Guy Benson has announced he is departing his role as Political Editor at Salem Media-owned Townhall.com after 18 years with the outlet.
Benson shared that he’s worked as a columnist for 18 years and served as the Political Editor for the brand for the past 15 years.
In a farewell column, Guy Benson shared that it was time to move on from his longtime digital home.
“I’ve been blessed with fantastic colleagues over the years; it will be impossible to name them all,” he shared. “It has been a pleasure.
“It’s astonishing how quickly a decade and a half has flown by in these eventful and consequential times,” Benson continued. “From the rise of the Tea Party in opposition to the Obama presidency, to Donald Trump’s second term in office, it’s been an honor to cover and comment on all of it, in this space. But now, I’m moving on.”
Some personal news: After 15 wonderful years at @townhallcom, I am moving on — with deep gratitude to my colleagues & our audience. A few more thoughts below, in my farewell post. Onward…and stay tuned! https://t.co/PQXHypub8s
He will continue to host his nationally syndicated radio show through Fox News Radio and will also continue to serve as a contributor
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Seven months ago, I wrote my first piece for Barrett Media. It was about Cumulus updating Classic Rock KQRS/Minneapolis to a more modern version of the format. The thing I remember most from speaking with Format VP – Alternative/AAA/Classic Rock James Kurdziel was how he said that the audience was mainly concerned about the future of morning host Steve Gorman.
Kurdziel shared that when the station first started stunting to call attention to the changes, many of the early messages from listeners were about making sure the morning show would still be there. He felt that was a great sign. “The audience showed they are very protective of Steve,” said Kurdziel.
With that stuck in my brain, I decided to interview Gorman to learn more about his unique career path which, prior to KQRS, includes drumming for the Black Crowes, sports talk radio, and hosting a syndicated nighttime show. I also wanted to know how he built that intense connection with listeners in Minneapolis.
I caught up to him on a tour bus rolling down the highway on his way to Ashbury Park, New Jersey. He was with his new band Howl Owl Howl which also features Darius Rucker (Hootie and the Blowish) and Mike Mills (REM). That’s part of what makes Gorman’s success in radio so intriguing. He’s defied the odds considering the industry’s history is littered with recording artists who tried to make the leap to radio host and failed.
Gorman says that starting off in sports talk was key to making the leap. “I could not have possibly started in music radio. It was too close. With sports talk every little thing wasn’t so sacred and personal.”
He continued, “I have a real sense of humor about things. As a Sports host if I’m making fun of a band or a musician it’s genuinely in good fun. If I’m doing that as the drummer of the Black Crowes, it’s not fun. People would be like ‘what’s wrong with that guy.’ There’s something that gets lost in translation.”
The other thing that helped Steve go from music to radio was not taking anything for granted. “A lot of times when people have succeeded in one realm they assume they’re gonna succeed in another,” Gorman explained. “I realized that having had a couple of hit records 25 years ago is not a basis of a radio career.”
Gorman set out to prove himself. “I knew I was going to be underestimated by everybody I met, so I have to show them that I’m here and I’m taking it seriously.” He approached radio with the same mentality as being in a band. “I looked at every show like a gig. If you’re going to get on stage and play a show you really owe it to the people that showed up to do the best you can. I think about every radio show the same way.”
Despite his determination and focus his early shows weren’t necessarily good, which was OK with him. “I was willing to not be good because when the Black Crowes started as a local act we were terrible, but we had potential. We just had to keep going and I thought the same thing in radio. I didn’t think I was good at it at all, but I thought that I could be.”
After five years his sports talk show ended. Almost exactly a year later he made his first leap into music radio with the launch of his syndicated night show Steve Gorman Rocks. The show he says is quite different from mornings on KQRS. “I’ve got a great programmer who worries about the music and the format for me. My job is just to make the short breaks between songs interesting or funny or hopefully both. Its real adrenaline. It’s like turn on the mic, go, turn it off.”
