AI – TALKERS magazine

Radio: Human Reserved

By TALKERS | August 27, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

Bill Gates has a useful term for something radio should be thinking about: “Human Reserved.” In an essay about a turbulent AI era, he sketches an unsettling future, and – for broadcasters – has a consequential warning… and an opportunity.

As artificial intelligence performs more and more work traditionally done by humans, he suggests there will be activities we could turn over to machines and deliberately choose not to, because something important would be lost. AI can write a weather forecast, summarize a police report, transcribe a school-board meeting, generate a commercial, voice a liner, research a sales prospect, and assemble an hour of music.

As content gets cheap, human presence becomes more valuable

Search results are AI summaries. Social posts, photos, voices, and videos may be synthetic. Gates warns of AI-powered fraud, disinformation, and deepfakes. Amid all that uncertainty, imagine hearing: “I’m here at the courthouse, where the jury just returned a verdict…”

Could AI manufacture that sentence? Sure. But I know who’s saying it. That’s an asset radio shouldn’t automate away.

Yes, use AI aggressively behind the scenes. Let it transcribe meetings, research prospects, clean up audio, draft proposals, repurpose interviews, and handle routine administrative work. Automate tasks. Protect relationships. Let AI summarize the school-board meeting. Then have your reporter tell me what it means to my kid. Let AI draft ten commercials. Have someone who understands the advertiser decide which idea might actually make the phone ring.

Why advertisers still need us?

Soon every local business owner will be able to generate logos, videos, emails, websites, social posts, and commercial scripts almost instantly. So, “We’ll make your commercial” becomes a nearly worthless sales proposition. The station’s value needs to migrate from selling spots and making ads to: We know this market. We know how to get people here to notice you. And we help make your advertising work.

AI will create an infinite supply of information. What’s scarce will be trust, judgment, relevance, relationships, and recognizable local humans. So, radio’s AI strategy can be surprisingly simple: Use AI to DO more. Use humans to MEAN more.

Here is Bill Gates’ essay: https://www.gatesnotes.com/a-turbulent-ai-era-and-critical-choices-to-make

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry Views

Monday Memo: AI Does More with Less. Radio Must, Too

By TALKERS | August 24, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

The most important sentence in Sharon Gai’s How to Do More With Less: Future-Proofing Yourself in an AI Economy (Wiley) isn’t about technology at all. It’s about leverage. She writes that the goal is to stop being “the busy bee” and instead become “the beekeeper… someone that controls the ‘bees’ to get what you want.” That’s the wakeup call radio needs right now.

Because while our industry debates whether AI is a threat, the rest of the world has already moved on. Gai describes watching Alibaba engineers generate hundreds of thousands of ad banners in seconds – work that once required “thousands of designers” and weeks of back and forth. That moment, she says, was when she realized “the next era of work had already started.” Radio is still acting like it hasn’t.

AI won’t replace radio. But it will replace radio people who don’t use it.

Gai is blunt: “Will AI replace workers? Absolutely.” But she adds the part radio needs to hear: it replaces tasks first, not people. The winners are the ones who learn to orchestrate the tools. For radio, that means:

Sellers using AI to prebuild spec spots, proposals, and category insights
Programmers using AI to audit clutter, analyze rotations, and tighten imaging
Production using AI to version spots, clean audio, and accelerate turnaround
Managers using AI to summarize meetings, draft memos, and model revenue scenarios

This isn’t theory. It’s survival.

The OnePerson BillionDollar Company — and The OnePerson Radio Station

Gai cites Sam Altman’s prediction that AI will enable “one-person billion-dollar companies.” Radio should hear a different version: the one-person radio station. Not as a cost cutting fantasy — as a competitive necessity.

A single operator, armed with AI tools, can now:

Build a full digital presence
Produce daily content
Generate sales materials
Analyze audience behavior
Maintain advertiser relationships

Small market owners — the ones already stretched thin — stand to gain the most.

The Real Message for Radio

Gai’s book isn’t about replacing humans. It’s about reclaiming agency in an AI-driven economy. Radio needs that mindset more than any legacy medium. Because the question isn’t whether AI will change radio.

It’s whether radio chooses to be the bee… or the beekeeper.

To read 2 sample chapters, free, click here.

Holland Cooke is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry Views

Monday Memo: Trust is the New Currency

By TALKERS | August 3, 2026August 3, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

It is now the ultimate competitive advantage, and for broadcasters it’s a survival strategy. In The Five-Year Century: Bold Leadership and Accelerated Outcomes in the Age of AI, Mihir Shukla and Nancy Hauge explain how—as artificial intelligence accelerates change and demographics reshape the audience—trust becomes the only durable asset radio and television can bank on.

The book describes a 2026 world where the “twin engines” of growth—population and productivity—have stalled. Birth rates are plunging, workforces are shrinking, and productivity has flatlined across most industries. Meanwhile, AI is compressing decades of innovation into months. This collision creates what the authors call “The Five-Year Century,” in which the pace of change overwhelms institutions built for slower times—broadcasting, for instance.

Radio and television were built on industrial-era assumptions: mass audiences, standardized programming, rigid schedules, and hierarchical decision-making. Those assumptions worked when the audience was broad, predictable, and captive. On February 9, 1964, the Beatles tripled Ed Sullivan’s ratings. Back to the future…

AI is rewriting the rules of content creation, distribution, and consumption. Personalized news feeds, customized ad loads, and algorithmic programming are expectations. Younger audiences don’t wait for a newscast; they expect a feed. They don’t tune in; they scroll. They don’t accept one-size-fits-all; they demand one-size-fits-me.

In this environment, trust becomes the new currency because it’s the one thing AI cannot manufacture.

Broadcasting’s advantage has always been credibility. When a storm hits, people still turn to local radio. When a shelter-in-place alert hits their phone, they still switch on local TV. That instinct is powerful, but it’s not permanent. Trust must be earned continuously, especially as AI-generated misinformation floods the ecosystem.

The book’s chapter on the “Trust Economy” makes a critical point: trust accelerates outcomes. High-trust organizations move faster, innovate more boldly, and adapt more effectively. For broadcasters, trust accelerates audience loyalty, advertiser confidence, and community relevance. But trust now requires new behaviors.

It requires transparency about how AI is used in newsrooms. It requires clarity about what is human judgment and what is machine assistance. It requires authenticity as AI-generated talent becomes increasingly commonplace—and increasingly convincing.

Trust requires broadcasters to lean into what humans do best: context, empathy, moral reasoning, and community connection. The book reminds us that “work worthy of human potential” is work that machines cannot replicate. For broadcasters, that means storytelling, accountability journalism, and the human presence that makes local media local.

