Jerry Del Colliano & Joe McCarthy Have a Lot in Common

Joseph McCarthy was a relatively undistinguished junior Senator from Wisconsin when in 1950 he claimed that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies inside the US government. He declared without any evidence or proof that members of the Communist party had infiltrated the State Department, the Truman administration, and Army.

Despite the lack of evidence, his claims in the middle of the Cold War were accepted as truth, and for four years his accusations terrorized a lot of innocent people. Finally Congress and the American public realized that his claims were fabricated and false, but not before the damage had been done.

McCarthy claimed that he was trying to save America, but instead he did tremendous damage to it. Today the term McCarthyism refers to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of opponents.

It may seem harsh to draw a parallel between the actions of Joe McCarthy and Jerry Del Colliano, and suggest Jerry is guilty of a form of radio McCarthyism, but we believe it’s true. As McCarthy did great harm to America through his irresponsible and reckless actions, we believe Jerry’s dismissive tone towards radio, and his irresponsible and reckless attacks have done radio great harm.

McCarthy claimed to be saving America. Jerry claims to be trying to save radio. History ultimately discredited McCarthy. We think Jerry will suffer a similar fate.

Jerry recently wrote this:

The companies that pander to the radio industry (I could have said sell things to the radio industry), are cranking out happy horseshit at a record pace at a time when they need to get real.

For example, Nielsen saying that radio usage is strong among younger demos -- 18-34 in 52 markets they rate. An amazing and unbelievable (and I accentuate unbelievable) 21.5 hours of listening each week in line with people aged 12+.

And Nielsen wants you to believe their audience measurement with conclusions like this?

Go out and look around -- which 18-34 year old is listening to a radio in lieu of an iPod or instead of texting? But happy horseshit plays well at radio conventions -- to some people, not all.

To those who know something is seriously wrong, they aren't buying this stuff.

Arbitron did no better. They issued the usual "90% of all people are listening to radio" edict -- well then, damn, why is everything so grim? Are we to believe things are okay while new media is stealing radio ad dollars? Is it just the recession or what?

Or the findings from a survey Vision Critical Radio conducted that has anointed the new Apple Nano with a built in FM tuner as the most encouraging thing to happen to radio since the iPod.

STOP ALREADY! Let's get real. If new media is eating radio's lunch as the bankers told us yesterday, radio cannot be business as usual.

First, a quick look at his blog will confirm that if anyone is pandering to radio, it is Jerry. His services are listed quite prominently, and we suspect they aren’t free. His hypocrisy should not go unnoted.

Jerry did not invent the use of scare tactics to sell one’s wares, but to accuse others of using happy horseshit while he shovels plenty of his own is priceless.

With the wave of a rhetorical hand, Jerry quickly dismisses recent research that suggests radio is better off than he believes. Nielsen is wrong, Arbitron is wrong. Apparently everybody’s research is wrong. And why? Because it does not agree with his view of radio.

We have documented in this space study after study that proves Jerry is wrong. There are now over a half dozen fresh independent studies that prove that radio is far healthier than he portrays it. Reputable research firms with no axe to grind agree that radio is holding its own against new-media. For a few examples, follow these links.

But Jerry looks around, doesn’t see any more boomboxes at the beach, denigrates reputable  companies and dismissively rejects any evidence to which he disagrees.

What’s the definition of McCarthyism? Demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations. What Jerry is doing certainly fits the definition.

If Jerry has concrete evidence that radio is worse off than recent studies show, then let’s see it. If Jerry believes Nielsen is wrong, show us the evidence. If Pew, Ball State, Jupiter, Rasmussen, and the others that have done cross media studies are all (to use Jerry’s term) full of horseshit, then refute them.

Let’s see the credible well-designed studies that reveal a medium as bad off as he tells us it is. And please don’t bring up the Jacobs Media Bedroom Project. We said credible and well-designed.

Having a plugged-in daughter and having taught a class at USC to wealthy privileged kids living in Los Angeles may qualify him to have an opinion (as misguided as it might be), but it does not qualify him to pass judgement on credible well-designed research.

Jerry’s ultimate zinger in dismissing any upbeat assessment of radio’s health is sales. He writes:  Are we to believe things are okay while new media is stealing radio ad dollars? And a few sentences later adds: If new media is eating radio's lunch as the bankers told us yesterday, radio cannot be business as usual.

We have yet to find a broadcast group that is doing business as usual. The broadcasters we work with all have digital strategies that invest in the future while keeping an eye on the bottom line. A spouting loose cannon without a payroll to meet may belittle these efforts as insufficient, but radio today is far from business as usual.

Yes, sales are down, but as we noted, we believe the lock-step decline of radio and newspaper revenue reflects a confusion among advertisers between the fundamental structural problems of newspaper and the perceptual problems of radio.

