OTR Digest Issue…
I’d like to ask for some input on an issue that is becoming pretty major on the OTR Digest…hit-and-run commercial interests.
Let me back up a little; routinely, people are sent to the OTR Digest to ask a question. It used to be folks asking about some family member or another who appeared, or at least was said to have appeared, on one program or another, and, “does anyone have or know about this show?”…that kind of question certainly belongs on the OTR Digest, and I’m sure everyone on the list is interested in checking their collections to see if they can help out.
But recently, the questions are coming more and more from commercial interests — people writing a book, working on a documentary, or the like; basically people with no interest whatsoever in Old-Time Radio other than their current “desperate need” for whatever it is they are going to be making money on. One example was someone with a company making money producing a radio series with an idea stolen from a certain famous newsman; hit - subscribe and request specific material; then run - unsubscribe and while doing so tell me he really doesn’t care about OTR, he just needed that one piece. Very recently a woman writing a book about someone hammered the Digest address (and every other address she could find on the server) with the same form letter over and over, asking for specific shows so she could use them in research for her book about this person - no interest in radio, just interested in the person. Heck, just today I was told this is why we are here, to help people who are involved in commercial projects.
Seriously.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m becoming offended by this…it’s almost as if the subscribers to the OTR Digest are expected to be an unpaid research service for these commercial interests demanding information or programs, and it never occurs to these folks how self-centered that assumption is. Understand, I’m not talking about the folks who are involved in the hobby; we have boatloads of authors (Martin Grams, Jim Cox, Stephen Kallis, David Siegel, and Anthony Tollin, just off the top of my head, and probably dozens more) who routinely participate in the Digest discussions. And I’m not talking about “legitimate” questions from folks dealing with their relatives…heck, I’ve participated more than once in finding long-lost programming for someone. I’m talking about hit-and-runners who don’t give a whit about OTR, and are only interested in having someone else provide them with research material they need “right away” and then vanish into the night never to be seen again.
Like I said, maybe it’s just me. I’d appreciate subscriber thoughts on this - I realize it’s pretty much my issue to deal with (and those who go out of their way to annoy me, by sending form letters to every address they can harvest, for example, will still be summarily ignored), but I want to know what you think about the issue. Please…discuss.
(Oh, just so there’s no confusion, this discussion is open to subscribers to the Digest…hit-and-runners justifying your “desperate need” should not apply… And one day soon I hope to bring up the contentious issue of on-line auction posts, but one major issue at a time, eh?)
Edit: Please be sure to read this comment before responding, to make certain we’re talking about the same thing. (Actually, I urge you to read all the comments, since they are universally interesting and well-thought-out.)
![[Post to Twitter]](http://blogs.oldradio.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro4.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://blogs.oldradio.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Reddit]](http://blogs.oldradio.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-reddit-micro4.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://blogs.oldradio.net/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
July 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Charlie,
I think you are right to be offended. Yet I do not know how you can keep folks out without possibly eliminating actual fans…
July 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I’ve seen the sort of questions that you are talking about, but not that often (perhaps
because you are good at screening out most of the annoying material). How would you know
ahead of time that it’s a hit-and-run posting? If we don’t see them again after the fact,
I guess we would know, but it’s too late then.
You have every right to be offended at a resource you provide for free/occasional donations
being used for someone else’s commercial interests, but I’m not sure what you can do to
prevent it, other than asking someone at digest-subscription time exactly what they want or
expect out of the list.
I haven’t been noticing the type of questions you are talking about too much, but that’s
mostly because if it’s a question I can’t answer, I just skip over it and leave it to
someone else. I vaguely remember a recent post that I could look at and determine it was
from someone who didn’t give a rodent’s posterior about the hobby, but if he got an answer,
it was off list.
Whatever you want to do to keep the list readable, useful, and enjoyable, I’m behind you.
– Tom
July 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Hello - Well in regards to people asking for OTR information, perhaps I’m biased. As a writer who has had to do research on some obscure topics, I have greatly appreciated help from people around the world. (Computer foreign language translators are an amazing thing… but I digress.) Let me just say that regarding a topic such as old time radio, it is very difficult to find sources and knowledge such as is available here on the OTR Digest. As people who worked in the industry, as well as lovers of OTR, any questions sent to “OTR Digesters” offers an opportunity to keep the amazing works of OTR alive. If someone spreads the knowledge and makes a buck on it, well more power to him/her. I say, let the questions keep coming. Help out anyone who asks (ummm… offline, of course). –Sue
July 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Charlie, I agree with you 100%. In a perfect world you could block the hit-and-runners (so go ahead and do it). However, I’ve learned this is not a perfect world. So…what options do you have to stop someone from subscribing, getting info and then running? How can you tell the difference between “folks dealing with their relatives”, “folks who are involved in the hobby”, and legit authors, and
these commercial interest-types?