By all means, assign AI the routine tasks: editing, logging, transcription, versioning, and production. Then reinvest the human time you save in the relationship between a station and its community. In The Five-Year Century, trust isn’t just a virtue. It’s a conspicuous differentiator. It’s the currency that will determine which broadcasters thrive and which fade into the noise of an algorithmic world. As our industry suffers workforce cutbacks, we risk downsizing trust.

To read two sample chapters and watch a short video interview with the authors, click here.

Holland Cooke is a consultant working at the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn.

Industry Views

The Advertiser Gave Us an AI Commercial… Isn’t that Enough?

By TALKERS | August 3, 2026August 18, 2026 by TALKERS

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

Synthetic audio can turn one clearance problem into two

An advertiser sends a finished commercial to a station. The script came from one AI platform, the announcer’s voice from another, and the music arrived inside the final audio file. The production value is surprisingly good for a dental office. Then someone notices that the announcer sounds remarkably like Matthew McConaughey. He does not say “alright, alright, alright,” exactly, but he says something close enough to make the association obvious.

A conventional infringing commercial may misuse a song, recording, photograph, or written copy. An AI commercial can create the same copyright problem while adding another: the unauthorized commercial use of a recognizable person’s identity. One file can therefore produce two entirely different claims.

Copyright protects original expression, including scripts, music, and sound recordings. It generally does not give anyone a copyright in the sound of a natural voice. That does not make a distinctive voice free for advertisers to imitate.

Tom Waits established the distinction decades before generative AI. After Waits declined to participate in a Frito-Lay campaign, the company used a singer who imitated him in a radio commercial. Waits successfully pursued claims for voice misappropriation and false endorsement. AI now makes that imitation faster, cheaper, and potentially more convincing. Waits v. Frito-Lay⁠

The rights do not travel together

Clearing the script or music does not clear the voice. Permission from the person whose voice was cloned does not clear protected material that the system may have reproduced. The station needs to ask two questions: Who owns everything in this commercial, and whose identity is doing the selling?

There is another wrinkle. The AI company may possess defenses that do not travel with the finished audio. In Walters v. OpenAI, ChatGPT falsely accused radio host Mark Walters of embezzlement. OpenAI defeated the defamation claim because the recipient encountered warnings that the system could be inaccurate, did not believe the accusation, verified that it was false, and did not republish it. Walters also failed to prove the necessary fault or damages. Walters v. OpenAI⁠ case summary⁠

That ruling did not grant AI companies blanket immunity. It does suggest an uncomfortable result for broadcasters. A provider’s warning that its output requires verification may help protect the provider while making it harder for a station to argue that airing the output without checking was reasonable. The company that generated the problem may have a better defense than the broadcaster that delivered it to the public.

California’s AI Transparency Act, operative August 2, 2026, now requires certain large AI providers to offer detection tools and place provenance disclosures in generated audio, images, and video. Those tools may help identify origin. They do not establish copyright clearance, consent, accuracy, or authority to imitate someone. California AI Transparency Act⁠

Stations should require advertisers to warrant both ownership and permission for identifiable voices or likenesses, backed by indemnification. AI has not replaced the old clearance problem. It can place a second problem beside it, then leave the broadcaster holding both.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

When AI Speaks, Who’s Accountable?

By TALKERS | July 31, 2026July 31, 2026 by TALKERS

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

New laws may hold AI companies responsible, but regulating machine-generated speech presents risks of its own.

Florida recently sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that they marketed ChatGPT while concealing known safety risks. California has taken a different approach: a company accused of causing harm cannot defend itself simply by saying the AI acted autonomously. Neither development guarantees liability, but both signal that “the AI did it” may no longer work as a legal escape hatch.

That sounds sensible. An AI model cannot pay damages, carry insurance, exercise professional judgment, or go to jail. If a company releases a system, profits from it, and markets it as useful or reliable, the law should at least ask what the company knew, promised, and reasonably could have prevented.

Mark Walters – host of Armed America Radio – learned how difficult that can be. ChatGPT falsely reported that he had been accused of embezzling money from a gun-rights organization. Walters sued OpenAI for defamation, but a Georgia court granted the company summary judgment in 2025, finding insufficient evidence that OpenAI knew the output was probably false. The machine was wrong; the legal remedy failed.

The harder question involves speech. Colorado adopted requirements intended to prevent discriminatory automated decisions, prompting AI to sue on First Amendment and equal-protection grounds. The Federal Trade Commission has now suggested that secretly steering a model away from the accurate or objective answers users expect could itself constitute consumer deception.

This presents a genuine slippery slope. Government should protect people from fraud, defamation, discrimination, dangerous products, and nonconsensual deepfakes. It should not acquire a broad power to decide what an AI system must identify as “truth,” particularly in areas involving politics, history, public policy, or contested scientific opinion.

For broadcasters and content creators, the immediate lesson remains familiar. AI may assist with research, writing, editing, and production, but it does not inherit responsibility for the finished product. The person or company that publishes the words still needs to verify them, while the companies building the machines should not escape scrutiny merely because no human typed the final sentence.

Accountability should follow control, knowledge, and profit. The challenge will be imposing that accountability without turning AI regulation into government supervision of lawful speech.

Industry Views

Monday Memo: AI Can’t Fake Real

By TALKERS | July 27, 2026July 27, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

In Full Stack Human: The Mindset Upgrade You Need to Stay Human in a World Ruled by Technology (2026, Wiley Books) Dara Simkin and Tane Hunter describe a 2026 media landscape where people face information overload, shrinking attention spans, negativity fatigue, algorithmic manipulation, and constant distraction.

The irony is that radio may win the future not by becoming more like technology, but by becoming more human. In an age of artificial everything, that’s the sustainable competitive advantage local radio has. And the more crowded the media landscape becomes, the more valuable radio’s unique strengths become.

Consider what today’s digital platforms do best. They personalize content as algorithms learn what users like and deliver more of it. Streaming services can build custom playlists. Social media feeds are tailored to individual interests. AI can generate content instantly.

What those platforms cannot do is belong to a community. Spotify doesn’t know why I-95 is jammed. TikTok doesn’t care that the town council just approved a controversial zoning change. An AI-generated playlist can’t tell listeners where to find shelter during a storm or why Friday night’s high school football game matters. Local radio can. And as media becomes increasingly global, local content becomes increasingly scarce. And scarcity creates value.

Citing research, the book points to another opportunity: Digital platforms are optimized to trigger emotion, especially outrage and conflict – the 1990s talk radio caricature on steroids. The result is a public that often feels overwhelmed, exhausted, and anxious.

