their linear programming. According to the journalists, credibility was the most important element a radio station could have, especially as people around the world look for new ways to consume information. They acknowledged the fact that regardless of our cultural differences, they saw a similar passion for broadcasting and community service among their radio counterparts in New York, especially after interfacing with the students at WRHU. They also learned a very valuable lesson during their visit, specifically that New York pizza has the power to bring opposing groups together, as it was their observation this celebrated cuisine seemed to be served at every management meeting that required uncomfortable discussions or decision making. As one of the Bush journalists exclaimed after enjoying his first slice, “this pizza could solve all of the world’s problems.”

As a continuation of the WRHU-Bush Radio partnership, members of WRHU have been invited to travel to Cape Town in February and participate in the reporting on the results of the South African elections. Based on the feedback from the South African journalists, I am confident that this experience will be just as rewarding and exciting as it was for the Bush Radio participants.

1World Radio airs every Tuesday between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm on WRHU, Radio Hofstra University.

Dr. Andrew Gladding is the chief engineer of the Salem Media stations in New York City – WMCA 570 / WNYM 970 – as well as WRHU 88.7 FM, Hofstra University, where he also serves as a lecturer on communications.  He can be reached at 516-527-0764 or andyg@nycradio.com.

This presidential election cycle provided a number of insights, revelations, and takeaway lessons for news/talk radio.  And by using the term “news/talk radio” I mean all spoken word platforms on the AM/FM dial including commercial, public, educational, and ethnic outlets that provide news, politics, and commentary.  They are all RADIO.

1. ​Conservative talk radio is legitimate. Its detractors who claim its content and opinions only address a relatively small percentage of the American public and a dying demographic are obviously misreading the tea leaves.  Conservative talk radio is big, influential, and a long-time bellwether of American public opinion.  Conservative talk radio would do much better than it already does in terms of ratings and revenue if it were supported by its preponderance of financially crippled and intestinally paralyzed owners with the resources it needs to do what it does with maximum effectiveness.  The genre should stay the course, perhaps with renewed vigor and variety.

2. The potential for liberal talk radio has never been greater in the modern era.  Opinion radio works best when it is the resistance to “big” anything – big government, big media, big business, big religion, big tech, big pharma, and big BS. There are key differences between playing cultural offense and defense in this game.  The stage is now set for the first time since the blessed repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for a tremendous resistance and galvanizing on the left side of talk radio’s commercial offerings… now that the shoe is obviously on the other foot.  This should not be executed at the expense of conservative talk radio.  There are enough dead in the water music stations out there ready for new life.  And don’t tell me about Air America.  That’s ancient and inapplicable history.  I’m a broadcaster, not a politician. The true “battleground” of today’s dynamically polarized society should and can take place to a large and healthy extent on the AM and FM dial!  At present, YouTube is eating radio’s lunch with its energetic lineup of outstanding independent liberal talk talent (as well as conservative).

3. Public radio needs to come clean. Until public radio gets honest with itself as to what it actually represents on the true spectrum of public opinion, it will not realize growth, but rather a continuing background wallpaper role in American politics and cultural relevance. A new level of self-honesty will provide public radio with the boost it so desperately needs to move in a more pertinent direction.

4. Ethnic talk radio does not represent political monoliths. Time to wake up to that obvious fact and stop with the insulting blinders and stereotypes.

5. Joe Rogan. The radio industry should never have allowed Joe Rogan and those who will follow in his footsteps to be a non-AM/FM talk show host.   Talk radio and talk media are cousins and they currently are still genetically connected.  But they are also competitors and talk radio is fighting an uphill battle in that struggle.

Michael Harrison can be contacted at michael@talkers.com. 
 

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

Let’s continue our ongoing series of articles about fair use. A recent case highlights fair use considerations in audio media and podcasting, particularly concerning music and short audio clips used in intros, where some creators assume that brief snippets automatically qualify as “fair use.” Legal experts clarify that using a song clip, even if brief, doesn’t inherently meet fair use criteria. Courts have emphasized that fair use hinges not just on brevity but also on factors like purpose, nature, and market impact on the original work. Music clips, even short ones, are often seen as significant portions of the original content, carrying substantial value, making unauthorized use in podcasts or similar formats legally risky.