Possible suggestions:
1.) create a waiting period for new subscribers before they can post. Fully explained (a la your post above), truly interested folks would not mind waiting, while commercial interest-types generally are in a hurry.
2.) I’m very hesitant to post this one but, require references from folks who are involved in the hobby and are subscribers.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
As Tom said, it doesn’t happen often enough to really be a concern for me. Having spent 30+ years in the television industry, though, I know how difficult it is for a producer to find information useful within a planned production, especially when said producer initially knows little to nothing about the topic. For that reason I tend to support such inquiries and help, when I can, but I usually respond off-list.
On the other hand, the fact that such a person, ignorant of the topic, would chose to seek accurate information from the Digest does seem to indicate that the list members, collectively, are recognized as authorities on the subject. Isn’t that something to be proud of?
As Tom also said, whatever you want to do to keep the list readable, I’m behind you. Although I’m not annoyed by the occasional one-shot request for specific information, I wouldn’t miss them if they went away.
Paula Keiser
July 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I can understand your frustration, and as a researcher, I also understand the position of those contacting you.
When you need to track down information, you check out every source possible, and it’s a tribute to you and those who post that people will come to your site as a source. I have even contacted you for help and you refused. I didn’t completely understand, but the bottom line is: This is your site. You may do whatever you wish. You make the rules, and you can change the rules. You’ve earned that right.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Dear Charlie-
I’m speaking as a guy who has lobbied in the past, both On-list and Off-, for people to be more “broadminded” in general about our beloved OTRD. In the handful of cybercommunities I belong to, I find it enriching, once the community has formed, for it to exercise its “O.T.” mental muscles once in a while (”All work and no play makes Jack…”)
(But then, I subscribe to the “one cosmos” philosphy, and have cherised memories of Political discussions in H.S. Art class, and Religious debates in College Drama Lit seminars…)
THAT BEING SAID, so much of it (as always in life!) is not in WHAT is done, but HOW it’s done.
I’d agree with Tom, that I haven’t found the posts cited to be terribly annoying. We all edit-in-real-time as we read, and skip what doesn’t interest us. And connections & launching points are precisely what keeps threads vibrant - who knows where even a “commercial” comment will lead…?
BUT OF COURSE, if the parties involved are guilty of the boorish behavior towards the Mod noted above, they are then personae-non-grata!
All best,
-Craig
July 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I guess I have a different outlook. For many many years I was a university professor. I always felt it was my “duty” to communicate to the public as well as to students. And I never charged for my communications. Now in this particular case we might argue that these “commercial” people are genuinely asking for information that will make their ultimate publication better. Certainly we can’t be against that.
And to me, the OTRD exists for the free exchange of information.
But to conclude, Charlie, you do a masterful and underappreciated job and I will defer to your judgment.
Cordially,
Mahl
July 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi;
I think you are over reacting here. Altho there may have been a recent spike in inquiries for bizarre material only slightly related to old time radio, I, for one, haven’t noticed any major trend here that is disrupting the scope or purpose of the Digest as a whole.
Those of us who use the Digest can respond to these inquiries, or not. I don’t find them any more unusual or bizarre than the usual run of relatives looking for some obscure local broadcast their family members may or may not have appeared on, for which no copy is known to exist on the entire planet.
Also, like it or not, the Digest is a research tool for everybody, people in the hobby and also for people who are not necessarily deeply involved in collecting or listening to old time radio. Cutting off somebody because you don’t happen to feel their radio research really interests you or is “involved” enough to suit your personal barometer strikes me as being extremely eletist. I would hope that we are trying to recruit and welcome new people into this hobby, and screening out people who have an interest, large or small, in some facet of the hobby does not seem to me to be a very good idea.
—Bob Jennings
July 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I agree with you Charlie, there is something wrong with these folks mining the databases and minds of the members, with really no commitment to the effort that goes into its operation. True researchers are used to paying money for information and it should be no different here. I would think charging them a fee for research is reasonable, with you Charlie setting the price to be paid to the operation and upkeep of the site.
Don
July 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Experts - like w are on old time radio - will alwaus be taken advantage of. I guess we have to live with it if we want to do our share to keep OTR alive.
Let me give you an example. When I lived in Europe I was an expert on classical movies. The Louvre in Paris contacted m. They desperately needed a 16mm print of mine for an important retrospective, and could I send it by express right away. I did. Never heard from them again. Called, and the person in charge was never available. Finally got my print back, after having to cancel another playdate for the print, as “unclaimed”. Seems the Louvre had been able to get a better print in 35mm and decided to not pick up the print I sent them so not to incur any costs on their side.
