Should all radio work be unpaid?

[Lat-Literal]

What, rope people in from hospital radio and student radio stations?

That wouldn't necessarily have to be the model. A lot of programmes are already outsourced. The difference here is that inputs would be for the love of it. On the scheduling issues raised above, this forum has shown that things don't fall apart without people needing to have various slots. I suppose a closer model may be Resonance but it would be entirely new.

[Mal]

One day "we" will in general be able to do without money of any kind - but for that to happen will depend on getting rid of competition for markets, low earnings and resources; i.e. capitalist relations of production and distribution.

Stalin tried that, didn't work so well...

[rauschwerk]

The difference here is that inputs would be for the love of it.

So you think that professionals don't love what they do, but do it only for the money? How insulting.

[Lat-Literal]

So you think that professionals don't love what they do, but do it only for the money? How insulting.

I think some do and some don't, much like any other work.

[Ein Heldenleben]

There is quite a bit of unpaid work in radio and television and the media generally. The problem with it is that only the relatively well- heeled can afford to work for free so that it has become a barrier for those from poorer backgrounds getting a toehold in the business. It did strike me that musicians are one of the very few professions almost expected to perform for free at social events . Of course many will do so happily because they enjoy giving pleasure , or because it gets them out of the dreary round of drinking and chit chat at these events . Try getting free advice from a lawyer at a party though ...

[cloughie]

So you think that professionals don't love what they do, but do it only for the money? How insulting.

Yes, but how much of it would they do for less or nothing?

[Dave2002]

Quite right
How about suggesting this to the mechanics next time your car needs fixing?

If musicians (or mechanics) could survive long enough to reproduce, a solution is at hand to their immediate troubles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

[Richard Barrett]

One day "we" will in general be able to do without money of any kind - but for that to happen will depend on getting rid of competition for markets, low earnings and resources; i.e. capitalist relations of production and distribution.

Quite so.

The last time I was interviewed on the radio it was the excellent Robert Worby doing the honours. He had taken the trouble to go to two performances of the work we were talking about, as well as the dress rehearsal of the second, as well as doing all the necessary background reading necessary to ask intelligent questions and to know how to follow up the answers. He was then involved in editing the interview down quite considerably while retaining the points he thought would be of most interest to the radio audience, as well as putting the entire programme together. This is his job. (And it isn't particularly well paid, particularly in comparison with TV presenters.) If a forum member here makes a factual error it doesn't matter, and usually he/she gets corrected fairly quickly. That isn't the case with a broadcast presenter. So no, neither musicians nor presenters should do their jobs for nothing. To imply that they should is to devalue the work that they do even more than it already is devalued by society in general.

What we have here on the forum is an informal conversation between friends, many of whom have specialist knowledge of one kind or another, and any exchange of knowledge and ideas is going in at least two directions. On the other hand, not infrequently I'm contacted by music students I don't know and asked to give feedback to the scores and/or recordings they send me. My answer is always: but doing this is part of how I earn my living, and I've organised things so that I don't have so much of it that it starts eating into the time I have for my own work, so no. The distinction is very clear in my mind.

[ahinton]

Quite so.

The last time I was interviewed on the radio it was the excellent Robert Worby doing the honours. He had taken the trouble to go to two performances of the work we were talking about, as well as the dress rehearsal of the second, as well as doing all the necessary background reading necessary to ask intelligent questions and to know how to follow up the answers. He was then involved in editing the interview down quite considerably while retaining the points he thought would be of most interest to the radio audience, as well as putting the entire programme together. This is his job. (And it isn't particularly well paid, particularly in comparison with TV presenters.) If a forum member here makes a factual error it doesn't matter, and usually he/she gets corrected fairly quickly. That isn't the case with a broadcast presenter. So no, neither musicians nor presenters should do their jobs for nothing. To imply that they should is to devalue the work that they do even more than it already is devalued by society in general.

What we have here on the forum is an informal conversation between friends, many of whom have specialist knowledge of one kind or another, and any exchange of knowledge and ideas is going in at least two directions. On the other hand, not infrequently I'm contacted by music students I don't know and asked to give feedback to the scores and/or recordings they send me. My answer is always: but doing this is part of how I earn my living, and I've organised things so that I don't have so much of it that it starts eating into the time I have for my own work, so no. The distinction is very clear in my mind.

Sorry that I can't buy S_A's prediction but in every other respect I agree with what you write here, specially the last part of your first paragraph.

[Serial_Apologist]

Sorry that I can't buy S_A's prediction but in every other respect I agree with what you write here, specially the last part of your first paragraph.