Mornings uses a similar set of muscles but in different ways. “The morning show is much more talk and, as much as possible it’s about local things,” he said. “Plus, we get a lot of great listener interaction. I’ve always thought the average guy is a lot funnier than you might think if he is given the right subject, so there’s a lot of a lot of humor in the show from listeners as well what we’re trying to do.”
Which brings us around to why he thinks the listeners were so passionate about making sure his show stayed on after the format update. He chalks it up to being real. “I’m as authentic as I know how to be on the air.” That remains true even when he’s telling stories about living the rock lifestyle in the Black Crowes. “I can drop names with the best of them, but I don’t tell stories to say look how cool I am. It’s more from the point of view that this was a cool thing that I was around for. It didn’t happen because I am great. I just was the right guy at the right place.”
When Gorman started at KQRS, he replaced a market legend, Tom Barnard. I asked if there was a lot of pressure taking over. He again took a pragmatic approach.
“When I buy a Powerball ticket I think my odds are 50-50,” Gorman explained. “I’m going to win it or I’m not. In this case I knew enough to know that no matter who it is some people are going to hate it. But I also knew no one was going to be able to compare me to Tom. They could contrast us but not compare because there was nothing he was doing that I was interested in. We see the world entirely differently.”
Today the show consists of Gorman along with Ryder who he’d already been working with and Fletcher who was added when the format was revised. He says the chemistry between the three of them is growing, much like his new band. As much as he knows Kurdziel won’t want to hear this, the moments he enjoys the most are often the unplanned ones.
“I love discussing a story that just happened where there’s no prep at all. I love being surprised, and having to think on my feet. It might not always make for the best radio, but it always makes for interesting radio.”
Maybe that comes from playing in the Black Crowes, a band that jammed a lot on stage. “It’s a feeling not unlike when you’re a drummer playing a gig and someone on stage looks at you and says, ‘follow me’.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
Jim Avila taught me more about the television news industry — and about life — than almost anyone I’ve met in this business.
When he worked with us here at Barrett Media, I had the chance to learn from someone who was not just a veteran ABC News correspondent, but a steady voice who carried decades of experience without ever making you feel lesser for having far less.
Jim Avila died Thursday at 69, and the news hit me harder than I expected. It shouldn’t have been a surprise. Few people leave a mark that deep.
Jim shared infinite wisdom about the TV news business. If I had a question, he answered it. If I needed insight on a network, an executive, or a talent, he had it. Jim could walk me through topics in a way that made the complicated seem obvious. He didn’t hoard knowledge. He handed it out freely, as if he felt a responsibility to make sure the next guy didn’t have to learn the hard way.
That’s not as common as it should be in our business. Television news can often feel like a competition between colleagues who should be teammates. Some veterans love to remind you how long they’ve been around. Others like to flash their scars and treat survival as a badge you haven’t yet earned. Jim never acted that way. He knew the value of experience, but he didn’t wield it like a weapon. He shared it out of generosity.
And that generosity wasn’t limited to the newsroom. Jim believed deeply in helping the next generation get a fair shot. That extended well beyond media. It was a philosophy about life. He didn’t think success should be guarded or treated like a family heirloom locked behind glass. Too many in the baby boomer generation — and I say this as an observation, not an insult — tried to pull the ladder up behind them as they climbed. Jim did the opposite. He held the ladder.
He insisted you climb higher than he did. That’s clear in the way he exited his final on-air TV role in San Diego. When he could sniff that budget cuts could be on the horizon, he voluntarily stepped away, saying that it wasn’t fair for those younger than him to lose their jobs while he — in his late 60s — held on.
His guidance was not loud or performative. It was thoughtful, patient, and came without the slightest hint that he expected something in return. He believed the business got better when people tried to lift each other up, not push each other out of the way. He believed people got better the same way.
I respected him in a way I have respected very few. You don’t meet many people who give time and advice with no strings attached. You don’t meet many who blend toughness and kindness so seamlessly. Jim Avila could analyze the structural flaws of a network with the precision of a surgeon. He could also remind you, without sounding preachy, that the work matters less than the people you meet doing it.
In our conversations, he told stories from decades in network news, but never in a self-serving way. He talked about the craft, the stakes, the pressure, and the mistakes that shaped him. When someone with his level of experience takes the time to mentor you, you listen. And you carry those lessons with you.
