KZMX Radio -- a mere shadow of earlier station KOBH

By Larry Miller

Another setback for journalism has occurred with news that the New Orleans Times-Picayune is cutting back to publishing a print version of the newspaper just three days a week.  That sad news was delivered by visiting southern friend Jimmie Ray Gordon, whose late husband Bob was a respected veteran wire service reporter and newspaper editor in the south.

I confess that one of my long-time pet peeves has been the abandonment of local community service obligations by radio stations in favor of becoming part of a larger corporate operation.  Typically, such stations rely on satellite programming and minimal overhead to meet the bottom line profit expectations of shareholders.  Serious local news coverage is often the first “belt-tightening” step.

Clearly, technology evolution and a bad economy have significantly and negatively impacted many newspapers and broadcasting stations – particularly those that were not well run in the first place.

In 1959, KOBH listeners heard local/regional news, and 

the station sponsored lots of events. Here, Rock 'n Roll

legend Eddie Cochran (left) receives an award as the

"#1Male Vocalist" -- chosen by KOBH listeners. KOBH

DJ John Rowe (center) presents award in Chadron, Nebr.

It was no big surprise, for example, to learn that KZMX Radio in Hot Springs, South Dakota, was slapped with a big fine last month (May 2012) by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its “failure to make the stations available for inspection” and for “failure to operate in accordance with station authorization.”   The forfeiture was set at $21,500.

For those of us who remember the early years of the station, then KOBH-AM in Hot Springs, it stirred memories of a station that was once well-operated and reached a pretty good audience across the Black Hills and beyond, including many listeners in Wyoming and Nebraska.

We don’t know about the other properties owned and operated by Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting – licensee of KZMX-AM-FM – but the notice from the FCC seemed to make a compelling case that KZMX fits the profile of a station that “willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with…the provisions of the (Communications) Act.  They wrote the following in their Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture:

On Tuesday, May 31, 2011, in response to a complaint, an agent from the Enforcement Bureau's Denver Office (Denver Office) attempted an inspection of the Station KZMX(AM) and Station KZMX-FM main studio, during regular business hours. The Stations’ main studio is located approximately one mile north of Hot Springs, South Dakota, and is clearly marked in large letters “KZMX” and a sign on the front door reads “Mount Rushmore Broadcasting.” The door to the main studio was locked and there was no staff or management present at the building. There was no contact information posted at the main studio location, consequently, the agent was unable to gain entrance to the main studio. The agent stayed at the main studio site for several hours, monitoring Station KZMX(AM), which was operating on the frequency 580 kHz, and Station KZMX-FM, which was operating on frequency 96.7 MHz.2 The agent telephoned multiple phone numbers, including two published phone numbers associated with Mount Rushmore and the Stations several times, but none of his calls were answered.3 During the time the agent was at the main studio location, an individual identifying himself as a former employee stopped by the main studio location and informed the agent that no one had been present at the main studio for more than a year.

On June 1, 2011, during regular business hours, the Denver agent returned to the Station KZMX(AM) and Station KZMX-FM main studio and again attempted an inspection of the Stations’ main studio. The agent stopped by the main studio several times throughout the day, during regular business hours. Each time, no employees were present and the agent was unable to gain access to the main studio.  Both Stations were in operation and during each visit, the agent telephoned several phone numbers associated with the Stations but his calls were not answered. The agent then visited a non-affiliated business in the area owned by the president of Mount Rushmore. After being informed that the Mount Rushmore president was in the area, the agent left his business card with an employee who agreed to have the president contact the agent, however, the agent never heard from the president.

You can go to the FCC web site to read their Notice of May 17, 2012 in its entirety, but it’s not a happy story.  Not for Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, nor especially for the public, which apparently has been shortchanged by KZMX for a long time.