Listeners want information, and are looking for context, usefulness, connection, and (dare we?) a reason to smile. Stations willing to do more than simply amplify the argument du jour become indispensable. Winners deliver local information, from trusted voices, a genuine connection that answers the listener’s constant question: “What’s in this for me?”

Click here to read a free sample chapter of “Full Stack Human: The Mindset Upgrade You Need to Stay Human in a World Ruled by Technology.”

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry Views

The Most Valuable Commodity AI Can’t Generate

By TALKERS | June 29, 2026August 3, 2026 by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer
Throughout the TALKERS 2026 conference, there was a recurring theme that bears repeating:

Technology creates abundance. Authenticity creates value.

Throughout human history, creating media required expensive equipment, specialized knowledge, or access to someone willing to open the door. Each technological leap removed another layer of friction. Desktop publishing challenged traditional print. Digital audio transformed radio production. YouTube made anyone with a camera a broadcaster or “content creator.” Podcasting removed the need for a transmitter. Today, generative AI can help write scripts, edit video, compose music, translate languages, and produce polished content in minutes.

That isn’t the end of creativity. It’s the beginning of an era with more creativity than we’ve ever seen.

We should cautiously embrace it.

Every time technology lowers the barrier to creation, more people get the opportunity to tell stories, share ideas, build businesses, and reach audiences that were once inaccessible. That’s a remarkable thing.

Abundance, however, changes the economics.

When content was scarce, simply producing it created value. Today, content is everywhere. Tomorrow, there will be even more. Artificial intelligence isn’t replacing creators nearly as much as it’s multiplying them.

When everyone can create, audiences need a different way to decide what deserves their attention.

They look for authenticity.

Authenticity isn’t about perfection. It isn’t about expensive production. It isn’t even about whether AI helped along the way. It’s about whether audiences believe there is a real person behind the work, someone with genuine experience, judgment, and something worth saying.

That idea also explains why fair use has always mattered.

Fair use protects commentary, criticism, reporting, scholarship, and parody because those activities add something new to the conversation. Copyright law has long recognized that society benefits when creators contribute insight rather than simply repeat what already exists. The principle hasn’t changed. The tools have.

Media has entered another frontier. The rules are still developing. Business models continue to evolve. New voices appear every day. Some will succeed because they mastered the latest technology.

The most enduring voices will succeed because people trust them.

Broadcasters have always understood this, even if we didn’t always describe it that way. Listeners return because they believe the personality behind the microphone.

The same is true for podcasters, streamers, YouTubers, journalists, and creators of every kind.

Technology will continue creating abundance. That’s worth celebrating.

The opportunity now is to create something abundance cannot replace.

Authenticity.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry News TALKERS 2026

TALKERS 2026 – Hailed as a Stunning Industry Revival

By TALKERS | June 8, 2026August 7, 2026 by TALKERS

TALKERS publisher Michael Harrison (l) and Red Apple Media CEO John Catsimatidis (r) pictured above in ‘Keynote One-on-One” conversation at TALKERS 2026.

The 28^th annual edition of the talk media industry’s longest running and most important national gathering – TALKERS 2026: Radio’s Next Chapter – took place at the Lawrence Herbert School of Communication on the Long Island, NY campus of Hofstra University this past Friday (6/5). It was produced in conjunction with Hofstra’s multi-Marconi Award winning campus radio station, WRHU-FM. The vibrant, sold-out gathering presented 65 speakers and 338 registered attendees engaged in the sharing of perspectives, advice, and ideas within the fertile environment of dynamic collegial networking.

The main themes of the conference included an intense focus on the future of radio and talk media in the multi-platform digital world of the second quarter of the 21^st century. These included exploration of such existential questions as how to gain profile traction in a noisy world; how to regain the public’s trust in the media; how to meet the challenge of generating revenue in a fractured and challenging economy; what entrepreneurial opportunities exist for individuals and independent companies in this new environment; how to expand programming options; how to recruit new talent; how to attract younger demos; how to deal with the enormous unforgiving power of algorithms in scoring the game; how to effectively control and exploit AI; how to make a living in this business; and so much more.

Speakers and attendees included a cross section of talk media professionals from the words of talent, management, ownership, syndication, journalism, engineering, politics, sports, the law, academia, and music – even pro-wrestling!

TALKERS founder Michael Harrison expressed his deep gratitude to the industry: “We worked day and night for months putting this one together, and we couldn’t be more pleased with the results. Heartfelt thanks to our speakers, attendees, and sponsors, as well as our dear friends and partners at Hofstra University, where it all started for me.”

TALKERS VP / executive editor Kevin Casey states, “We have enough text, photos, and video from this historic media event to keep us busy putting it together and maximizing the intellectual riches for a long time to come. It was a content motherlode!” TALKERS will provide full coverage of TALKERS 2026: Radio’s Next Chapter over the coming days, weeks and months on its website, newsletter and video channel. Stand by!

Industry Views

NAB Show: Competing on the Omnimedia Landscape

By TALKERS | April 21, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

“We are competing in an attention economy,” and Magid COO Jaime Spencer reckons that “the playing field is massive.”

For decades, Magid has been known as a TV news research and consulting firm. But its newest Omnimedia work widens the lens – and radio should be paying close attention. Because the consumers Magid describes aren’t “viewers” or “listeners.” They’re attention grazers, moving across platforms, devices, and dayparts without ever thinking in “TV” or “radio” terms. And that shift changes our game.

Magid’s core point lands hard: We no longer operate in a content economy. We operate in an attention economy. Radio isn’t competing with the station across town anymore. It’s competing with 50,000 news brands, nearly half a million podcasts, and an infinite scroll of feeds that never sleep.

And here’s the kicker: the audience doesn’t distinguish platforms – only relevance. They follow whatever captures attention in the moment. If your brand can’t travel across social, smart speakers, mobile, and on air with a consistent voice and value, you could be invisible to the modern consumer.

Spencer also flags a new disruptor: AI as a news gateway. “17% of people now discover news first on AI platforms – higher than push alerts and newsletters. Considering that platform didn’t exist two years ago, that’s a big number.” That’s also a flashing red light for radio. If AI becomes the first stop for facts, radio must become the first stop for context, clarity, and humanity – the things AI can’t localize, empathize with, or improvise.

“Consumers are overwhelmed.” They’re juggling nearly six streaming services and still feel behind. That’s an opening. Radio’s superpower has always been curation – a trusted voice cutting through the noise. In an Omnimedia world, that skill becomes a premium product.