The concept of “transformative use” is crucial in fair use evaluations; content must add new meaning or context to the original rather than simply reformatting it. For instance, the landmark 2 Live Crew case involving their parody of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” underscored that transformative uses might still face challenges if they impact the original’s market value. This demonstrates that merely placing music in a new setting doesn’t automatically render it transformative.

To mitigate risks, media creators often incorporate shorter clips alongside commentary or critique, which tends to align more closely with fair use. Collaboration or seeking permissions can often be a more practical approach to using impactful content without risking costly legal disputes. Legal sources, including Loeb & Loeb, emphasize that while fair use is an evolving area, obtaining permissions—or using royalty-free alternatives—is often the most straightforward route for creators.

A recent example in Thiccc Boy Productions v. Swindelle illustrates these principles in action. Swindelle, a YouTube creator, used clips from Thiccc Boy Productions’ podcast, hosted by Brendan Schaub, in his reaction videos, asserting a fair use defense due to added commentary. The court ruled in Swindelle’s favor, noting his commentary was transformative and unlikely to harm the original podcast’s market. This decision aligns with trends following Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which clarified that “transformative” uses must contribute clear commentary or critique to meet fair use standards rather than merely repurposing the original.

For today’s media creators, consulting legal guidance before integrating copyrighted material is crucial as copyright law adapts to new digital contexts.

Media attorney, Matthew B. Harrison is VP/associate publisher, TALKERS; Senior Partner, Harrison Legal Group; and executive producer, Goodphone Communications.  He is available for private consultation and media industry contract representation. He can be reached by phone at 724-484-3529 or email at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com

By Walter Sabo
A.K.A. Walter Sterling, Host
Sterling Every Damn Night, WPHT, Philadelphia
Sterling On Sunday, TMN

Take advantage of the new media order. Initially, TiVo was a hit because you could pause live TV and go to the bathroom whenever you wanted. Bathroom breaks while watching live TV was a revelation. As you were going to the bathroom, your relationship with media was being re-wired in your brain. In a matter of months, you were able to watch what you wanted, whenever you wanted. DECADES of TV scheduling strategies became anachronistic. It’s November. Do you know when your favorite shows are airing on TV? No! No need you’ll watch them whenever you want!

Now On-demand is the rule of all media.

Liberation from traditional formalities has infiltrated every aspect of our day.. TMZ launched with this editorial rule: Cover NO scheduled events. No press conferences. TMZ cameras lurk in the parking lots and valet tents to capture stars off guard, candid, authentic. Make-up artists and movie set hairdressers, not PR teams, are their primary news sources. By comparison, “Entertainment Tonight” and “Hard Copy” who are obligated to the PR industry look phony, stiff, staged.

Warren Buffet for decades modeled how to behave like the country’s richest man. Stable, sane, professorial. But today’s richest man, Elon Musk is running million dollar a day giveaways to registered voters. He wears t-shirts, dances on stage and has how many kids?

Hoda Kotb quits the “Today Show” …THE TODAY SHOW and no one cares. The quest for a new co-anchor captures no one’s imagination. Compared with the impact of online influencers, TikTok videos and on-demand TV, the “Today Show” looks anachronistic.

A relic.

Four years ago, the millions of workers staying at home would have never thought freedom from the office commute would be possible. Now they can’t imagine why they have to go to the office – because they are at work, on their kitchen table.

• Don’t become BLOCKBUSTER. Today’s trends are becoming surging rivers of thought and behavior. Winning employers will embrace their colleagues with recognition of these changes. Rather than bribing and begging workers back to the old office, they will amp up the tools and support to allow employees to easily produce from anywhere they wish. That means providing better computers, phones, software, and new systems for recognizing performance. Getting-in-early just isn’t going to mean anything. Getting-it-done will be prized.

About your talk station: Three- and four-hour blocks of – BLOCK PROGRAMMING – is the past. Seamless is the future. Seamless talk programming, format driven rather than “my show” driven will grow cume and maximize PPM technology. Hosts will present ideas and entertainment, with other hosts and contributors using techniques that allow for tune-in at any time.

 Consultant Walter Sabo A.K.A. Walter M Sterling has a nightly show “Sterling Every Damn Night” heard on WPHT, Philadelphia 9:00 pm – 12:00 midnight. His syndicated show, “Sterling On Sunday,” from Talk Media Network, airs Sundays 10:00 pm – 1:00 am ET, and is now in its 10th year of success. He can be reached by email at waltermsterling@gmail.com or Sabowalter@gmail.com.