I received a copy of the FCC Notice from a long-time friend on May 19 – just a few days after it was adopted – so I thought I’d share it with a news outlet that purportedly covers news in the Black Hills region.   I sent a copy of the notice to the Rapid City Journal, which also owns the Hot Spring Star newspaper.  I was operating on the assumption that Hot Springs area residents were not likely to hear about the event from KZMX-AM-FM, and it seemed logical to me that the Journal might have an interest in the FCC action.  I e-mailed the notice to Kevin Woster at the Journal.

His response came two days later with a terse question:  “So what’s the issue?”

I replied that I thought the Notice of Forfeiture from the FCC was self-explanatory.  He responded that he gets a lot of mail, indicating that he hadn’t bothered to open or read the attachment.

Kevin is a good reporter.  I think he’s an even better writer.  But I was disappointed that nothing ever appeared in the Journal. Perhaps it was a pure editorial judgment call that this $21,500 forfeiture by a federally-licensed station in Hot Springs was too parochial – that the significance of the story was minimal.  And  maybe he’s right.

I never saw a story appear in the Rapid City Journal about the forfeiture.  Admittedly, I don’t read the Journal from front to back, so maybe I missed it.  Nor do I subscribe to the Hot Springs Star, where it may well have appeared. 

When I cranked up various online search engines to see just who might have reported the forfeiture, I found only the FCC website and…….Wikipedia?

The fact that Wikipedia somehow captured and shared information about the KZMX forfeiture order – and not the Rapid City Journal or Hot Springs Star – may well be a subtle clue as to why traditional media are struggling…….and online sources are thriving.  Even the likes of Wikipedia.

FCC makes a Sirius mistake

-

The Federal Communications Commission approved the XM-Sirius merger last Friday (7/25), bringing to an end a 16-month battle over whether or not such a move would be in the public interest.

South Dakotan Jonathan Adelstein was one of the dissenting Commissioners in the 3-2 decision, hailed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin as a move that will give consumers greater choice and greater flexibility.

Sirius and XM are the only satellite radio companies, and they concede that the $3.5 billion "merger" -- really a buyout of XM by Sirius -- will save them lots of money.

For the 18-million of us who are satellite radio subscribers, don't look for a rate reduction any time soon. The deal would freeze basic subscription increases, but you can rest assured the new company will find ways to get around that inconvenience. There were some compromises, but nothing that keeps it from falling into the category of a really bad public policy decision by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC can spell m-o-n-o-p-o-l-y, but they don't understand its meaning.

For more background on this deal, read these articles from Broadcasting & Cable and the New York Times.

Who needs competition?

I am conflicted ---

The U.S. Department of Justice today approved a $5 billion buyout of XM Radio by its competitor, Sirius Radio. Approval by the Federal Communications Commission seems imminent.

As a long-time subscriber to XM satellite radio, I have come to rely upon ready access to music of the 1940s and ‘50s, the in-depth governmental coverage of C-SPAN Radio, wall-to-wall classical music, occasional forays into Bluegrass, periodic visits from talk-show host Dave Ramsey, and a fresh perspective on international news from the BBC World Service.

I couldn’t care less about most of the 100+ other channel offerings. So when Sirius and XM said that, if they’re allowed to join forces, they’ll start offering program channels a la carte, I was excited. This “unbundling” concept is one that many subscribers would love to see implemented by cable television companies, and one promoted strongly by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. Imagine paying only for the channels you really want! If we believe Sirius and XM, that may soon happen with their surviving radio services. -

I fear the cost may be more than I hoped – much more.

For the past year, I’ve had a gnawing discomfort about this “merger,” but my fears subsided when I considered the possibility of paying less for fewer channels. Today, when I read about DOJ approval in the New York Times, I Googled the topic and found an archived story on the Sirius-XM deal by Marc Fisher of the Washington Post. Now I feel worse.

My hopes of keeping only the satellite channels I want – and paying less than my current $13 a month – now seem uncertain. Fisher, in his piece written last year, asked more than rhetorically, “Can you name one example of a new consumer technology that was guaranteed to a single provider and still served customers well? (Don’t everyone say 'cable TV' at once.)"

Having now read his full article, my discomfort grows, and my shot at frugality seems to have been dashed.

