NOTE: I’ve added some additional polls based on early input.
I’ve been toying with this idea for a few months. As many of you know, I currently work in radio, having done TV for 25 years. Logically with that background, with the clear success of WUWT, I’ve been approached more than once about doing a live weekly radio program. Here’s what my radio voice sounds like.
You’re listening to WUWT (click for MP3)
I’ve looked around a bit at what others are doing, for example at the “science” section of BlogTalkRadio. It didn’t take long for me to realize that I didn’t want to be in the same listing with the other people there. Sheesh what a nuthouse.
Doing a radio program is a big commitment. It is also expensive in that I’ll have to setup a home studio and streaming server. My current radio station isn’t properly equipped with live Internet streaming and I worry about breaking what is running now by adding new software and hardware. The last person who tried a hardware/software experiment on live production systems took us off the air for about 15 minutes and is no longer working there.
A radio program also has rewards in that it can reach many people who might not turn to blogs. It also offers a chance to have guests, much like guest posts on WUWT.
I wouldn’t limit the format to just climate, since the namesake is rich enough to cover most any topic. There’s also such a wealth of news each week to easily fill an hour long program.
I welcome input on the idea, and also any software/hardware combos that might be recommended for live radio streaming. I already have several ideas, but readers often surprise me with new ones.
And if I do it, what would be the preferred format?
Audio, video, or both?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I also agree with Janama and the others that mp3 (or any other recorded) format is better than live streaming. It would be nice to have an RSS feed or other mechanism for subscribing and automatically downloading to a portable device.
Yep, didn’t vote because the poll is setup like you want us to talk you out of it.
I’d jump in with the ‘go for it, but make it a podcast/recorded affair’ – you seriously limit your market by doing a ‘live broadcast’. Get it ‘on tape’, and let the audience listen on their schedule. Also, with a recorded format, you aren’t ‘on the hook’ to fill an announced and scheduled amount of time – the individual shows are the individual shows, as long or as short as the subject matter or the interview require.
As for hardware/software investment, you’re probably there as is – the quality of the demo piece was perfectly fine, to my non-industry professional ears, so you’ve got the ‘in studio’ portion down – just a bit of playing around with the tele-interviewing combo (skype, yahooIM w/audio) and how you’ll capture it, and you should be set.
Set aside and ‘unlearn’ whatever it is that you’ve picked up over 25 years of traditional broadcasting that may be holding you back – concentrate on the KISS principle, and have at it. The quality of this blog is the content, not the techno gee-whiz; with that in mind, I have very little doubt that the experiment will be a success.
REPLY: I’ll add a second poll dealing with methodology. -A
Like posters above I’d definitely go for a podcast, easy to set up and record too. Live radio is fine in the car but not something I’d mark my diary for to listen to online.
I like the idea of using mp3 files instead of live. New Zealand has different wake up times from you guys. Some time ago I downloaded mp3 and powerpoint presentations from Heartland’s site (NY Conference May 2009). I was able to play and replay as I wished. It was a great learning experience. So if you wanted to do pictures too, you could try Heartland’s idea of mp3 with powerpoint.
Here’s my two cents:
It depends on what you want to do: A generic science show or a climate/weather/nature format show. The former is probably too broad and the danger will be to wind up in the the ‘Discovery’ magazine or Scientific American territory. The latter will expose you to a lot of infrastructure hassles for possibly not much upside.
But, I may be too unimaginative. The world needs better scientific media information sources. Perhaps experiment with down-loadable MP3s and use these (and the download numbers) to pitch a radio show, such that some other organization can bear the infrastructure hassles for you.
Anthony, you have many great assets including background in broadcast media, international following, and a great radio voice (“frog voice” as my film-making friend calls it!).
The podcast model would be better than streaming, and you would certainly be able to line up some excellent guests from many branches of science. Leif would probably be a fantastic guest!
You also offer a more balanced approach than some (Fox News, Real Climate) and I think this would be very welcomed at this point in history.
Best of luck with this, other contributors have a good feel for the software platforms etc.
Great idea with a voice version if wuwt. But bag the idea regarding steaming. Just do a podcast, publish on iTunes and on RSS.
Anthony –
Thanks for the clip on your “radio voice”.
Do you also have ones for your TV voice and your real world voice?
🙂
Otherwise, WUWT does sound like a radio stations call letters, so why not try the obvious next step?
I’d tune you in – live, streaming, podcast, whatever .