The status of newspaper and radio in the consumer’s mind are in entirely different places. Consumers see a growing irrelevancy of newspapers. Consumers see a continuing relevancy of radio. Unfortunately, the advertising community doesn’t see it that way. They simply lump newspaper and radio together as old media. Radio’s biggest failure has been to have allowed this to happen, and radio is paying dearly for it.

Jerry is suggesting that declining revenue proves radio sucks. In truth, it proves nothing about what listeners think about radio. If Jerry got out into the real world instead of hanging out with a few sycophantic friends, he would know that.

Defenders of Jerry will argue that radio right now needs some tough love. Radio is asleep at the wheel, and we need somebody to wake us up and tell us the things we don’t want to hear. Perhaps there is some truth to that.

Jerry contributes to this vital dialog as much as Dick Cheney contributes to responsible quail hunting, unfortunately. They both just take a lot of wild shots while innocent people get hurt.

We believe that Jerry’s wild irresponsible criticism of radio has added fuel to the self-serving criticism of radio. We believe his screeds perpetuate a false sense that radio is on the ropes. It isn’t, but the assertion repeated over and over by pundits like Jerry becomes a false meme that then propagates among new-media pundits. It becomes accepted as fact just through repetition.

That’s why Jerry’s blog is linked more to like minded new-media propaganda sources than radio web sites and blogs. The new-media pundits gunning for radio’s blood are the people that thrive on his rants.

So Jerry isn’t helping radio. He is hurting radio. He isn’t the only one, but he may be the loudest one. If he really loves radio, the best thing he could do is shut up.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Yeah, shut up and put your head in the sand like what most radio CEOs do now. Can you honestly look at this industry and see any potential 10 years from now? With all the alternatives to radio, you would be a fool to say yes.

[Rob Michaels]

Harker-you crawl out of the woodwork like some vampire to compare Jerry to Joe McCarthy? You're a silly little man. Got a question for you, have you ever actually programmed a radio station?

[ForWhat ItsWorth]

I've known Jerry since he was a program director in Philly. I've also known Richard since he was a program director in Portland. These are two mensa-level thinkers who just express themselves with dramatically different styles. One with an abrupt inyerface Tony Soprano manner (NO Delcorleone reference here intended)...the other with a lab-coat, professorial approach. Both have been terrific industry achievers. They have walked the walk...and are wonderful gifts to our industry.

I thank Jerry for putting it out there in a very public manner, expressing his opinion in a non poilitically correct manner. And I thank Richard for calling a "T" (technical foul) on Jerry backed with factual data.

I live inside a privelidged world where my college kids and dot-com millionaire son live in a wi-fied, Kindled world where new-tech devices may be surgically implanted next. So I can see Jerry's viewpoint that his windshild IS the real world. I also know that a huge part of the real real-world still uses and radio and appreciate radio...as Richard's many factual sources report.

I'm a former senior executive in one of the "Big C's" that Jerry rakes over hot coals...and I know for an absolute fact that his data is correct and his critique is valuable to point out employee abuse. The mantra: "the beatings will contine until the morale improves" is way too prevalent in this era of evaporating jobs and a continuing need to eat.

As a summary: Blogs are, by intent, opinions and attitudes..not necessarily backed up by irrefutable facts.

From two very experienced and talented pros ...let's hear it for "spirited debate".

[verbcrunch]

Mixed feelings. I appreciate Jerry's brutal approach, and I think a lot of what he says has merit. I agree with his observation that young people don't use radio like they used to - despite research to the contrary. I know people that have NO radios in their homes - only video game consoles and cable tv boxes. They still have radios in their cars thankfully.

However Jerry is also unwilling to accept what we're learning from PPM - the harsh reality that voicetracking and less local talent might actually be what the listeners want. A lot of stations gutted of local talent have seen their ratings skyrocket. Bitter pill to swallow - but many listeners may prefer not to hear a DJ between songs.

[Radio Falsehood]

Johnny Van Suedanbitter and Jerry seem to have a lot in common. Check this rant: http://www.alltheexcess.com/2009/07/ate-guest-blog-post.html

[Joel Swanson]

A great article. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

While I think your comparison of Jerry and Joe is "spot-on"; I would compare Jerry to another "fairy tale" character, Chicken Little; who went around yelling "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"

While Radio certainly has many challenges facing it today; I have more confidence now, in the future of Small Market Radio, than I have had in the 35+ years I have been in the business.

[steve]

i find jerry to be entertaining. and please tell me where he is wrong on his rants about repeater radio. I worked for CC and they have systematically hurt local radio.do you at radio insights think voice tracking and less local talent a good thing???

[Radio Truth]

Right on Richard! This is not new for as Randy Michaels called him, Jerry Delcorleone. When he published Inside Radio, he used to extort money out of advertisers, or subscriptions out of broadcasters by threatening to right bad things about them if they didn't buy.

What's that old saying about a leopord and spots? Delcorleone taching college is the same as the Delcorleone who extorted folks from his desk in Cherry Hill