I am conflicted and won’t know the final outcome until I get that note in the mail many months from now, from the satellite radio entity left standing, telling me about all of the wonderful new benefits of yet another media consolidation.

Sigh.

Who Wants Bigger Media?

(Originally posted December 17, 2007)

The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote tomorrow on rules that would allow even greater consolidation of media in this country. Specifically, it would allow newspapers in major markets to acquire television stations in those same markets.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin -- who has some good ideas about giving consumers greater choices by "unbundling" cable television packages -- is way off base on the issue of newspaper/television cross-ownership. I can't fathom whence came the perceived urgency of such rules, but it's not hard to imagine the long and powerful reach of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

-

I've contacted Senators Johnson and Thune in South Dakota. While I doubt there is much that can be done at this late date to persuade Chairman Martin and the FCC to delay the vote tomorrow, the Senate can and should come together in support of S.2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Among other things, it would require 90 days be provided for the public to comment on any proposed media ownership rules put forward by the FCC. It would also require a separate FCC proceeding to examine the impact media consolidation is having on localism. It's no surprise to anyone that truly good local service by commercial broadcasting stations has been diminishing over the past decade -- badly!

Hopefully, more citizens will contact their U.S. Senators to urge support of S.2332. It's an important piece of legislation that can have a positive impact on media services in this country. Learn more about media consolidation at my earlier postings about the FCC.

Merry Christmas, Rupert

(Originally posted November 23, 2007)

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is apparently pushing forward with plans to “revise” the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. If it happens – and he appears to have the votes to swing it – he’ll be able to present Rupert Murdoch and other media barons with a sweet Christmas present.

They’ll have a clear path to owning a TV station and a local daily newspaper in the same market. Current FCC rules don’t allow such cross-ownership. (Of course, Murdoch already has a waiver to the rule and owns the New York Post and the television stations WWOR-TV and WNYW-TV in New York City. And there are other markets, too, that are grandfathered in the sweet arrangement.)

The cross-ownership wobbling is a retrenchment from Martin’s original plan, which would have opened the floodgates for media consolidation. Michael Powell, FCC Chairman in 2003, tried the same thing and got thoroughly pummeled by Congress and the public. Chairman Martin and his supporters are pushing for a December 18 vote, allowing just a four-week period for public comment.

We’re pleased to see Republican Trent Lott and Democrat Byron Dorgan joining forces to inject a bit of accountability into the process. They’ve introduced S 2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. It would require a 90-day comment period on any proposed media ownership rule changes. Not only would it delay Martin’s consolidation initiative until 2008, the measure has strong bi-partisan support and would also require hearings on local service.

If the Commission’s experience in Seattle earlier this month is any indication of public disaffection with the notion of more media consolidation, they’re in for a rough ride.

I think Chairman Martin may find a lump of coal under the tree this year.

Amnesia Perhaps?

(Originally posted October 30, 2007)

Although I guess it shouldn’t have surprised me, I was taken aback that Chairman Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission has such bad short-term memory. Martin apparently doesn’t remember the thrashing that then Chairman Michael Powell took just three years ago when he tried to update FCC ownership rules for broadcast stations.

“Update” in this case is a euphemism for tossing out ownership rules that are already skewed against the public interest and offer giant media conglomerates a continuing opportunity to stuff their pockets with profits. This, at the expense of many genuinely local radio and television stations that historically really have operated in the public “interest, convenience, and necessity."

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal has weighed in supporting Martin’s plan. I took issue with their stance by writing this “Letter to the Editor” last week:

The Wall Street Journal’s assertion that media consolidation has “led not to monopolies but to a media landscape that is more diverse than ever” (Oct. 25, 2007) confuses variety with diversity. The growing media empire of Rupert Murdoch may offer a garden variety of pseudo-journalism and info-tainment, but it falls woefully short of truly diverse, local journalism.