So I lost a lot of money because of my willingness to help, and I lost faith in a world famed institution. Did it teach me anything? No. I have been loaning material to individuals again, and again, just hoping to “help the cause”, be it movies, comics, or old time radio. Yes, we are being taken advantage of, but every legitimate request that results in a publication or an event that publicizes our hobby is worth it.
Either live with it or ignore it, I say. Whatever the consequences, don’t complain.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I’d like to know Honestly if this query refers to me and BearManor Media at all. I know lately I’ve posted a few things about coming books and that I don’t really give out info on the questions asked here (really I leave that to people who know a lot more than I!), but I thought if my messages weren’t proper, they’d just be left out and Charlie would email me privately to say I’m being too commercial. But if this situation is about me at All, please let me know and I’ll try to be better!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Hey Charlie,
Like Tom I haven’t noticed these posts often enough to feel used. One can generally tell when someone isn’t familiar with the hobby and it generally seems subscribers will help or not depending on their own feelings.
I understand your point of view and, when it comes down to it, am satisfied with the screening you have done up to now. It’s your Digest, you do all the work, and if you feel a post is inappropriate I trust your judgment.
Best,
Steve
July 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Well, I might be one of those who within the past week or two posted a query from an NPR reporter looking for sound from the Empire State Building crash. If that falls into the category about which you write, then here is my two cents on why I posted it.
The digest is probably the best watering hole gathering of otr experts, collectors, and so forth. There isn’t really any other list or web location that is as good. While I agree that there has been a certain amount of commercial interests and it can be annoying at times, I wouldn’t know where to tell them to turn to. You see the “hit and run” probably best, but I haven’t found them that annoying as often it seems to suddenly spark new interest in some subject.
Because of the brain pool of old time radio experts, I think it is something that is probably unavoidable from the perspective as I mentioned, that there really isn’t any other location where it seems “everyone” gathers. Sure there are some web sites that have forums (including your own), but quite honestly, they aren’t heavily populated in the way the digest is.
My personal opinion is that I think often these queries enhance the digest experience. Back to my own posting, I will tell you that the NPR person was so overwhelmed with responses from digest readers that she has decided to subscribe just to read the postings on an ongoing basis. Her stories are not usually tied to old time radio, so her subscribing she told me is out of interest.
That the story will be appearing in a week or so on All Things Considered was, as I recall, mentioned in the post, giving digesters an opportunity to listen in where they might not have heard about it until someone else posted that it was on.
I just don’t know any other way. I know you tried breaking out separate digests on certain themes, but they just didn’t seem to have the same gathering as this digest does. It is perhaps a victim of its own success in a way. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I don’t mind, myself. And where else would they go? DIS IS DA PLACE, if someone wants the right answers.
I’ve had to correct lots of people in real life about the Hindenburg “broadcast”, the War Of The Worlds “suicides”, script pages being tossed to the floor after being read, and those pesky decoder “rings”. Little things.
It’s all good - as long as the correct information gets out there.
This really is a panel of EXPERTS, I would be proud that those people came here, instead of Wikipedia to get some quickly-edited possibly tainted information.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Charlie, your so right. There are so many web sites selling & selling. The OTR DIGEST is an Oasis in the selling desert.
Frank McGurn
July 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
A really quick comment; new posters to the blog require approval. It keeps the spammers out, it is not designed to keep out comments I don’t agree with. (Heck, the ones I don’t agree with teach me more.) If I’m a little slow getting comments approved, please don’t take it personally, it just means I’m taking the Katester out for pizza or something. ;)
I will be commenting on the many comments here later…please keep ‘em coming!
July 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I agree with those who say that it’s important to get the correct information out there and am bothered by only a few requests. I don’t think it’s that big a deal and who knows, one of those picking our brains might develop the same kind of interest we have in OTR — and even write about it and spread the religion I trust Charlie’s judgment and appreciate his putting this topic up for discussion.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
N.B.: This comment is only that - do not treat it as anything approximating the “last word” or anything like that. Unlike the Digest, where I sometimes wield a heavy hand to keep the list focused, this blog is designed to be a bit more free-wheeling. Give my comments no more or less weight than anyone else’s, and please let me know if you think I’m all wet.
tfk Says:
How would you know ahead of time that it’s a hit-and-run posting?