His passing is a loss for the industry, but it’s a much larger loss for the people he helped along the way. I’m grateful to be one of them, even in the slightest sense. I’m grateful he offered insight and treated me like a colleague long before I had earned that status.
I will miss him. I will miss his insight and his willingness to make this business feel less cold than it can sometimes be. My condolences go out to his family and friends. They shared a man who made an impact on more lives than he probably realized.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
I know what I’m about to suggest flies in the face of everything I am and everything I’ve done for the past 30 years. Sports has been my life — my passion, my career, the thing that’s fed my family and shaped my identity since the day I first cracked a mic. But even for someone like me, someone who has lived and breathed this world for decades, there comes a point where you look around and say: Enough is enough.
Let’s be honest: sports might be the hardest addiction in America to quit for those of us who are so deeply rooted in it. No game tonight? I start to get the shakes. Cigarettes have gum and patches. Alcohol has support groups. Coffee leaves you cranky, but you’ll live. Sugar is brutal, but there are options. But sports? The emotional roller coaster? The identity? The tribalism? The deep need to belong? Good luck quitting once those tentacles are tightly wrapped around you.
Yet somehow, in this wildly one-sided relationship, the valuable fans who ultimately pay the bills are the ones treated the worst. In what universe does a company take away a product you already paid for, blame someone else, make you search for a tiny rebate, and expect you to come back the next day smiling? Only in sports. Only here. Only us.
Which brings us to the latest kick to the fan nether regions: the ESPN–YouTube TV blackout.
Only the Fans Are Losing
Sports brings people together who otherwise can’t agree on anything — families, coworkers, total strangers at airport bars. We live for buzzer-beaters, walk-offs, late-game drama, the hope of miracles. It’s why we keep coming back.
Fans are waiting for that ultimate high where your first kiss, dream job, the first kid, and winning lottery ticket are all jammed into one beautiful, delirious shot of happiness.
Nice thought. For most of us, our team never wins, we don’t get the parade, no trophy, no rings. “Wait ’til next year” never comes, but the price of fandom soars and the lack of respect grows.
Off the field, court, or ice, fans feel more like collateral damage in billion-dollar corporate chess matches. Disney, which owns ESPN, and Google, which owns YouTube TV, are battling over rates. YouTube TV already paid over $2 billion in 2024 and reportedly didn’t want to pay even more. So they fought. And millions of paying fans are left in the dark.
During the blackout, ESPN’s college football audience dropped nearly 15% among YouTube TV’s 5 million subscribers.
Monday Night Football dropped 21%. Plus, this high-priced hissy fit could just be a trial balloon. Disney has its direct-to-consumer ESPN service, and every disruption helps condition fans for what’s next: higher prices, fewer choices, and more subscriptions.
We’re no longer customers. We’re lab rats. And somehow, we keep devouring the cheese.
Then came the insult disguised as generosity.
YouTube TV offered a $20 credit — not automatically applied, of course. You had to log in, dig around menus like you’re cracking a safe, and claim your measly twenty bucks. They could’ve credited everyone automatically. They didn’t. It was another superfan spanking, the corporate version of: “Thank you, sir — may I have another?”
A Time To Rise Up
So what can suffering supporters do about it?
Imagine a world where fans blacked out the blackout. One week. No ESPN. No streams. No logging in. No NFL, no NBA, not even some MACtion. Just seven days of collective “F-This.” Don’t you have some projects around the house you’ve been putting off? Maybe ask Aaron Rodgers about that retreat in Oregon.
The impact would be massive:
• ESPN loses millions in ad revenue • Providers lose millions in subscriber fees • Combined economic shock: potentially over $400 million lost in one week.
That’s before you count the ripple effects on sportsbooks, sports bars, restaurants, wing joints, delivery apps — all of them depending on sports viewership. Suddenly, those corporate executives with their immaculate “fan engagement” PowerPoints would start sweating through their starched collars.