Finally, Magid’s emotional driver research reinforces what great programmers already know: passion beats function. Utility alone (i.e., “Breaking News”) won’t hold audience. Emotional gravity will. “Consumers are looking for comfort and affirmation.” Per Magid’s Trust Index research: Public media outlets like NPR perform strongly, while polarizing figures such as Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, and Sean Hannity also rank in the top quartile, skewed by affirmation of audience beliefs.

The bottom line? The Omnimedia consumer is already here. Radio wins by being the most human, most local, most emotionally resonant voice in a chaotic media diet – not by being “radio,” but by being essential wherever the audience happens to be.

See Jaime Spencer’s deck here.

If you missed yesterday’s NAB Show update, click here. And if you are here in ‘Vegas this week, look for me. Maybe we can grab a cuppa cawfee. If you aren’t here, look for my NAB Show update here tomorrow.

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry News

WWO: Guidelines for Using AI to Build Your Media Plans

By TALKERS | April 21, 2026 by TALKERS

Today’s blog post from Cumulus Media | Westwood One’s Audio Active Group addresses the use of AI by local advertisers to inform their media plans. Cumulus president of operations Bob Walker says that use of AI is fine but there are “some watchouts and best practices to consider.” He offers these tips: 1) Be exact: The more specific the language used, the more accurate the response; State a desired outcome like “grow awareness”, “increase sales”, or “expand my customer base”; 2) Use reputable sources within search queries to get accurate information; 3) Take careful note of sourcing and dates: Don’t take data at face value without checking it; 4) Understand that AI platforms are different: Results will vary depending on the platform; and 5) Expect responses will change: Lots of factors impact the AI answers so read them carefully. See the full blog post here.

Industry Views

Monday Memo: “What Matters Next” for Radio?

By TALKERS | March 23, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

If you work in radio, you’ve heard every flavor of AI anxiety. Some fear it will wipe out jobs. Others treat it like a super shortcut – cranking-out spots, promos, and proposals faster and cheaper. Kate O’Neill’s What Matters Next lands squarely in the middle of this tension, and its message is one radio people need to hear: AI isn’t the disruptor. Human behavior is. AI just accelerates the consequences.

The book’s central argument is blunt: The organizations that thrive in an AI-driven world are the ones that stay relentlessly human. Not sentimental – human. Curious. Adaptive. Willing to rethink habits that calcified long before the first smart speaker ever said, “Now playing.” That’s a mirror radio hasn’t always wanted to look into.

For decades, the industry has survived by optimizing the familiar: tighter clocks, leaner staffs, syndicated shows, templated production, and “good enough” digital. AI tempts some operators to double down on that instinct – to automate more, localize less, and hope listeners won’t notice. This book argues the opposite: AI punishes sameness and rewards originality. When every business has access to the same tools, the differentiator becomes the people who use them with imagination, empathy, and purpose. That should sound familiar. It’s what radio used to brag about.

O’Neill also warns against the other extreme, the fear-driven paralysis that keeps talented people from experimenting. AI isn’t a job eater; it’s a task eater. It clears the underbrush so humans can do the work only humans can do: judgment, storytelling, connection, and community presence. In radio terms: the stuff listeners actually remember.

Imagine a morning show that uses AI not to replace prep, but to deepen it, surfacing hyperlocal stories, analyzing listener sentiment, or generating alternate angles on a topic the hosts want to explore. Or a sales team that uses AI to tailor proposals to each client’s issues instead of reshuffling the same deck. How about a newsroom (remember them?) that uses AI to sift data so stations can spend more time delivering what’s special to listeners (and sponsors): helpful local news they can’t get anywhere else. None of that eliminates jobs. It elevates them.

This book’s most important warning is this: AI widens the gap between organizations that learn and organizations that cling. Radio has lived through this before – streaming, podcasting, social media, smart speakers. The winners weren’t the ones who panicked or the ones who ignored the shift. They were the ones who adapted early, experimented often, and stayed close to their audience.

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry Views

Reckless Disregard in the Age of AI: What Verification Now Requires

By TALKERS | March 3, 2026 by TALKERS

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

AI is now embedded in the modern newsroom. Not as a headline, not as a novelty, but as infrastructure. It drafts outlines, summarizes complex reporting, surfaces background details, and accelerates prep for live conversations. For media creators operating under relentless deadlines, that efficiency is not theoretical. It is practical and daily.

That reality raises a quiet but consequential legal question. When AI contributes to your research, what does verification now require?

Professional hosts are not reading raw chatbot answers on air and calling it journalism. That caricature misses the real issue. What is actually happening is subtler and far more common.

AI now sits inside research workflows. Producers use it for background. Hosts use it to summarize reporting. Teams use it to outline controversies or draft rundowns. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, however, it invents.

When that invention involves a real person and a serious allegation, the legal analysis looks familiar.

For public figures, defamation requires proof of actual malice – knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. For private figures, negligence is usually enough. In both cases, the focus is not on the tool. It is on the content creator’s conduct.

AI does not change the elements. It changes the context in which reasonableness is judged.

Courts have long held that repeating a defamatory statement can create liability, even if someone else said it first. If you rely on a blog, and that blog relied on AI, and the allegation is false, the question becomes whether your reliance was reasonable.

Was the source reputable? Was the claim inherently improbable? Were there obvious red flags? Was contradictory information readily available?

AI’s reputation for “hallucinating” facts now forms part of that backdrop. Widespread awareness that these systems can fabricate citations, merge identities, or invent accusations becomes relevant when a court evaluates your verification choices.

This does not mean using AI indicates reckless disregard. It means using AI does not excuse skipping verification when the stakes are high.

The more specific and damaging the claim, the greater the duty to confirm it through independent, reliable sources. Not another prompt. Not a circular reference to the same unverified blog. Rather, a primary record, official statement, or established reporting.

Documentation matters. If challenged, being able to show that you checked multiple sources before broadcast can be decisive.

None of this is new doctrine. What is new is how seamlessly AI blends into ordinary research habits. That integration makes it easier to forget that the legal question is still about human judgment.

The law will not ask whether your workflow was efficient. It will ask whether your conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

In the age of AI, verification is not a courtesy. It is risk management.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

Monday Memo: Radio’s Advantage is Human

By TALKERS | February 16, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

Every radio conference agenda and much of what’s-up in the trade press and chat groups is about exploiting Artificial Intelligence. Often these conversations land in one of two places: fear (“Will this replace us?”) or fascination (“Look what it can do!”). Both miss the point.

In “Between You and AI” (Wiley) author Andrea Iorio cautions that when everyone has access to the same machine intelligence, advantage shifts to what remains scarce. That’s not just-more information. It’s better judgment, trust, empathy, and local savvy… the very things radio has always done best.