That’s usually pretty easy; the person subscribes and immediately sends a form request for specific programs having to do with a specific theme or person not necessarily connected to OTR. In many cases, within an hour or so someone else in the hobby will forward a copy of the same request, or I’ll find the same request in one of the other mailboxes I maintain. These folks tend to avoid subtlety; they do a quick Google search and hammer everything they find with their “vital” request. And they always need the information now, since they’re on deadline and this is really important!
If that doesn’t happen initially, they may immediately unsubscribe after their post is submitted, in some cases even before it runs (I removed a post from the Digest once that happened exactly that way), or will unsubscribe after they get a response or three. One told me upon unsubscribing that they should never have subscribed in the first place, instead should have had me post their request for them (as if I worked for them!).
But really, they’re usually not that hard to spot.
SueH Says:
I say, let the questions keep coming.
If they were interested in learning about OTR, that would be great, but that’s not what most of these people ask for. They want specific programs, or even specific pieces of tape! Ironically, one came in today asking (again!) for audio referencing the Empire State Building (see Jim Widner’s comment above and my response to it below - apparently folks at NPR doesn’t talk to each other when working on the same story) It isn’t the information that bothers me, it’s the demand for aural material. These people honestly don’t want to learn anything, they just want to use the subscriber base for their specific story; do you really think they care how performances were accomplished, or how networks were formed? And the frequency is increasing…
David Easter Says:
1.) create a waiting period for new subscribers before they can post. Fully explained (a la your post above), truly interested folks would not mind waiting, while commercial interest-types generally are in a hurry.
Truthfully, this one I really, really like. As I mentioned above, this is one of the sure signs of a commercial interest. Truth is, in the old days of the Internet (where everyone was computer-literate) it was expected that when joining a discussion you “lurked” for a week or two before diving in, so you would know the community you just joined. That, and most other netiquette, is rapidly disappearing from the Internet.
2.) I’m very hesitant to post this one but, require references from folks who are involved in the hobby and are subscribers.
Ah…no, I don’t think I’m going to vette subscribers. I’m not certain I could pass that test myself. ;)
pkeiser Says:
On the other hand, the fact that such a person, ignorant of the topic, would chose to seek accurate information from the Digest does seem to indicate that the list members, collectively, are recognized as authorities on the subject. Isn’t that something to be proud of?
Again, it isn’t the information requests that bother me; anyone interested in learing about Old-Time Radio is more than welcomed. It’s the “gimme this particular sound” without any interest in learning anything that is driving me to distraction.
Frank Absher Says:
I have even contacted you for help and you refused.
Hum…I’ll need to research past email before commenting here. It’s unusual for me to personally refuse any request for help, but again I don’t know the context nor remember refusing a request from you. Again, let me do some research before responding.
Wich2 Says:
I find it enriching, once the community has formed, for it to exercise its “O.T.” mental muscles once in a while
That way leads to only death for any discussion list. If you don’t believe me, try having a discussion on any topic on USENET. The only reason the Digest is still vibrant after over a decade (when the lifespan of many discussion lists is measured in months) is because while some latitude is available, the list remains focused on the topic for which it was created; this isn’t a place to discuss football or politics, its purpose is to discuss OTR. I admit this opens the list up to some various nostalgia (anyone remember the “pop vs. soda” discussion a few years ago?), but anything past 1962 is pushing things. That is not going to change, at least until I kick it and someone else takes over.
Bob Jennings Says:
I think you are over reacting here.
Not an unusual situation for me, as those who have read other rants on this blog can attest. ;)
I would hope that we are trying to recruit and welcome new people into this hobby, and screening out people who have an interest, large or small, in some facet of the hobby does not seem to me to be a very good idea.
Whoa…we aren’t talking about people with an interest in Old-Time Radio here, and that’s kinda my point. These are people who want one thing, and when they have it, they’re done. I can’t figure out how providing it to them does anything to promote the hobby…all it manages to do is to make them look good to their bosses.
jwidner Says:
Well, I might be one of those who within the past week or two posted a query from an NPR reporter looking for sound from the Empire State Building crash. If that falls into the category about which you write, then here is my two cents on why I posted it.
Er, no, Jim, while I saw that one, I honestly wasn’t referencing it here, and truthfully forgot all about it until you mentioned it. I will admit to my own personal bias that I’m not in any great hurry to assist National Public Radio (after almost a quarter-century I no longer support them nor their member stations, for reasons I have detailed ad nausium in this blog for the last four years), but at the same time it didn’t occur to me to stop it, in large part because you posted it; the public radio one I referenced in my post was a private production company formed when the idea the company is making a living from was
stolenappropriated from the mentioned “famous newsman.”but I haven’t found them that annoying as often it seems to suddenly spark new interest in some subject.