Anywhere else in life, this level of customer disrespect would cause riots. If Ruth’s Chris swapped your steak for a salad because of a supplier dispute? Refund. If Taylor Swift’s sound died because the arena and Ticketmaster were fighting? Outrage. If your prescription bottle was empty due to negotiations? Someone’s getting sued.
But sports fans? We shrug… because we’re hooked. Hooked like a fish that keeps biting the same shiny lure every Sunday, no matter how many times we get yanked out of the water.
Anything Is Possible?
So here it is:
Could American sports fans actually unite for one week? Could we finally say “F-This,” hit pause, and remind every corporate giant who really holds the power?
Fans are the heartbeat of this multibillion-dollar ecosystem. Without us, nothing works.
If we acted together — even briefly — we could shake the sports world.
But will we ever truly say enough is enough? Or will we keep refreshing the app, muttering under our breath, waiting for the next billion-dollar pout-fest to take the games away?
Your move, addicted sports fan. Grab a patch, some dopamine gum, find a support group.
The next time they blackout your game… blackout your wallet — and see who blinks first.
We won’t, but we should.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
If ratings were based on production, many brands would be in trouble. I’m an imaging nerd. I believe elite production can make a good station sound great. But bad production— thin, loose, mismatched VOs, or trying too-hard imaging makes a good station cause eye rolls.
Radio should start fining people for redundancy. Why? Because we hear or read these statements, over-and-over, on a weekly basis:
“Music is everywhere, no one needs Radio for music.”
“Radio’s secret sauce is what’s between the records.”
Yes, music is everywhere. It has been. I had an iPod 20+ years ago. CD players and Walkman’s before that. My parents had 8-Tracks in the car and albums at home.
Radio has always been there and was never alone. Yet Radio is still a leading destination for music. But for how long?
While those “music is ubiquitous” takes are true, let’s give the doom squad their day and play it out, hypothetically:
Music is a wash, no one gets a ratings edge for music.
Now the “what’s between the records” team gets their spotlight. Imagine if ratings were based on production.
Congrats, your Prod Ninja is also the Morning Show, PD and Marketing Director (sorry to those who are doing all four already). Sweepers, Promos, Commercials. If they’re all great — your brand rules the ratings.
I’ve moderated enough focus groups to know listeners don’t geek out on Radio production/imaging. Outside of opinions on music or talent, no one is raving about the promo that ran between Green Day and Ozzy.
It’s because most production is “who cares” to normal people. Bad commercials. Boring, burned-out positioning pieces. Over-hyped promos for prizes they won’t try to win. Copy that is no longer funny. That’s how many listeners describe what they hear.
Those of us inside radio obsess over imaging. We hang on every word and share our epic creations like we’ve just solved all tune-out.
For regular listeners, though — our zips and zaps are just commercials. And the big voice guy doesn’t stop them in their tracks.
They. Just. Don’t. Care.
The logical question: how can we make them care? In most cases, we can’t. It’s how people consume things.
When you watch a game, you’re not analyzing transitions in and out of commercials.
When you binge Sydney Sweeney, you skip the intro editors lost sleep over.
An old research friend, Chris Ackerman used to say, “Every song you play is a marketing statement.” He’s right. But so is every element.
This doesn’t mean punting on imaging. It also doesn’t mean we’re going to get listeners to choose a brand on imaging alone. It’s a reminder that “what’s between the records” shouldn’t ever be an afterthought.
A killer-sounding sweeper with a who cares message isn’t killer — it’s who cares. A great message surrounded by mediocre sound can get lost. Copy, voice and sound should all work together — like guitar, bass, drums and vocals (and maybe keyboards, but that’s debatable).
Production is a Key Driver in Station Personality
Formats like JACK have it dialed. Not flexing over “being #1” or “45-minutes non-stop.” They’re mocking themselves, poking pop culture, just trying to make people laugh between records.
There are RockTernatives that put a lot of effort into making sure imaging meets the chaos of the music and isn’t just keeping the trains on time. KISW, WRIF, KIOZ, WJJO and several others. You can hear the effort — and it can make a difference.
