David Lloyd wrote last autumn:
Are we suggesting that a quality half-hour of audio material which attracts thousands of attentive downloads can’t be called radio just because it’s not been transmitted? And yet if it’s broadcast in the middle of the night on FM to one man and a dog, it is suddenly radio. And if a human being curates a great - and genuine - online-only radio station, it's not really radio, it's just pretending?
Petersfield Community Radio's daily round-up of essential local information available on demand has been a must-listen for many in the same way as a traditional breakfast show - so why shouldn’t we call it "radio"?
The Oxford and Cambridge dictionary definitions of "radio" are almost identical:
Oxford: The activity or industry of broadcasting sound programmes to the public.
Cambridge: The system or work of broadcasting sound programmes for the public to listen to.
Cambridge seems to have kept up with the times better than Oxford based on the definitions of "broadcast":
Oxford: Transmit (a programme or some information) by radio or television.
Cambridge: To send out a programme on television or radio, or over the internet.
In fact, "send out" could be interpreted as linear or on-demand.
Changing the subject slightly, Mick on Twitter observes that online-only stations are using "FM" in their names which I've never understood. You wouldn't call an email a letter.
I appreciate many listeners crowbar an "FM" onto the end of every station name as if it's just an abbreviation for radio, but it makes no sense to confuse people by having a platform they can't find you on as part of your brand. It's nothing but anorakky.
No comments:
Post a Comment