Er, no…you haven’t seen the hit-and-runs to which I refer (ok, you’ve seen one of the ones I mentioned, but not the other two, and not the other ones I didn’t mention in the blog post), because they never made it to the Digest. This is really what I’m trying to get a feel for, should I universally allow this kind of post into the Digest, where someone writing a book having nothing to do with OTR wants everyone to track down whatever they happen to want?
Back to my own posting, I will tell you that the NPR person was so overwhelmed with responses from digest readers that she has decided to subscribe just to read the postings on an ongoing basis
Yes, but will the Digest or the subscribers receive any credit for their responses? The producer in question is being paid to do the work that you and then the subscribers did for her, she will be patted on the back for a great story and, I’ll wager, the wonderful “find” of the audio when she didn’t find it, you did, and so on.
When we did some research for The Bob Edwards Show years ago, the Digest was credited (he got the name wrong, but that was my fault, not his). You can bet NPR won’t do anything like that, nor will the authors and producers who are more and more not just asking for, but in some cases expecting subscribers to do their legwork for them. (I wasn’t kidding when I said someone told me yesterday he thought that’s what we are there for…)
I know you tried breaking out separate digests on certain themes
Again, er, no…that was Bill Pfieffer. When Bill passed away, I consolidated the lists. I always thought breaking them up was a mistake. (I did say that if anyone came to me with an idea for a list not covered within the OTR Digest charter, I’d consider it, like radio drama post-1962, or something like that.)
And I should note to everyone that the requests we’ve been receiving lately have generally not been for information (these people seem to already know everything they need to on their subject), but for programs. The woman I mentioned with the book late last month wanted to hear certain programs about her book subject, and expected the list subscribers to provide them for her (and she needed them now); same with other recent requests. While I agree some of the brightest researchers in the field are on the Digest, many of these people could be or should be paid to do this kind of consulting work, if not in money then in air- or book-credit at the least.
And I’m not saying we should never help anyone, or that third-party requests (you posting a request you received from an NPR producer, for example) should never run in the Digest. But some of these people are insistent, and when I receive the third or fourth copy of a form email asking for the same thing I have to admit I begin to become a tad unhinged…
Frank McGurn Says:
The OTR DIGEST is an Oasis in the selling desert.
Yes, but please remember the website which does sell in support of the Digest - The OldRadio.Network Shop! (Crass Commercial…er…I mean…Underwriting Statement)
IreneTH Says:
I trust Charlie’s judgment
Hell, Charlie doesn’t trust Charlie’s judgment on this one…it’s why I asked for not only feedback but discussion.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Hello, Charlie!
A somewhat quick comment on all this —
Personally, I am not too bothered by such a problem, but it is a problem. I will agree with you there. If something doesn’t interest me, or I have no information to give, I merely skip over it and go on to read the next. However, what has not been mentioned is that there are plenty of places information can be gained without pleading with members of the OTR Digest and then running away forever once they get info. Those people who are doing research should be contacting places like The Thousand Oaks Library, USC Radio Archives, even Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters Archives (when it was open). And many, many other institutions where there are thousands of articles, recordings, and important info that will gladly be given when asked. So, on that level, I can understand your annoyance over people begging, getting, then running. Though it’s minor to me, it is wrong.
Ken
July 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Having re read the question and the comments from contributors and your later comments Charlie, it would appear the hit and run requests for audio from commercial interests are your main concern. Hit and run questions regarding books being written on people or other subjects with a minor mention of radio I would expect on the Digest list, where else would they go? Those of us that research OTR would be the first to complain about a book which COULD have included OTR information and DIDN’T. I personally don’t mind providing my research efforts for free to authors or radio stations and television production, knowing full well that they are making a buck, provided that they give credit for the source of the information. Its a form of advertising for what I choose to do as a hobby.
Requesting audio in a hit and run style, whilst annoying to you, rightly so, as you are having to spend the time administering it, will ultimately be up to the provider of the audio to judge. People not interested will ignore the request.
Even if you include a paragraph in the ‘New-Member Intro’ saying that “it is expected that any information or audio supplied for commercial purposes, be credited to the Digest and the provider” it is doubful they would read it. Perhaps the members could be educated to make that a condition of the donation? If the commercial interests do not comply then thats the end of their requests.
But apart from their crude approaches and their rude exits, the advance information that they are working on something that may well be of interest to us and that we could assist, it can be of advantage to us.
Ultimately, its your list and your rules.
Ian
July 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
First, let me say that while I have definite Liberal leanings, meaning, among other things, that I take a somewhat jaundiced view of unregulated, free-market capitalism, I nonetheless remain a Capitalist. In other words, I don’t mind people making money, i.e., profit, from their work. Especially if it’s good, honest work.