And there are minimalist brands — some at Alternative, non-comm, or small markets — that have punted on most imaging for financial reasons or they use the lack of it as a differentiator.
As you plan for 2026, make sure Production/Imaging is on the agenda. Music brands play almost as many imaging pieces as songs. And if we add commercials, it becomes lopsided — far more produced pieces than songs each day.
Artists remix and remaster records so they sound better. How can your brand remix and remaster the production so it’s a clear advantage?
Don’t ignore commercials. Code spots so the best play first (in the cart days, you’d get reprimanded for not playing the concert spot first). And work with AEs and clients to produce better copy and spots.
I’ll repeat what I said at the start of this column, if ratings were truly based on production, many brands would be in trouble.
It’s like a house:
Music is the format — the foundation every home needs.
Production is the walk-in closet she can’t live without.
It’s the little, but important things that elevate asking price.
BTW: it’s fine to geek-out over a promo. Just remember, the listeners won’t.
It’s the middle of November, and Major League Baseball has yet to officially reveal what everyone was talking about this season. Where can I find my games next year? When news broke in February that ESPN and MLB were mutually opting out of their media rights agreement, speculation began instantly.
What’s the future of Sunday Night Baseball? What other networks would be in play for MLB media deals? Will the new ESPN direct-to-consumer service have baseball play-by-play at all? How much more will all of this cost the consumer?
We’re less than two weeks away from Thanksgiving, and nothing has been officially released. Yet, there is growing speculation not about what’s happening next year, but what could be happening in 2029. Is baseball big enough to demand big bucks for the World Series to be broadcast on multiple networks?
This was an idea floated by sports media insiders Andrew Marchand and John Ourand. Two well-respected people who have their ear to the pulse of much of what’s happening with national broadcasting deals and sports.
For the last quarter century, FOX Sports has been the home of the Fall Classic. Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, and Bob Brenly have morphed into Joe Davis and John Smoltz. Baseball’s crown jewel has held a destination that fans have always depended on for delivery. It’s like the Dallas Cowboys on Thanksgiving or the expected hype of a Duke matchup against North Carolina.
The World Series and FOX Sports have gone hand in hand with one another for more than half of my adult life.
A Curveball
Marchand, speaking on the Marchand Sports Media Podcast. Floated the idea that Major League Baseball could end that warm, comfortable relationship baseball fans have with FOX Sports being the home of the World Series.
“If you’re baseball and you look at 2029. You look at the World Series, I kind of foresee them breaking up that World Series,” Marchand said. “I could see Fox staying in the game for sure. But (I’m not sure about) the idea that Fox will be the only carrier of the World Series. I think they’re going to want the most money.”
Sports media rights are the hottest asset on television currently. Very few programs (if any) draw a significant chunk of the audience that sports drive. It’s the last survivor of appointment viewing in an on-demand world. A can’t-miss contest where every moment is engaged upon, clipped, and wagered for personal gain.
The NBA began its new 11-year media agreements this season worth approximately $76 billion. The NHL just added an additional $11 billion with its new Canadian rights deal with Rogers Communications. The NFL has floated the idea of beginning its rights agreements with networks next year. While MLB is set to announce its temporary deals aiming for every media agreement to end after the 2028 season.
As for the championships themselves, the Super Bowl switches networks every season. The Stanley Cup Final does as well, as will the WNBA Finals beginning next season. It’s not a new concept for sports leagues to move their most valuable moment. Fans have seemed to gravitate to the broadcasts seamlessly in every instance.
Does It Make Sense?
Next year, while not officially announced yet, Major League Baseball will likely have national rights deals with FOX Sports, NBC Sports, TNT Sports, Netflix, Apple, Roku, and likely some agreement with ESPN. That’s two more additional national rights agreements than the sport had just this past season with the additions of Netflix and NBC Sports.
Looking at who’s on the list for next year. MLB would obviously be foolish in today’s current sports media landscape to consider Apple, Roku, or Netflix for the World Series. Yes, Netflix did come to an agreement to stream the World Baseball Classic in Japan next year. That’s not the Fall Classic.