Haven’t got time to read all 254 pages? Here’s a short version, as it applies to our work:

AI is brilliant at summarizing, predicting, transcribing, drafting, and optimizing. Radio should absolutely use it to handle the mechanical work that clogs calendars and burns out staff. Show prep summaries. Promo copy drafts. Sales proposal outlines. Post-show highlights. Let the machine chew through that.
But here’s where radio wins: what to ask, what to emphasize, what to leave out, and how to make people feel. AI can’t do those things without human direction, interpretation, and accountability.
For a morning show: AI can surface trending topics in seconds. But it can’t know which story resonates here,today, with this audience – nor when silence, humor, or restraint is the smarter move. That’s human sensemaking. The book calls it “data sensemaking”; radio people have always called it “knowing our market.”
News/talk: AI can summarize a city council meeting neatly. It cannot decide which exchange actually matters to listeners’ lives, nor ask the follow-up question that reframes the issue.
Sales teams, too, are at a crossroads. AI can generate a competent proposal in seconds. So can your competitor. What it can’t do is replace the trust built when a seller truly understands a retailer’s risk tolerance, cash flow anxiety, and seasonal pressure points. As AI makes “good enough” ubiquitous, relationship quality becomes the differentiator.
In an AI-saturated media environment, audiences won’t reward whoever publishes the most. They’ll reward whoever feels the most real. Trust will matter more than tone. Judgment more than speed. Presence more than precision.

AI is not radio’s replacement. It’s radio’s stress test. Stations that pass will be the ones that let machines handle the work so humans can handle the meaning.

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry Views

SABO SEZ: Mr. Wonderful Thinks Radio is Wonderful

By TALKERS | January 26, 2026January 26, 2026 by TALKERS

By Walter Sabo
a.k.a. Walter Sterling, Host
WPHT, Philadelphia, “Walter Sterling Every Damn Night”
TMN syndicated, “Sterling on Sunday”

The plague of pessimism about the future of radio is fueled internally by radio employees. Doomsayers are logically found in the sales department. All day, salespeople meet with buyers. A buyer’s job is to negotiate a lower price by arguing radio’s negatives. The wall of negativity thrives within the work environment of a seller. Tough. But there is little or no reason for pessimism.

Kevin O’ Leary (a.k.a. “Mr. Wonderful” on TV’s Shark Tank) is a pragmatic investor. When asked about AI’s impact on radio, he says, “It’s the same phobia we had when television hit radio. ‘Oh, it’s going to decimate radio!’ No, it’s not. The art form exists today, even bigger, terrestrial, and in space. To me, AI is just a tool.” (Variety. January 5, 2026)

Surprising to many, radio’s audience numbers today are virtually the same as they were in 1970.

Radio Listenership Today (2020s)

Weekly Reach: As of 2022–2023, approximately 82% to 88% of Americans aged 12 and older listen to terrestrial (AM/FM) radio in a given week.

Monthly Reach: Nielsen data indicates that AM/FM radio reaches 91% of U.S. adults each month.

Daily Listening: Approximately 66% of U.S. adults listen to broadcast or streaming AM/FM radio on a daily basis.

Resiliency: Despite the rise of podcasts and music streaming, 55% of Gen Z in the U.S. still listen to AM/FM radio every day, and it remains the top reach medium, even exceeding social media.

1970s: The era of AM to FM transition and the peak of top-40 terrestrial radio, with 25 million CB radios also becoming popular in the mid-70s.

Today: While reach is still high, the amount of time spent listening is more fragmented, with radio facing competition from streaming (Spotify/Apple Music) and podcasts, although it remains the dominant ad-supported audio choice in cars.

CB radio, cassettes, 8-tracks, CDs, DVDs, Walkman, iTunes, iPhones, SiriusXM, Spotify, podcasts, Pandora… all terminators of radio. None of them made a dent. The killer of radio will be radio’s odd internal pessimism that while predicting doom that never comes drives actions that are suicidal: Elimination of audience qualitative research. Tracking. More Tracking. (Radio Fracking!) No external marketing. Endless talent cuts. No contests. (A $1,000 national contest WOW!) None of those cuts are good business because they cut potential revenues.

And yet there is a relentless, funded determination to end all FCC ownership caps allowing companies to buy more radio stations to operate with great Panglossian efficiency!

Walter Sabo has been a C-Suite action partner for companies such as SiriusXM, Hearst, Press Broadcasting, Gannett, RKO General, and many other leading media outlets. His company, HITVIEWS, in 2007, was the first to identify and monetize video influencers. His nightly show “Walter Sterling Every Damn Night” is heard on WPHT, Philadelphia. His syndicated show, “Sterling On Sunday,” from Talk Media Network, airs 10:00 pm-1:00 am ET, and is now in its 10th year of success. He can be reached by email at sabowalter@gmail.com.

Industry Views

You Are the Asset: Why Protecting Your Voice and Likeness Is No Longer Optional

By TALKERS | January 26, 2026January 26, 2026 by TALKERS

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

For years, “protect your name and likeness” sounded like lawyer advice in search of a problem. Abstract. Defensive. Easy to ignore. That worked when misuse required effort, intent, and a human decision-maker willing to cross a line.

AI changed that.

When Matthew McConaughey began trademarking his name and persona-linked phrases (“alright, alright, alright”), it was not celebrity vanity. It was an acknowledgment that identity has become a transferable commodity, whether the person attached to it consents or not.

A voice is no longer just expressive. It is functional. It can be sampled, trained, replicated, and redeployed at scale. Not as a parody. Not as commentary. As a substitute. When a synthetic version of you can narrate ads, read copy, or deliver endorsements you never approved, the injury is not hypothetical. It is economic.

We have already seen this play out. In the past two years, synthetic versions of well-known voices have been used to sell products the real person never endorsed, often through social media ad networks. These were not deep-fake jokes or parody videos. They were commercial voice reads. The pitch was simple: if it sounds credible, it converts. By the time the real speaker objected, the ad had already run, the money had moved, and responsibility had dissolved into a stack of platform disclaimers.

This is where many creators misunderstand trademark law. They think it is about logos and merchandise. It is not. Trademarks protect source identification. Meaning, if the public associates a name, phrase, or expression with you as the origin, that association has legal weight. McConaughey’s filings reflect that reality. Certain phrases signal him instantly. That signaling function has value, and trademark law is designed to prevent identity capture before confusion spreads.

Right of publicity laws still matter. They protect against unauthorized commercial use of name, image, and often voice. But they are largely reactive. Trademarks allow creators to draw boundaries in advance, before identity becomes unmoored from its source.