Although I do agree, as long as you can still maintain this highly informative website.
Radio has been quite good for my father , as MSM will not touch him (yet). It is a way to sidestep the narrow view taken by the MSM, and it is quite popular. I must admit that television is insulting at best, and no longer panders even to the lowest common denominator. Mp3s can be released after airing to satisfy those who are unable to listen live. What you are doing, Anthony, is of critical importance. I support you 100% (never hire an accountant who tells you he will give 110%), and the success of WUWT? is clear indication that your vision is worthy of that support. Could you have predicted your current popularity when you started this blog?
I like the idea and agree with those who suggest pre-recording. Live is far too much of a demand, with family and all. Talk about anything. Science. What amuses you. And I agree, post it first on WUWT, see how many hits you get. Minimum cost for the experiment. MP3 format. Lots of players and simple to use. Also compact. Some of us lurkers and old geezers don’t have T3 Fibre Optic connections.
Look at Mark Sudduth’s Hurricanetrack.com site. He does live broadcasts from on-site as well as in studio vids and weekly radio podcasts. All are available later, some for premium subscribers only (a source of $ that helps defray the costs….:)
Anthony – I like the video idea better, and stuff that could be accessed anytime on YouTube or elsewhere would be great.
I would think the SMIL format would be one possible good avenue. You just do the audio and there is a window that goes to the graphic when its the right time in the program. No big expense in streaming servers or otherwise. Its sort of the standard for earnings calls for a lot of companies.
Much of what is useful to non-scientists regarding climate issues involves charts and graphs which can’t be used in an audio format. Also, blog text can be saved on our local storage devices for future reference. Whether you should have a live radio or recorded mp3 format depends on how much free time you have for this project, whether you can add anything to the value your website brings to your audience and how much money you can make from it.
How much spare time do you have?
+1 You definitely have me as a listener.
Live broadcast would have the advantage that you could take live Twitter questions or phone calls. But you will have listeners from all over the globe so not everyone will be able to listen live (e.g. I live in Denmark).
I imagine one invited guest per broadcast (approx. 1 hour) with subsequent mp3 podcast and YouTube upload. Commercials will be acceptable.
Perhaps start out with 1 show per month and later increase frequency.
WOW!
What a great idea!
Ecotretas
Wow, that’s a scoop, getting Walter Matthau to be your radio voice!
For me I would like the opportunity to listen (maybe watch to?) on a live stream as it is happening – you could maybe take live calls. But I would also love the opportunity to download the shows to listen to on my little iPod thingy (it’s actually a Sansa Fuze, but whatever) whilst on my travels. This would also open up the opportunity for like-minded geeks to post your mp3s (mp4s?) on other sites, spreading the good word.
I would be more than happy with just plain audio – but video would be nice too if showing graphics, charts, etc. Why not offer the choice of streaming/downloading either plain audio or audio+video? Anyway, definitely GO FOR IT!
Instead of having all the hassle of doing live radio, why not do a podcast?
Then just release it as an mp3 file.
That way, people can listen to it anytime they like.
From: JohnWho on May 2, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Otherwise, WUWT does sound like a radio stations call letters, so why not try the obvious next step?
It’s a common practice for stations to use their letters for websites. So I checked. wuwt.com has someone squatting on it while wuwt.org is a forgotten wordpress blog. wuwt.tv is open btw. Curious.
I’d say go for it. You’ve got a good voice for the format and there’s demand out there to hear the skeptics’ side.
But just as a note, for me personally, I enjoy the two-way discussions of a blog more than the one-way discussions of broadcast. So I’d hate to see your blog suffer because of commitments to radio.
Among the reasons not to do it live is the fact that WUWT is so truly international, spanning the anglophone world, and then some. International phone interviews that have technical issues arising would become stressful live, but much less so on a pre-recorded basis. The ability to absorb the hits of technical issues is why, for instance, the nightly news on the major networks so rarely have live interviews anymore.
It would be valuable, IMHO, for Anthony and his guests to be “practicing” in the medium of radio for such time when the MSM realizes that it has been had and needs to turn to some other voices for balance. Either that, or as with the web, Anthony will simply take the medium by storm.
If you post media files, please consider using an open format.
Ham and oggs.
I don’t know where you get the time to do what you do now!
Good idea. To begin with a 1 hour podcast each week would be sufficient. Stick to the humble science and John Christy would a nice guest.