With the remaining networks that MLB will likely be working with. Would NBC Sports give up a Sunday Night Football game for a broadcast of a World Series game?
Sunday Night Football has been the highest-viewed television product for the last several years. I don’t feel putting Sunday Night Football on the revamped NBC Sports Network or Peacock helps their relationship with the NFL. Nor would MLB want that as an option for the World Series.
TNT Sports has never broadcast the World Series but has become a trusted home for the NLCS and Division Series for the last several years. However, Warner Bros. Discovery has started a pivot away from sports as the company is looking for a buyer by Christmas. Does that give MLB assurances for a secure home for the World Series in 2029?
That leaves ESPN. Which was looking for a better media rights deal with baseball earlier this year and then opted out of the $550 million it was paying per year to MLB. Could ESPN put on a quality broadcast for the World Series? Absolutely it could. However, the network is soon to be owned in a small percentage by the NFL and has shifted its focus away from baseball for some time. Is that the partner that MLB wants to entrust with a broadcast of the World Series? The same one that Rob Manfred said was a “shrinking platform”?
That leaves old reliable FOX Sports — 26 straight World Series broadcasts delivering solid viewership and consumer trust for the entirety of the relationship. FOX Sports is the ride-or-die, the woman who always stood by her man. Baseball’s go-to for the biggest stretch of games the season can provide.
Stay Where Your Home Is
There’s too much fragmentation already with the game of baseball. It’s becoming more difficult for fans to find games and costing more when the delivery has become less. Sometimes chasing the biggest dollar makes the smallest sense when customer loyalty is what keeps people coming to you in the first place.
That’s why the concept of moving the World Series like the Super Bowl or Stanley Cup Final currently makes no real sense for the good of the consumer.
In a time when every sport is chasing the next billion-dollar deal, baseball should remember what truly built its value — consistency, familiarity, and trust. The World Series isn’t just another property to sell to the highest bidder; it’s an American ritual with roots as deep as the game itself. For a sport that’s constantly searching for ways to stay relevant, the smartest move might be to simply stay put and grab on to being America’s pastime.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
In case you missed my disclaimer in last week’s article, let me say it again: that piece was written entirely by AI. Its purpose was to assist in the creation of this week’s article. After that experience, I can’t imagine ever using AI in that way again.
So how did I end up letting AI write an article for me in the first place? While researching Xania Monet, ChatGPT offered an analysis of the subject from the perspective of the Mean Ole Lion. I often use AI tools for my work with my podcast network, and since I am the Mean Ole Lion, I found it interesting that ChatGPT seemed to know what I might think or feel about an AI artist in urban radio.
As I reflected on what ChatGPT wrote, I understood how it reached its conclusion. To back up a bit: I was once solely a radio programmer. Today I’m a content creator. So when ChatGPT presented my position as supportive of a creator using new technology to express themselves in a creative way, I got it. It resonated with me.
I also thought it was interesting that ChatGPT emphasized the fact that the content creator in this instance was a Black woman. Why not? My ChatGPT account has learned that our network includes several strong, credible Black women leading some of our top podcasts.
I’d like to believe that support for the creator of Xania Monet would have shown up in my initial response. But the question remains: What is my response to urban radio’s first AI artist? As I said, I’m a content creator—and a passionate one. Passion is what AI lacks. I appreciate what the human creator contributed to the project. She’s a poet who poured real words and emotions into her work and used AI as a tool to enhance her expression.
However, that’s where my appreciation for Xania Monet ends. As an R&B lover and longtime radio programmer, I found the music from this AI-generated artist lacked passion—both vocally and musically. I understand that most songs today aren’t created by live musicians in a studio. Even so, the drum machines and keyboard-driven records that shaped generations of music were made with intention, emotion, and human skill. While I’m not a musician myself, I’ve witnessed the creative process firsthand. There’s simply no substitute for that human spark.
To bottom-line it: I hold no ill will toward the creator of Xania Monet. I don’t believe she’s trying to mislead anyone. I do, however, have strong feelings about transparency. AI-generated artists should never compete on the radio without clear disclosure. While I appreciate her vision and her creative use of technology, an AI generated artist’s place should not be in direct competition with the work of non AI assisted live artists.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Reach me on LinkedIn or at ken@kenjohnsonmedia.com.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
For 30 years, Jon Decker has patrolled the halls of the White House, looking to break the biggest stories inside the world’s most famous residence.