This is not a celebrity problem. Local radio hosts, podcasters, commentators, and long-form interviewers trade on recognition and trust every day. AI does not care about fame tiers. It cares about recognizable signals.

You do not need to trademark everything. You do need to know what actually signifies you, and decide whether to protect it, because in an AI-driven media economy, failing to define your identity does not preserve flexibility. It invites identity capture.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

Monday Memo: Successful AI Product Creation

By TALKERS | January 12, 2026 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

Evidence that your correspondent is a nerd: my airplane read for my CES back-N-forth was Successful AI Product Creation: A 9-Step Framework by Shub Agarwal (Wiley). If you haven’t got time for all 307 pages, here’s what I gleaned, pertinent to radio:

Strategic Philosophy

• AI succeeds only when it solves real business problems, not when used as a novelty.

• Begin every AI project with: “What measurable problem are we solving?”

• Align AI use with station strategy — audience growth, advertiser ROI, efficiency, or content quality.

Tactical Applications for Radio

• Show prep: summarize trending topics, generate local angles, suggest guests.

• Automate routine production (editing, scheduling, metadata tagging) to free creative staff.

• Voice tracking with guardrails — use AI to extend live talent, not replace it.

• News: Employ AI to summarize complex stories quickly for on-air and digital use.

• Sales: Personalize ad copy to make spots more relevant. Automate proposal and spec-spot creation to shorten turnaround time.

Think of AI as “augmentation, not automation.” AVOID making radio sound robotic. Use these tools to make radio smarter, faster, and more human. Enhance talent; don’t erase it. Protect authenticity and listener trust — radio’s enduring differentiator. Develop a station AI policy covering attribution, verification, and data privacy.

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry News

Retired Radio Industry Legend Bob Shannon Creates Powerful AI Song About Minnesota Strife

By TALKERS | January 12, 2026January 12, 2026 by TALKERS

Former 20-year TM Productions creative and marketing executive, Bob Shannon has written and produced – with the help of AI – a compelling ballad about the tragic drama playing out in Minnesota titled, “When the Circus Came to Town.” The Minneapolis-based former DJ, programmer and radio exec tells TALKERS, “In full disclosure, this song was created on suno.com using V5. The lyrics are all mine, and the orchestration is mine too by virtue of having given all of the instructions to create the track. Regardless of how all the controversy about artificial intelligence plays out, I am releasing this opinionated and highly emotional song purely as an expression of my free speech and artistic expression – not for commercial marketing purposes.”

Shannon continues, “Minneapolis is torn apart, and I see that it’s happening all across the country in relation to the actions of ICE. For the record, I am for a good immigration policy in this country, however the actions of this brutish force neither constitute good policy nor go anywhere towards solving our problem. As a personal note, my housekeeper’s sister-in-law was arrested by ICE at her house yesterday (1/8) morning at 6:00 am with no warrant and no reason… and taken away from her children, who were left alone. For that reason, I was compelled to create this. When my original words were complete, I went to Suno.com, the much discussed Artificial Intelligence music creator, and typed in specific music prompts about instrumentation (piano with bari-saxophones highlights), tempo (slow and evocative; a story song), key and vocal styles (I selected a single male baritone in G major). Then I instructed Suno to create an instrumentation that sonically conveyed a somber sense of sadness, loss, and deep introspection, with instructions to mix the lyrics high in the final mix.”

Shannon concludes, “My words came from a disbelieving head, from a broken heart, and from the pit of my stomach. This was my humanity shining through, and it exposed my raw and real feelings. But AI has no feelings; it’s just an algorithm that provides untrained musicians with a tool to turn original lyrics into songs. Some say that’s cheating, but that’s a discussion for another day.

To listen to “When the Circus Came to Town,” please click here.

Among his many accomplishments in the radio industry, Shannon is the author of the acclaimed book Turn It Up! American Radio Tales 1946-1996,” originally released in 2009 and updated in 2017. He can be reached by email at bobshannonworks@gmail.com or phoned at 206-755-5162.

Industry Views

SABO SEZ: A Long History – Do Not Fear AI

By TALKERS | December 5, 2025 by TALKERS

By Walter Sabo
a.k.a. Walter Sterling, Host
WPHT, Philadelphia, “Walter Sterling Every Damn Night”
TMN syndicated, “Sterling on Sunday”

Andy Economos, the founder of Radio Computing Systems (RCS), was a leader in bringing digital tech into the radio industry. In 1980, he was leaving his position as head of technology for NBC Inc. to start his own company. I was EVP of the NBC FM stations. Andy and I were walking to lunch, crossing Sixth Avenue at 49th street and he asked me, “Is there any software your radio stations could use?”

I said, “Yes, we could use software that programs music.” He was interested. I said, “When you invent that, NBC will buy your first products.”

Andy went forth and invented “Selector,” the first viable, almost easy-to-understand, user-friendly music programming software. Prior to “Selector,” music was programmed in a wide variety of homemade processes such as rotating songs against back timing photo lab clocks (WABC) to RKO’s “Gold Book” mess requiring jocks to use many colored pens to log off played songs. Or the wooden spike technique: Jocks took the 45s off one spike after it was played and stacked it on a different spike – really.

The adoption of “Selector” didn’t go as planned. First, most of the industry was terrified that what little freedom jocks had to select songs would be lost. My favorite cry from jocks, “But when it’s raining, I’ve got to play a song that sings about rain.”

My hope for computerizing the organization of songs was that it would free up programmers to program! The desired end game was that programmers would have more time to talk with their talent, create bigger promotions and upgrade overall production.

What happened, however, was most programmers devoted more time to programming music! Throughout the country programmers pored over the output from “Selector” and manually, hour by hour by hour and edited every song.

When discussing the virtue of precision music selection, WABC midday talent Ron Lundy said, “It don’t mean nothinnnnn.”

AI is just like “Selector.” First, it strikes fear. But it will be used in every radio station very soon. How it will be used and its impact on you will be different than we can imagine. The more a person learns about AI’s capabilities and how to use its fresh options, the more control they will have of it.

Industry Views

Are Your AI Logos Actually Kryptonite?

By TALKERS | September 8, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Superman just flew into court – not against Lex Luthor, but against Midjourney. Warner Bros. Discovery is suing the AI platform, accusing it of stealing the studio’s crown jewels: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Scooby-Doo, Bugs Bunny, and more.

At first glance, you might shrug. “That’s Warner Bros. vs. Silicon Valley – what does it have to do with my talk media show?” Here’s the answer: everything. If you or your producer are using Midjourney, DALL·E, or Stable Diffusion for logos, promos, or podcast cover art, you’re standing in the same blast radius.