The point I was essentially making was that money is fine for determining quantities of stuff needed to keep us and everything going. Once that's sorted and running reasonably smoothly, which IT and so on could help by doing the job more quickly, it could all be done as numerical transactions not requiring money as such. Under capitalism instead of being the measure of the amount of time & skill put into producing something, it takes on a momentum of its own determined by the anarchic vagaries of market supply and demand, more of it being produced than necessary to pay for all the unnecessaries such as speculation then leading to overvaluation, deflation, business regardless of their social benefits collapsing, people being thrown out of devalued homes, people resorting to escapism and crime, unwanteds dumping, mass media blaming people for it all who look different... all down to commodification and who owns the most and is thereby empowered to call the shots... probably I don't need to go on.

[Mal]

If a forum member here makes a factual error it doesn't matter,...

What a snooty remark! Of course it matters.

What we have here on the forum is an informal conversation between friends,

No one told me it was necessarily informal or, necessarily between friends.

...any exchange of knowledge and ideas is going in at least two directions...

Doesn't each and every dissemination of knowledge deserve a payment? Just because you and your pals appear on the radio why should you be the only ones to get paid? Of course adding up how much everyone gets paid will be difficult, but Jaron Lanier, for instance, thinks it's a tractable problem - I recommend everyone buy his paperback book:

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier-ebook/dp/B00ADNP2ZM

[Serial_Apologist]

What a snooty remark! Of course it matters.



No one told me it was necessarily informal or, necessarily between friends.



Doesn't each and every dissemination of knowledge deserve a payment? Just because you and your pals appear on the radio why should you be the only ones to get paid? Of course adding up how much everyone gets paid will be difficult, but Jaron Lanier, for instance, thinks it's a tractable problem - I recommend everyone buy his paperback book:

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Who-Owns-.../dp/B00ADNP2ZM

Latimer's book looks well worth getting if the review is representive - so why the hostility towards Richard?

[ahinton]

The point I was essentially making was that money is fine for determining quantities of stuff needed to keep us and everything going. Once that's sorted and running reasonably smoothly, which IT and so on could help by doing the job more quickly, it could all be done as numerical transactions not requiring money as such. Under capitalism instead of being the measure of the amount of time & skill put into producing something, it takes on a momentum of its own determined by the anarchic vagaries of market supply and demand, more of it being produced than necessary to pay for all the unnecessaries such as speculation then leading to overvaluation, deflation, business regardless of their social benefits collapsing, people being thrown out of devalued homes, people resorting to escapism and crime, unwanteds dumping, mass media blaming people for it all who look different... all down to commodification and who owns the most and is thereby empowered to call the shots... probably I don't need to go on.

Maybe not but, under the current system, Richard is correct in pointing out that, among other things, it is necessary to be paid for doing the things that he and others do otherwise they'd not make a living. I do not see how any system of exchanges of work, information and the like can be carried out without capitalism of one kind or another, even in the most unlikely event of the abolition of money as we have come to understand it. Even all the "communist" administrations that have so far come and (mostly) gone have been adherents and operatives of capitalism, the only difference between them and others states' economic systems being the ownership and distribution (or otherwise) of capital.

[Dave2002]

Doesn't each and every dissemination of knowledge deserve a payment? Just because you and your pals appear on the radio why should you be the only ones to get paid? Of course adding up how much everyone gets paid will be difficult, but Jaron Lanier, for instance, thinks it's a tractable problem - I recommend everyone buy his paperback book:

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Who-Owns-.../dp/B00ADNP2ZM

Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman is also worth reading, though I don't necessarily agree with everything these authors propose.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Utopia-Realists-How-Can-There-ebook/dp/B01MQRQG22/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1526743809&sr=1-1&keywords=utopia+for+realists

[Serial_Apologist]

Maybe not but, under the current system, Richard is correct in pointing out that, among other things, it is necessary to be paid for doing the things that he and others do otherwise they'd not make a living. I do not see how any system of exchanges of work, information and the like can be carried out without capitalism of one kind or another, even in the most unlikely event of the abolition of money as we have come to understand it. Even all the "communist" administrations that have so far come and (mostly) gone have been adherents and operatives of capitalism, the only difference between them and others states' economic systems being the ownership and distribution (or otherwise) of capital.

Quite right - nothing to disagree with there! The thing about so-called "communist" administrations is that some form of transitional arrangements will always be required for regulatory purposes until change beds in. Creative minds could surely devise accounting systems with inbuilt oversight, elected and independent of monopoly control by privileged unaccountable self-selecting minorities. Vigilance is the watchword of success.