Also, having been a public television producer for many years before joining the academic ranks, I also know that I called upon numerous people for their expertise while preparing programs, documentaries or segments. Most of them received no on-air credit, and I venture to say, hardly anyone expected any. They were just happy to make sure their particular area of interest was accurately represented. I have no particular interest in dressage, for example, in fact I don’t give a rat’s patootie about it. But when I did a program segment on it, I made sure I called on people to clue me in. When my segment on dressage aired, I think it was pretty accurate, anyone watching got a pretty good idea what it was all about, and maybe one or two even developed in interest in it. I didn’t, but so what? That wasn’t my job. I did a good piece, people were happy with it, and I moved on. I don’t think anyone got in a snit that I didn’t become a dressage enthusiast.
So, unless the Digest becomes so inundated with requests that they dominate–which I find highly unlikely–I say let ‘em come. Hardly anyone will really profit much from a book or especially (!) a documentary anyway, but that’s beside the point. If what they’re doing accurately represents what we’re interested in–the Old Time Radio era–then more power to ‘em. I hope they make millions and their readers/viewers/listeners are educated a little bit more about OTR in the process. And we can help make that happen. (Of course, if it DOESN’T happen, even after our best efforts, well, who said the world was fair?)
July 18th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
After thinking some more about this I decided to add another comment. My perspective is that despite the blatant request for material, I still look at this as a positive thing for increasing the interest in old time radio, something for which I have long been an advocate. It is essentially, a part of the philosophy of my having created my web site back in 1995. I see it all from an educational perspective.
What I don’t think is acceptable are people who post saying they are looking for some tape or what not for a money making project. I simply do not see public radio in that vein, especially programs such as All Things Considered. It is similar to announcements that Stetson Kennedy was going to be interviewed on the Bob Edwards Show, or even if someone from Edwards’ office contacting the list for some piece of audio that might support some interview he would be doing. I don’t think that has happened, but I would support such a request myself.
While, yes, there probably have been some increase in requests, I think they need to somehow weighed in terms of what they are trying to do. Material for a one time reported story is not as offensive to me as request for some source for photos for a book, which could have some commercial gain in mind.
I still read the digest the way I watch television. If I don’t like a television show, I change the channel. If I don’t like a digest posting, I skip past it.
I am not sure where to draw the line, but I do think there needs to be some consideration for some of those posts instead of lumping them altogether and banning them. I will be the first to admit, I skim the digest much faster than I used to simply because, quite honestly, it is becoming boring. How many posts did I skip by on using rubbing alcohol on cassettes?
July 18th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Er, no…you haven’t seen the hit-and-runs to which I refer … This is really what I’m trying to get a feel for, should I universally allow this kind of post into the Digest, where someone writing a book having nothing to do with OTR wants everyone to track down whatever they happen to want?
If you feel you can definitely tell if if they are one hit wonders, then keep those out. It sounds to me like you know who these offenders are most of the time. So a few slip through, if it becomes clear too late they were that type of post, then ban them or suspend them until it can be cleared up. When you suspend them, I am assuming you notify them, which would give them an opportunity to justify themselves.
If you can’t really tell, then I’d hate to see people such as SueH or a Bear Manor type publisher get knocked out because you were broadly stopping these.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:38 am
I like the questions from outsiders. Sometimes discussion on this board goes flat, and little is posted besides the birthday lists and the Thursday night invites.
1. Questions, no matter who posts them, bring responses and keep the board alive. Simple questions always bring a slew of responses from people who normally just lurk because they feel they are unworthy to post with the likes of the experts who live here.
2. If I needed information about something obscure, like, say, who were early pioneers in building pottery kilns, I’d look to the internet art boards for experts with answers. I’d be what Charlie calls a hit-and-runner, but I see nothing wrong with that.
3. Even if these folks intend to visit us just twice - once to ask their question(s) and once to read responses - they may like what they see and stick around, or tell others about the nice folks who reside here.
4. A question is a question, whether it comes from within or from without. The content of the question is much more important than the source of the question.
Thanks for the discussion, folks!
—Dan
July 19th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I agree with Charlie Summers. It’s the baby and the bath water.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I’m spending some time catching up this morning…
Ian Grieve Says:
Even if you include a paragraph in the ‘New-Member Intro’ saying that “it is expected that any information or audio supplied for commercial purposes, be credited to the Digest and the provider” it is doubful they would read it. Perhaps the members could be educated to make that a condition of the donation? If the commercial interests do not comply then thats the end of their requests.