But, like most aspects of life, there have been some dramatic changes in those 30 years, he admits.
“When I started at the White House in November 1995, there was no Instagram, no Twitter or X, no Facebook. There wasn’t social media of any kind. That’s a big change that we see in the current White House press corps that uses those social media tools every day on every story.”
“The other big change is just the entities — the news organizations — that cover the White House. When I started in 1995, believe it or not, there wasn’t even Fox News at the time. Or FOX Business. Or Politico. So there have been tremendous changes in terms of the news organizations that cover the White House. I’ve seen an enormous number of new organizations — from the left and from the right — over the course of just the past decade.”
One of the things that hasn’t changed about working at the White House? Just because there’s an instantaneous way to disseminate information doesn’t mean the pace has changed.
However, the people being reported on inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have those same methods of distribution at their fingertips.
“Not only do journalists use those tools. The White House uses those tools, and they can change the focus of a news cycle instantaneously through the use of social media,” Decker said. “We’ve seen President Trump do this over the course of the time that he served as president, both in his first term and now in the second term as well.”
In his 30 years covering the White House, Jon Decker has worked with 17 different White House Press Secretaries. Establishing relationships with all of them has been a key to landing big stories.
“It’s about relationships,” Decker said. “That means that I’ve had to build relationships with 17 different people over the course of the past 30 years, and that’s a skill set that I think I’m good at. It’s a skill set that has served me well. But it’s important to remember that the nature of every White House is different. You can’t have the same approach with every White House.”
On Thursday, Decker was honored by H.E. Urban Ahlin, the Ambassador of Sweden to the United States, with a reception to celebrate his 30th anniversary working at the White House. Traditional Swedish music, food, and cocktails were served at the nation’s Embassy in Decker’s honor.
That followed a letter penned by President Donald Trump stating that the longtime reporter is “well-respected by all of your colleagues, and that is the most important praise of all,” concluding by stating that Jon Decker “is not fake news.”
Decker — who works for both Gray Television and iHeartMedia at the White House — said that the recognition from the President is reaffirming due to the challenges that face those working the beat.
“It’s always challenging, the beat itself,” he shared. “You have to be an expert — on any given day — on domestic policy, on foreign policy, on economic policy, and on politics, as well. Not everybody is an expert in all of those different fields, but you need to become an expert if you’re gonna do the job well.”
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
In news/politics, the reason behind a win for anyone is much more open to interpretation. Any content creator can take a government shutdown storyline or an election and come to their own conclusion. And yes, everyone can use the same set of facts, but the way the format allows one to interpret those facts can make the format more unpredictable if the talent is willing to explore that aspect.
In the shutdown, did the Democrats win? Did the Republicans win? Did the American people win? Did Congress, as a whole, lose? Did Trump win or lose? Make the content easy to comprehend and explain it in a clear, straightforward manner.
Anecdotally, I had a new listener recently explain that he is more of a sports radio listener, while his wife is more of a news/talk listener. They’ve been sharing a vehicle lately, and he shared that they’ve spent more time listening to KCMO. He appreciated how straightforward and simple we explained, analyzed, and discussed the shutdown.
As a format, one of the things we need to continue to work on is making the content more digestible for a wider audience, while still sticking to who and what we are. This will drive cume growth and expand our audience at the younger end of the demographic.
And then, if you can make it funny, point out the bizarre, explain the personal and community impacts, and occasionally goof on your “own side”, you’ve got a potential winning formula on your hands.
In many ways, this was a news gift for the format, even if it had its lulls. But so does the Major League Baseball season. It starts off with excitement and enthusiasm before the dog days settle in, and then it closes with thrilling pennant races and playoff matchups. The shutdown was like a baseball season. And the great ones know how to massage, discuss, and make the dog days entertaining, while building up the excitement around the beginning and end.