Your suggestion that “free-market” consolidation might improve the media landscape ignores the declining, sorry state of local broadcasting in this country – almost as bad as network offerings. Your swipe at public broadcasting, which is often the only vibrant player in local radio and television, is unwarranted. Many of us pine for the days of locally-owned and operated stations that were a part of the fabric of the communities they served, producing content that genuinely strived to meet the needs and interests of the community – not just the corporate bottom line. There are still a few commercial properties that fulfill that role, but increasingly it is public broadcasters who have filled the void of local service.

Chairman Martin and the FCC would do well to further expand their efforts in encouraging more local broadcasting and abandon the numbskull notion that media consolidation will save the day.

Back when Michael Powell tried an end run to further "relax" ownership rules, even he might have been surprised to find media mogul Ted Turner opposed to the proposal. To his credit, Turner simply observed that further consolidation might have been good for big media – but it was bad public policy.

-

"When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas," wrote Turner in the Washinton Monthly in 2004. Admitting that he earlier had tried his own "clean sweep" of vertical media ownership, Turner observed that media companies have grown ever larger and more powerful, and that their dominance has become so detrimental to small, emerging companies, that there's just one alternative -- bust up the big conglomerates.

Let’s hope that efforts to quash the plan – and there are many – are successful. Among those leading the charge against further media consolidation is U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Killing this proposal won't bust up the big media barons -- not by a long shot -- but it'll be a step in the right direction.

W$J wrong on FCC stance

(Originally posted May 24, 2007)

Regrettably, the Wall Street Journal seems out of touch with much of America when it states that “a la carte pricing bears little relationship to the issue of violent television programming” (FCC TV, May 23, 2007). Suggesting that war scenes from a History Channel documentary or shark/lion feeding scenes in a Discovery Channel program come anywhere close to the gratuitous sex and violence that permeates commercial television today is disingenuous. The WSJ editorial further asserts that Federal Communications Commission recommendations for a la carte consumer choice would constitute an unwarranted attempt by the government to “dictate a private sector business model.” We ask our government to do that all the time. Have you noticed the seat belts and air bags in your car?

To Bundle, or Not to Bundle

(Originally posted May 10, 2007)

The Federal Communicationse Commission has just released a report that reveals -- not surprisingly -- a significant increase in television violence.

And while I didn't become violent last week when I encountered some unexpected "adult content" on our televison, it did rekindle some long-time beliefs that support the concept of "unbundling" television program packages. Basically, that means subscribers should be able to choose only the channels they want in their home package, rather than paying for a bunch of channels they don't want.

By the way, the culprit channel noted above was one of the HBO channels. I didn't stick around long enough to see which one. I'm not a fan of Deadwood or most other HBO programs, but I am aware they've done some good programming -- albeit not enough for me to justify paying for it. Our HBO channels were thrown in as a temporary "freebie" -- part of the incentive to make us new subscribers to Midcontinent Cable in South Dakota.

About "bundling" and "unbundling" channels: parents of young children may enjoy having Disney, Discovery, and the Cartoon Channel, but they may have no desire for VH1, MTV, and Comedy Central. The fact is, their cable or satellite subscription bundles all of these together, and customers can either take it or leave it. If they take it, they're not only paying for what they want, but a lot of channels they don't want, too.

The technology is readily available to provide unbundled services, although cable and satellite services bemoan the fact that it will cost them money to implement such changes.

Cable has long been criticized, justifiably, for poor customer service. And while they've worked hard to overcome this stigma, it still haunts them. It's about to hit them over the head again big time, if they don't quickly come to the realization that there is rapidly growing public support for "unbundling."

I'm delighted that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is among those pushing for such unbundling. Other commissioners are supportive, as well. However, the real catalyst is a growing groundswell of public sentiment that cries for greater responsibility and accountability in the corporate offices of major cable and satellite service companies.

While parents and other care providers have prime responsibility to monitor television viewing by young children, television executives have some responsibility, too. In this instance, they also have an opportunity to be the "good guys" and take the initiative to support parents and provide ALL consumers with what they want.

Increasingly, consumers want "unbundled" services that can be selected "a 'la carte."

Let's hope cable television executives aren't asleep at the switch again.