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned the issue of credit…I’ve never asked anyone for credit for either me or the Digest. Yes, if someone provides a specific show to someone writing a book on Joe Schmoe the actor who did a Lux once, it would be nice for the author to credit the subscriber, but I’m not worried about getting the Digest credit.
I think what bothers me most is the basic rudeness of someone coming into our house, not knowing us, and expecting us to do their work for them and provide them with tape. You’re correct, Ian, when you note it isn’t information that bothers me, it’s the request for shows or even (as one person asked this week) a weather report for a specific day because it would make a documentary sound better.
dabell43 Says:
I called upon numerous people for their expertise while preparing programs, documentaries or segments.
Again, these people don’t want expertise, only audio. They may or may not have their facts straight, but they aren’t asking the Digest for information, just tape. Does anyone here really think I’d get worked-up by someone asking a question about, say, how radio covered a specific news item? They don’t; they want every piece of audio the list can find about the news item; not information, just tape. And I understand why a producer would do this…I mean, heck, having thousands of private collections searched would save a whole lot of time over actually checking with the various resources mentioned by Ken Greenwald and make the production sound better. But that just seems to me to be really selfish.
I am on a lot of computer programming lists, and frequently ask for help if I get stuck on a problem. But I never ask for the list to write my program for me, I ask them how I might solve a specific problem I’m having. More than that would be…rude.
jwidner Says:
I simply do not see public radio in that vein, especially programs such as All Things Considered. It is similar to announcements that Stetson Kennedy was going to be interviewed on the Bob Edwards Show, or even if someone from Edwards’ office contacting the list for some piece of audio that might support some interview he would be doing. I don’t think that has happened, but I would support such a request myself.
Ok, that’s a fair critique, but a little off in the specifics. As background for those not aware, I am a big fan of the Edwards show, going so far as to have put together a website back before the show had its own, and I personally help the show in any way I can. The Kennedy interview is an example of that; I did not ask the list for anything, but did provide to the segment producer a bunch of Superman episodes along with the research I had done prior to the time of the interview (Freakonomics wildly over-stated Kennedy’s influence on the Superman storylines, yet wildly understated his influence on Drew Pearson)…the discussion about Kennedy on the Digest was not contemporary. I did ask for material for the Norman Corwin interview I championed, and I also asked for material with Studs Terkel as an actor (other than Destination Freedom I came up dry there) hoping Bob could ask Studs about specific programs and directors. And because I have contacts at the show, I do post if Bob is going to talk to anyone involved in OTR, i.e. Bob Elliott. And yes, the removal of Edwards as host of Morning Edition and the amateurish way it was explained is the reason I no longer support NPR (while continuing to support public radio - NPR’s marketing department aside, they are not the same thing).
If you feel you can definitely tell if if they are one hit wonders, then keep those out. It sounds to me like you know who these offenders are most of the time. So a few slip through, if it becomes clear too late they were that type of post, then ban them or suspend them until it can be cleared up. When you suspend them, I am assuming you notify them, which would give them an opportunity to justify themselves.
The idea is not to ban the people, but rather try to get them to understand how rude it is to come into someone’s house and ask them to give you the endtable before you get to know them. Unfortunate truth is, if I tell them to wait a bit before posting, they’ll unsubscribe anyway since we can’t be of use by deadline. (*sigh*) I really wish these people would hang-out and remain subscribed, since they’d not only find out how great the Digest subscribers are, but would have a much better over-all understanding of the 1920’s to the 1960’s. (Heard on a public television program the other night that radio lost its influence by the end of the 1930’s, as television became supreme. I wish the guy who wrote that narration would have been a subscriber to the list…)
If you can’t really tell, then I’d hate to see people such as SueH or a Bear Manor type publisher get knocked out because you were broadly stopping these.
Agreed completely. I don’t want to discourage anyone who’s interested in the topic of the Digest, just discourage those who want to use the Digest for their own selfish ends.
danhughes Says:
2. If I needed information about something obscure, like, say, who were early pioneers in building pottery kilns, I’d look to the internet art boards for experts with answers. I’d be what Charlie calls a hit-and-runner, but I see nothing wrong with that.
We agree. However, to stretch your analogy, these people don’t care about receiving information on the pottery kilns, they just want everyone to search their collections and give them the kilns. They have no interest in how it was made, or the history of the pieces made with it, they just want to walk out of the door with the oven.
I think I’ll spend some time today working on a form letter to send to people I believe to be attempting to not use the Digest subscribers as a resource, but to use the subscribers as unpaid researchers…perhaps if I can come up with something polite enough, referencing the netiquette of waiting a bit before posting to any list one is new to and promoting the advantages of hanging around, it’ll serve to weed out those rude enough to only care about their next deadline while encouraging those who have an honest interest in the subject and the times.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Hi folks,
I haven’t read all of the above, but wanted to put in my $.02 on the topic.