AI Isn’t Neutral Paint

The romance of AI graphics is speed and cost. Need a logo in five minutes? A flyer for a station event? A podcast cover? Fire up an AI tool and you’re done.

But those images don’t come from a blank canvas. They come from models trained on copyrighted works – often without permission. Warner Bros. alleges that Midjourney not only trained on its characters but knowingly let users download knockoff versions.

If Warner wins – or even squeezes a settlement – AI platforms will clamp down. Suddenly, the “free” art you’ve been posting may not just vanish; it may become a liability.

Too Small to Matter? Think Again

Here’s the legal catch: infringement claims don’t scale by size. A podcaster with a Facebook page is just as liable as a network if the artwork copies protected content.

It’s easy to imagine a rival, competitor, or ex-producer spotting an AI-made graphic that looks “too much like” something else – and firing off a takedown. Once that happens, you’re judged not by intent but by what you published.

Unlike FCC guardrails for on-air speech, there’s no regulator to clarify. This is civil court. You versus the claimant – and the billable hours start immediately.

Even Elon Musk Just Got Burned

Neuralink – Elon Musk’s brain-computer startup – just lost its bid to trademark the words “Telepathy” and “Telekinesis.” Someone else filed first.

If Musk’s lawyers can’t secure simple branding terms, what chance does your station or company have if you wait until after launch to file your new show name? Timing isn’t just strategy; it’s survival.

The Playbook

Audit Your AI Use. Know which graphics and promos are AI-generated, and from what platform.
File Early. Register show names and logos before the launch hype.
Budget for Ownership. A real designer who assigns you copyright is safer than a bot with murky training data.

The Bottom Line

AI may feel like a shortcut, but in media law it’s a trapdoor. If Warner Bros. will defend Superman from an AI platform, they won’t ignore your podcast artwork if it looks too much like the Man of Steel.

Big or small, broadcaster or podcaster – if your AI Superman looks like theirs, you’re flying straight into Kryptonite.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

Fair Use in 2025: The Courts Draw New Lines

By TALKERS | August 29, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Imagine an AI trained on millions of books – and a federal judge saying that’s fair use. That’s exactly what happened this summer in Bartz v. Anthropic, a case now shaping how creators, publishers, and tech giants fight over the limits of copyright.

Judges in California have sent a strong signal: training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted works can qualify as fair use if the material is lawfully obtained. In Bartz, Judge William Alsup compared Anthropic’s use of purchased books to an author learning from past works. That kind of transformation, he said, doesn’t substitute for the original.

But Alsup drew a hard line against piracy. If a dataset includes books from unauthorized “shadow libraries,” the fair use defense disappears. Those claims are still heading to trial in December, underscoring that source matters just as much as purpose.

Two days later, Judge Vince Chhabria reached a similar conclusion in Kadrey v. Meta. He called Meta’s training “highly transformative,” but dismissed the lawsuit because the authors failed to show real market harm. Together, the rulings show that transformation is a strong shield, but it isn’t absolute. Market evidence and lawful acquisition remain decisive.

AI training fights aren’t limited to novelists. The New York Times v. OpenAI case is pressing forward after a judge refused to dismiss claims that OpenAI and Microsoft undermined the paper’s market by absorbing its reporting into AI products. And in Hollywood, Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney, alleging its system lets users generate characters like Spider-Man or Shrek – raising the unsettled question of whether AI outputs themselves can infringe.

The lesson is straightforward: fair use is evolving, but not limitless. Courts are leaning toward protecting transformative uses of content—particularly when it’s lawfully sourced – but remain wary of piracy and economic harm.

That means media professionals can’t assume that sharing content online makes it free for training. Courts consistently recognize that free journalism, interviews, and broadcasts still carry market value through advertising, sponsorship, and brand equity. If AI systems cut into those markets, the fair use defense weakens.

For now, creators should watch the December Anthropic trial and the Midjourney litigation closely. The courts have blessed AI’s right to learn – but they haven’t yet decided how far those lessons can travel once the outputs begin to look and feel like the originals.

Industry Views

When the Library Talks Back

By TALKERS | August 11, 2025August 11, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Imagine SiriusXM acquires the complete Howard Stern archive – every show, interview, and on-air moment. Months later, it debuts “Howard Stern: The AI Sessions,” a series of new segments created with artificial intelligence trained on that archive. The programming is labeled AI-generated, yet the voice, timing, and style sound like Stern himself.

Owning the recordings might suggest the right to create new works from them. In reality, the answer is more complicated – and the music industry offers a useful comparison.

Music Industry Precedent

Sony, Universal, and others have spent hundreds of millions buying music catalogs from artists such as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Paul Simon, and Queen. These deals often include both composition rights and master recordings, giving the buyer broad control over licensing and derivative works.

In music, the song and the recording are the assets. In talk content, the defining element is the host’s persona – voice, cadence, and delivery – which changes the legal analysis when creating new material.

Copyright and Persona Rights

Buying a talk archive usually transfers copyright in the recordings and any scripts. That permits rebroadcast, excerpts, and repackaging of original programs.

It does not automatically transfer the host’s right of publicity – control over commercial use of their name, likeness, and in many states, their distinctive voice. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988), the court ruled that imitating Bette Midler’s voice in a commercial without consent was an unauthorized use of her identity.

This means a company can own the shows without having the right to make new performances in the host’s voice unless the contract clearly grants that right.

The AI Factor

AI technology can replicate a host’s voice, tone, and style with high accuracy, producing entirely new programming.

Outside broadcasting, a recent AI-generated George Carlin special – written by humans but performed by a voice model trained on decades of his work – sparked debate about rights and legacy.

In talk radio, similar AI use could create “new” episodes featuring well-known hosts. Even with clear labeling, right-of-publicity claims may arise if the host or their estate never authorized it. Disclaimers may address consumer confusion but do not remove identity-rights issues.

Why It Matters

This applies to more than national figures. Any broadcaster or podcaster with a substantial archive could face it. Selling or licensing a library could give the buyer the tools to replicate your voice without your participation.

For buyers, the ability to produce new content from archived material has commercial appeal. But without the right to use the host’s voice for new works, it carries significant legal and reputational risk.

Contracts Decide

The key is in the contract:

— Did the talent assign rights to their name, likeness, and voice for future works?
— Is use limited to original recordings or extended to derivative works?
— Does it address future technologies, including AI?

Older agreements often omit these points, leaving courts to decide. Future contracts will likely address AI directly.

Takeaways

For talent: Know what you are transferring. Copyright ownership does not necessarily include your future voice.

