Category: regional

  • Another One

    Another One

    I expected more fundraising chatter when I turned on WBEZ this morning and was surprised by the regularly scheduled programming.

    I heard four promos and ads before any news yesterday morning. I heard several more spots and a traffic report along with some headlines before the latest financial appeals resumed.

    WBEZ reportedly wants to raise one million dollars by the end of the month. Its previous fundraiser, which ended about three weeks ago, seems to have left it substantially short of this goal, so it initiated a follow-up this week, and is reportedly still some $300,000 short of its finish line.

    The previous one, which lasted for over a week, offered monthly donors a generic stream that allowed them in exchange for any local coverage to avoid these appeals, which is better I guess than enduring this incessant and irrelevant chatter. This second fundraiser for whatever reason did not include such a stream for those who already donate every month.

    As a result I heard hosts offer some strange appeals. One explained that the donations from last year didn’t fill the financial holes in the budget for this year. Another suggested that a monthly donation was like the difference between a lump-sum payment and a monthly deposited check.

    WBEZ didn’t learn any lessons in other words and cannot balance a budget. It continues to blame its financial challenges on the federal funding cuts from more than a year ago as if these cuts hadn’t been championed by conservatives for years, and if responsible executives hadn’t had enough time to formulate backup plans.

    WBEZ didn’t learn any lessons in other words and cannot balance a budget. It continues to blame its financial challenges on the federal funding cuts from more than a year ago as if these cuts hadn’t been championed by conservatives for years, and if responsible executives hadn’t had enough time to formulate backup plans.

    None of these concerns and others has been assuaged by the latest Chicago Public Media initiative, which is a public social network called < chicago.com >. This network according to CPM will be a collaboratively-constructed public space for community conversations and local information as well as other content.

    Unclear at least at the moment is whether this network will identify curated content and if the rest will be assessed for accuracy, which are two crucial public media functions. How will users know whether the information in this network is as reliable as what they hear on the radio? How will they know whether these guides are as reliable as the ones that appear in the newspaper?

    This issue has already arisen in response to an AI-generated SUN-TIMES summer reading guide last year. It will only become more urgent in this new initiative unless users expect something other than curated and credible content in this space, which in my opinion would challenge a fundamental public media function.

    No one whom I read seems to know the future of journalism in this increasingly digitized world. Regardless, the stakes given the way AI has been seeping throughout societies might never have been higher.

    Countries still need public media to democratically survive. Communities still need sustainable public media to thrive.

    Here’s hoping that Chicago Public Media knows what it is doing, and is responsibly using what we donate.

  • Some Vital Signs

    Some Vital Signs

    Chicago Public Media could be showing encouraging signs of life.

    It recently announced the release of a new website about Chicago for its residents. This space, which reportedly reflects a passion for this city and confronts its fractured communities, is based upon a central public media belief that some “civic infrastructure” cannot come from, and depend upon, the marketplace.

    This site at the moment is basic. It features slick testimonials about the city, a donation link, and a contact form link for those who want to contribute to its development.

    The most exciting element is the link to its rationale, which explains that CPM hopes to offer “trusted local information, communication knowledge, civic and cultural resources, and new opportunities for participation” from its “trusted organizations” — the Chicago Sun-Times and WBEZ. Like these, this new space will be driven not by profit but by the public media mission, and will consider its members not as “number[s]” but as “neighbor[s]”.

    This proposal suggests an awareness of its challenges. However, the proof obviously will be the ways these principles are converted into practices.

    The world has obviously changed, and these changes seem to be accelerating. CPM exists in a world for example where fewer people read newspapers and listen to the radio, and do these if at all online.

    At the same time, the last few years have been challenging. CPM seemed unprepared for instance to integrate the newspaper and to compensate for the predictable federal funding loss.

    Perhaps more challenging has been the inconsistency between its assertions and its actions in small and big ways. Most if not all of these efforts to confront such inconsistencies have been frustratingly ineffective and resulted in maddeningly inadequate responses if any at all.

    Public media are essential, especially in this disinformation era (McQuade 2024, e.g.). Chicago Public Media must retain the best of its previous purposes, such as providing reliable information and curating news stories, and reconfigure its contributions for a fluid future.

    That could go far in restoring my confidence in, and restoring my reduced financial contributions to, this important Chicago institution.

  • So Long Sun-Times

    So Long Sun-Times

    I’ve discontinued my Chicago Sun-Times subscription, and am disappointed about doing so.

    The final factor was its required “Premium Edition” fee, which for those who had this fee waived is in fact a price increase. These editions are generally useless cash-grabs, and sometimes filled with AI hallucinations. Moreover, this fee is still not required by its cross-town competitor.

    I had switched my daily delivery subscription to the Sun-Times after it was acquired by Chicago Public Media. Since then, I’ve observed a reduction in its quality, such as fewer op-eds and less unique content, that only increases its contrast with its hedge-fund-owned rival.

    I’ve also asked for clarification of inconsistent and inaccurate price-increase processes, missed delivery promises, and subscriber-supporter differences, which are often unclear or even ignored. These issues become even more confusing given that the print newspaper is freely available in .pdf on its website.

    These observations and others, such as the increased content overlap between the Sun-Times and WBEZ or increased sponsor spots on the radio after the predictable federal funding loss, have initiated a seeming commercialized convergence, and produced a cross-platform credibility problem. The limited responses to my often ignored queries from a long-time donor have been less than reassuring.

    I realize that these conditions are part of larger concerns, such as a widespread performative progressivism. Regardless, I think these challenge the primary public media purpose, and its promise of facts and reason for its communities.

    I wonder in other words whether Chicago Public Media is the innovative institution that it describes itself as, and that I’ve long imagined it to be.

    I know that it will continue despite decreases in my modest financial support. I just hope that its leaders can restore my confidence in it as a crucial contributor to an informed Chicago and a functional American democracy.

    Such beliefs are perhaps more important now when hope for our future is harder to find.