My position with the IJBFC has given me years of being the “one stop shop” for anyone who’s looking for Benny information. Zillions of people demanding the broadcast dates of every radio version of the “Si, Sy” routine (so many that I made a Web page with the info), what was the name of the guard of Jack Benny’s vault, what was the song Dennis sang on the such-and-such show, did Jack ever work with watzisname, etc., etc., etc., etc. Sometimes, although not as often as I used to, I’ll get an E-mail that’s nothing but a list of questions. I call them “pop quizzes”.
Then there’s the more commercial venture. WNET has recently contacted me for help with photo rights and screening copies of some of Jack’s shows for a documentary on comedy. Someone writing a book on Marilyn Monroe had questions about the gala where Monroe sang “Happy Birthday” to john F. Kennedy, and Jack was emcee. And so on.
And once in a great, great, great while, I’ll get an E-mail from someone who, as far as I can tell, is a kid with a teacher who likes Jack Benny and has given them questions about him on a test. They basically send the questions along and expect me to do their homework for them.
Most of the first kind I can answer off the top of my head without breaking a sweat, or point them to a Web page with the info. So I do. No sense demanding “proof” that they “care” about Jack Benny. Question->answer. Next.
The second kind tend to take more time, but hey, if it helps get Jack public exposure, that’s part of the goal of the club. And sometimes it’s fun to connect with someone researching a subject that’s not necessarily in my immediate realm. So they get service with a smile.
For the third, the questions generally are pretty basic (e.g., “What instrument did Jack Benny play?” “Who was the comedian with whom Jack Benny had a feud in the 1930s-40s?”). So I tell them politely, that they can find all their answers at www.jackbenny.org. Never had one of them come back to me.
The long and short (well, so much for the short by now) of what I’m saying is that we’re not a speakeasy that makes people say “swordfish” at the door to prove they’re a fan. Or if we are, then that’s Charlie’s decision, since he’s really the master of the party. If someone wants to ask a question and it’s on topic, then go for it. The decision is more on the rest of us as individuals as to whether we want to answer it. Or, if you want, to offer to answer it if they pay you $X. Someone did ask me once for some research that was probably going to take me a good chunk of time (at least 40 hours), so I told them that I’m happy to contract my research services @ $50/hour. Funny, never heard back from them. But if someone asks or Rochester’s last name and you tell them Van Jones, you made that decision to give the information freely with no strings attached.
–Laura Leff
President, IJBFC
www.jackbenny.org
July 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Folks;
Please, let’s focus on the proper issue, one I was apparently too intimate with to communicate effectively. This has nothing to do with people requesting information, this has solely to do with those people who subscribe and immediately expect us to provide them with audio for whatever project they happen to be working on at the time. Questions are always welcomed on the Digest and I never meant to imply otherwise; it’s the demand for audio (”I need this show,” or “Please send me a program about…” or “I’m working on a program about widgets, please provide me with ‘The Widget Hour’”) I find objectionable. I realize now my use of the term “material” might be construed as information, when I meant it as audio programming.
We now return to our regular discussion, already in progress.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Maybe I’m in an unusual position in having spent several years providing shows via Usenet for requests via the Digest (an avocation I’ve had to abandon since my ISP stopped providing e-mail serviceslast winter, leaving me with only GMail for e-mail, which we all know doesn’t play well with the Digest) as well as having been peripherally involved with a series of TV programs that drew on the collective energies and tape libraries of the late, lamented Usenet game-shows group, but I’m not quite sure what the problem is.
We want to promote the hobby. We want to get correct information to the masses. We want people to hear some of the tens of thousands of hours of wonderful material to which they would otherwise never be exposed if not for “drive-by” subscribers requesting files and using them in more mainstream projects.
Isn’t this a great way to do that?
To the extent this encourages others to do the same and thus threatens to turn the Digest into a Craig’s List for old recording demands… well, come on. There are dozens of long-term subscribers willing (and, in fact, ridiculously eager) to use these requests as an excuse to riff on related issues and spark wide-ranging discussions generating far more traffic and content for the Digest than would ever be engendered by catering to the occasional drive-by.
‘Course, if you’d rather be done with the lot of ‘em, you could always drop a pointer to the drive-bys to drive by alt.radio.oldtime where those of us who haunt the place’d be glad to handle the overflow. :)
July 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“by refusing to cater”. Oops.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
No comment really just to say this really hit a nerve with the readers..It’s the most comments I’ve ever seen on one item since I have been reading the OTR BLOG.