For buyers: Owning an archive does not automatically give you the right to create AI-generated new material in the original host’s voice.

For everyone: As AI advances, control over archives will depend on the contracts that govern them.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry News

iHeartMedia’s AI Efforts to Translate Podcasts

By TALKERS | June 24, 2025 by TALKERS

Yesterday’s news that iHeartMedia is offering 10 of its top podcasts in six different languages besides their native English did not go into detail about how these podcasts are being translates. A story in Digiday looks at how iHeartMedia handled the process of using AI to translate and voice-clone the original podcast hosts. iHeartPodcasts president Will Pearson is quoted saying the AI translations faced two main challenges: ensuring accuracy and preserving each show’s unique tone. iHeartMedia worked with the company Speechlab to clone the voices of the hosts use them to read the show’s transcript in multiple languages. Pearson also says about a quarter of his company’s downloads come from outside the U.S. Read the Digiday story here.

Industry Views

Monday Memo: Make AI Your Intern, Not Your Replacement

By TALKERS | May 5, 2025 by TALKERS

By Holland Cooke
Consultant

When a blogger found “no biography, or further information about the woman who is supposedly presenting this show,” it forced Australian Radio Network to acknowledge that Artificial Intelligence supplies the voice of “Workdays with Thy” on one of its stations (CADA, available on the iHeartRadio app). “Exploring how new technology can support great content,” the network statement rationalized.

If you’re a (human) music DJ, this is chilling. If you’re a talk host, are you next? Hey, IBM’s Deep Blue defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, back when we were still dialing-up Internet access. So don’t think souped-up AI couldn’t someday interact with human callers. Or the fake callers vendors now offer.

Flip-the-script, to put the robot to work for you and sound local and super-relevant. Here’s how, step-by-step.

1. Use Google Trends, filtered to your metro area.

— Go to Google Trends.
— Set the location to your city, state, or region.
— Look at:
-Trending Searches (daily hot topics)
-Related Queries (people often search “near me” + other urgent needs)

2. Focus on “Near Me” signals that reflect tension, urgency, or curiosity

— “Near me” searches usually spike when:

– People have a problem (e.g., “urgent care near me”, “cheap gas near me”).
– There’s a trend or event (e.g., “earthquake near me”, “protest near me”).
– There’s fear, confusion, or excitement (e.g., “layoffs near me”, “concerts near me”).

— These are rich veins for call-in topics because:

– They touch emotions (fear, anger, hope).
– They’re localized — content your new-tech audio competitors won’t have.
– They’re now — you can spin them for immediate reaction.

3. Translate “Near Me” searches into talkable angles

— Example:

Search Trend	Possible Call-In Topic
“Layoffs near me”	“Are you worried about job security? Have you or someone you know been laid off recently?”
“Protests near me”	“What’s your take on the demonstrations downtown? Are they making a difference or making things worse?”
“Gas prices near me”	“Have high gas prices changed your driving habits? Are you cutting back or just absorbing it?”

4. Bonus Tip: Cross-Reference “Near Me” with social media buzz

— Use X (Twitter) trends and Facebook community groups to see if local chatter matches what Google is showing.

5. Create a simple daily habit

— Spend 5 minutes a day on Google Trends.
— Pull one or two local “near me” topics.
— Frame them into emotionally loaded questions for on-air teasing:

– “Do you feel less-safe after [recent incident? [phone number].”
– “Have YOU or someone you know been affected by the [local layoffs]?”

Evidence that you can make AI your assistant, and not your replacement? I asked ChatGPT to outline the instructions above; and this fill-in-the-blanks a “Topic Mining Sheet” you can use daily to systematically turn Google “near me” trends into great call-in topics.

Oh, and from the website for that Australian station: “We are an inclusive workplace embracing diversity in all its forms.” You do the punchline.

Holland Cooke (HollandCooke.com) is a consultant working the intersection of broadcasting and the Internet. Follow HC on Twitter @HollandCooke and connect on LinkedIn

Industry News

Audacy’s Suchman: What’s Making Audio the Most Effective Ad Medium

By TALKERS | October 23, 2024 by TALKERS

In a piece in AdAge, Audacy chief marketing officer Paul Suchman spells out how AI and influencer marketing are transforming audio into the most effective ad medium. Suchman writes, “Audio deserves much more recognition as a (legacy) medium that’s constantly innovating and evolving to enhance the consumer experience and the advertiser opportunity. At the heart of Audio lives great storytelling. From the beginning of humankind to today’s best advertising, storytelling is the single most effective tool for sharing information and knowledge – all while entertaining, educating and yes, selling. Storytelling is a constant, but the way stories are told is shifting, driven by new technologies and approaches that allow brands to create more emotional connection, deliver more personalized experiences and scale their campaigns for maximum impact. And no medium is better equipped to do this than audio.” Read the full article here.

Industry News

Will AI-Powered Robots Take Jobs from Talk Show Hosts?

By TALKERS | August 23, 2024August 23, 2024 by TALKERS

A big question bouncing around the industry: Will AI-generated voices take jobs away from radio talk show hosts? In the opinion of TALKERS publisher Michael Harrison, we are entering an era in which it is possible – even likely – for robot voices generated by artificial intelligence to replace at least some human talk show hosts, especially in the wake of relentless corporate cost-cutting by radio’s largest companies. On the music radio side, the process of “voice tracking,” although initially controversial, has become a widely employed budget-tightening process. However, voice tracking still employs organic talent to generate the verbal content. AI, on the other hand, bypasses the human element completely. In a guest appearance yesterday (8/22) on the Manny Munoz mid-morning show on WIOD, Miami, in which the subject of AI was being discussed, Harrison said, “AI is upping the bar. If talk show hosts don’t stay on their game and avoid relying too heavily on the talking points – if they are not creative thinkers and leaders – they can easily be replaced by computer operators.” Harrison continued, “It won’t be too long from now – actually, it is already possible – that two robots could be having a plausible conversation if both have been fed all the talking points.” Harrison explained, “Each robot will have instant access to all the existent talking points at the speed of light. Robots are already beating human experts at Jeopardy or chess. The only thing a robot can’t do – at least for now – is to be creative outside the realm of what already exists in cyberspace. That’s the challenge facing anyone who wants to be a live traditional radio talk show host in this coming brave new world.” Harrison’s appearance on WIOD was part of his ongoing talk radio “Obsolete Slobs” tour in which he’s been promoting the Gunhill Road music video “Artificial Intelligence (No Robots Were Injured in the Production of this Song” (www.ObsoleteSlobs.com). To listen to the conversation between Munoz and Harrison, please click here.