And if you feel like you left something on the table during this shutdown, we may do this again at the end of January. So, your next opportunity might not be far off, I’m afraid. So go make the most of it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. To stay updated, sign up for our newsletters and get the latest information delivered straight to your inbox.
I don’t have FOTA (Fear of Tech Advancement), and I have no problems with dashboards, metrics, or analytics. I do question the obsession with “data.” It troubles me how easy it is to forget that data isn’t supposed to think for us. Virtually every startup claims to be “data-driven” – as if sprinkling not-so-reliable numbers over poor decisions makes them look more brilliant. But the uncomfortable, scary truth is that data should be used as a valuable tool, not an all-knowing, all-saying oracle.
The role of data is to support our decisions, not replace them. I believe that confusing the two is one of the biggest errors of modern-day business. We’ve entered an era where decision makers hesitate to move without “the data.” It can even sound completely reasonable, rational, and scientific. But in reality, “Let’s wait for more data” really means “I’m afraid to use my judgment.”
There is almost a new cult of data-driven decision-making that has replaced intuition with inaction, and creativity with compliance. It’s the corporate equivalent of GPS dependency – blindly following the path even when it drives you into a lake. We’ve all had that experience of ending up in an empty field and saying, “But the GPS sent me here!” We all seem to have reached a near data paralysis.
There is no doubt that knowledge is powerful and data provides knowledge. It can uncover invisible patterns, expose biases, and validate (or destroy) our assumptions. But data is also quite limited. It can only reflect the world as it is measured, not as it exists.
As a researcher for half my career, I learned very early on that measured data is never pure. It’s contaminated by so many outside variables. We all unknowingly experience this and never even realize that your measurement of anything, can cause change. Imagine using a gauge to measure the air pressure in your car’s tires. That pressure gauge is very likely to release a small amount of air from a tire when you press it against the valve. That action alone alters the pressure it is trying to measure.
Researchers know that “to measure something is to change it.” How about when you count or track calories? The act of measuring your intake of food changes your behavior and tracks something that is impacted simply by your desire to measure changes. If you didn’t track it would your intake be different? The answer of course, is yes.
Look around and it won’t take long to find people who seem to worship data. They build entire strategies on last quarter’s numbers and charts. Many let AI models “recommend” who gets hired, who gets a loan, or where money will be invested. I fear that we believe the algorithms are 100% neutral, as if the model can erase normal, human bias. The result? A generation of decision-makers trained to outsource human thinking to AI and spreadsheets – all for the sake of saving time and the expense of paying a real person.
But here’s what so many forget: our human insight doesn’t come from data. It comes from people. Real people. Data might be able to tell you what happened. Maybe it can even come up with why. But deciding what to do about it and addressing real solutions, requires human values, experience, and context… all things no dataset on the planet can supply. You can feed a machine a billion data points, but it will never understand the role of a company’s culture which you worked so hard to develop. It doesn’t know about your customer’s quirks, or even your own moral compass. That’s your job and it can only be revealed by your own, human soul.
In relation to marketing, the data might tell you that click-through increase when you use fear-based messaging. Great! But now it leads your consumers to see your brand as a doomsday operation. What if in product design, data suggested users prefer simplicity, so you strip it all down until the app feels more like a child’s toy. What would iPhone or Android look like if it followed that very likely advise – because after all – we do all want simplicity. You can follow the data, but you may also lose the very heart of your vision.
I challenge today’s leaders in all categories, to use data as supporting evidence, not a substitute for thinking. The best CMOs know to ask the right questions before anything else. They know that metrics are conversation starters rather than verdicts. They’ll use the valuable intuition, experience, and empathy that got them to where they are, to interpret results rather than stand blindly behind them. They understand that sometimes the boldest move is to go against what the tide of data suggests, because they see something beyond what the data is even able to see.
My final point is a simple reminder that data isn’t the driver. It’s only the co-pilot. It helps us navigate, but it doesn’t choose our destination. The minute we start treating data or AI as the decision-maker, we’ve stopped leading and start following the numbers off a cliff.
We should never let AI decide what matters. We do!