Media analyst, broadcaster, and trade journal publisher Michael Harrison appeared on the popular Jeff Katz afternoon drive show on WRVA, Richmond yesterday (10/29) to discuss comments he made earlier in TALKERS about the historic significance of former President Donald Trump‘s recent three-hour guest spot on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast. To listen to the fascinating discussion, please click here.   

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

With the growing popularity of talk media programs utilizing segments of other shows as key elements of scrutiny and commentary in their programming (“Clip Jockey Format” as coined by Michael Harrison), it is important that media content creators be aware of the subtle and often ambiguous rules applying to the legal aspects of this practice under the heading of fair use.

This is the fourth installment of a multi-part TALKERS Legal Series on Fair Use for the Media Creator. The first installment is here. The second installment is here. The third installment is here.

The “amount and substantiality” factor in fair use focuses on how much of the copyrighted material is used and whether that portion is essential to the original work. Despite seeming obvious, this factor can be nuanced, and determining how much use is fair can be challenging because it’s not just about the quantity but also about the significance of the portion used.

Is It Difficult to Distinguish?

In many cases, it’s not always obvious what qualifies as a “small” or “insignificant” portion. Courts often consider both the quantity, and the quality of the material used:

• Quantity: This factor asks if only a small part of the work has been used. Using a shorter clip from a video or a few sentences from a book could be more justifiable as fair use. But what qualifies as “small” can vary depending on the work—10 seconds from a short film may be seen differently from 10 seconds in a longer documentary.

• Quality: Even if a creator only uses a small part of the original work, using its “heart” or most memorable part might still count as substantial. For example, a few lines from a song’s chorus, though short, could be considered significant enough to impact fair use status.

Example Cases Highlighting Amount and Substantiality

To better understand this, it’s useful to look at cases that illustrate when the amount used was deemed fair or not:

• Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985): This case involved a magazine that used a few hundred words from an unpublished memoir by President Gerald Ford. Although this was a small percentage of the memoir, the excerpt contained key insights into Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon. The court held that this use was not fair because it included the most “substantial” and critical part of the memoir, even though the total percentage of text used was minimal.

• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994): Here, the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew used portions of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” to create a parody. Even though the song’s recognizable parts were used, the new work was transformative in its purpose (a parody rather than a love song). Because the group’s use was a small part relative to the song’s total content and had a new purpose, the court found it was fair use.

Many books and law school classes have been devoted to this question – so let’s focus on Application in Media and Broadcasting

In radio and broadcasting, this factor is often relevant when using clips, songs, or interview segments from other sources. Using a small clip to support commentary or criticism is more likely to be considered fair use, especially if it does not contain the “heart” of the original work:

• Commentary on a Speech: If a talk show uses a brief part of a public figure’s speech to critique it, the fair use factor may weigh in favor of the radio station if it doesn’t take the most memorable segment.

• Use of Music in Shows: Music clips used for thematic transitions or commentary must be kept brief, as lengthy or highly recognizable parts can affect fair use status. Playing just a few bars might qualify, but a chorus or instrumental hook would likely cross the line. This is less of a mine field in traditional broadcast radio as existing license agreements, such as with ASCAP or BMI, may allow for such uses anyway. However, when focusing on the internet – it’s a completely different matter as no licenses have been formally given, yet there is an incentive for the copyright holder to have their work shared. It’s not cut and dry – which is why the following takeaways should be helpful when navigating forward.

Key Takeaways for Media Creators

• Use Minimal Amounts: The less you use, the more defensible your case for fair use, especially if you avoid the most recognizable parts.

• Avoid the “Heart” of the Work: Select portions that serve your purpose without including critical or memorable parts of the original material.

• Transformative Purpose Matters: If the use adds new meaning or serves a different function (e.g., satire, critique), it’s more likely to be deemed fair, even if it includes some key elements.

Summary

Understanding how much of the work a media creator can use while staying within fair use guidelines can be tricky, as this factor requires balancing quantity and significance. Media creators should focus on minimal use that contributes meaningfully to commentary, criticism, or other transformative purposes.

Media attorney, Matthew B. Harrison is VP/associate publisher, TALKERS; Senior Partner, Harrison Legal Group; and executive producer, Goodphone Communications.  He is available for private consultation and media industry contract representation. He can be reached by phone at 724-484-3529 or email at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com