Which Is Better?

Which is better? AM/FM, Satellite, or internet radio?

AM/FM of course. Right?

Come on now, that's just silly. The point of broadcasting isn't the technology. It's about people. Informing them, entertaining them, and so on.

So then - which is 'better' - web or AM/FM? Neither. Each form of broadcasting has its strengths and limitations, and is thus unique. Suggesting otherwise is just plain silly.

Currently, internet broadcasting is the ultimate niche medium. Where else can you hear a House Of Freaks record from 1990 followed by John Wesley Harding and then Gumball? You're not going to get that on the FM band. Nor should you.

AM & FM broadcasting serves the masses. Most of it is sales driven, which is a good thing because it helps to keep us honest. By that, I mean if a station becomes too hip for the room, listeners leave. When listeners leave, ratings drop and thus sales suffer.

Internet broadcasting serves the micro niche! Red House Painters fans, there is a place for you. Hip Hop fans who think editing out foul language equates to a fraud... there are stations on the web for you! Need a 24/7 disco fix? It's on the web. Most of these stations average fewer listeners per year than a typical FM station in a medium market has in overnights... but that's fine because they need to please anyone other than the most diehard fans of a niched niche's niche. (note that I said 'most') That strategy on AM or FM will get you a big fat Arbitron goose egg, but on the web it makes you revered

You can't really compare terrestrial broadcasting with webcasting or vice versa to determine which is 'better'. It's like comparing apples and orangutans*.

(*note: This joke brought to you by "The R in Rochester does not stand for Racism Foundation." Kudos to WHAM for making the right call.)

[WHAM Rochester fires air talent for racist remark - comparing the mayor to an orangutan]