Please stop all the censoring!

As most radio enthusiasts have probably already heard, veteran talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger appeared on the Larry King Live program Tuesday night and announced that she would leave her show at the end of the contract. Schlessinger made the decision in response to growing flack over her repeated use of the so-called “n-word” with a black caller on the Aug. 10 edition of her program. The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters organized a swift and effective campaign calling attention to Dr. Laura’s remarks and joined with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Women’s Media Center, and UNITY Journalists of Color to “hold [the program's] advertisers accountable and find out exactly where they stand.”

In announcing her departure from the airwaves Dr. Laura put forth a curious interpretation of the Bill of Rights when she told King, “I don’t have the right to say what I need to say. My first amendment rights have been usurped.” Lest anyone be confused, the current state of US law and policy makes it perfectly legal for Dr. Laura to use the “n-word” and most other words in the English language on the radio. The only exceptions to this are in cases of indecency, which only pertains to discussing matters of sexual and excretory functions; racial, gender and other types of epithets are not policed by the FCC in any fashion.

Read more at RadioSurvivor.com…

No related posts.

I find that Doug is articulating very clearly a lot of ideas that have also been rattling around my ahead for the last decade or so, but he’s made the effort to research them and flesh them out in print both in his book and in a growing series of columns and essays. What I like about his analytical approach is his willingness to attempt to get outside our contemporary assumptions about daily life and try to figure out when and how something, like the corporation, was brought into existence. I also appreciate that he’s willing to continue prodding at a question even when the answers are murky, showing a willingness to accept there are some apparent conflicts in the messy reality of daily life.

He recently wrote a piece for Publisher’s Weekly arguing that the publishing business is very ill-suited to corporate consolidation. He notes that book publishing is a sustainable business, but not a source of tremendous year-over-year growth of the sort a large corporation needs. But he remains sanguine about the future of publishing because the expert editors, publishers and writers haven’t gone away and are ready to rebuild the industry, perhaps with new independent houses.

I see some parallel with the radio business, although radio has been far more decimated than publishing. The root problem is the same: the large consolidating companies treated radio as a commodities business, seeking unreasonable profit growth that the business could not sustain. Radio differs from publishing in the fact that stations must be licensed and are therefore inherently limited in number, whereas publishing houses can be more easily started with less capital and require no licensing of any sort.

If new independents could start radio stations without having to try and pry licenses away from the likes of Clear Channel and Cumulus, I think we’d already be seeing some innovative rebooting of the industry. Unfortunately, radio is more like a neighborhood where the landowners have all let their properties get run down but refuse to sell them because scarcity still keeps the going rate artificially high.

In some sporadic cases we see innovation happening in public and community radio, where license holders can keep their stations sustainable but don’t have to rake in enormous profits. I just keep hoping that Clear Channel will finally bite the bullet and need to start shedding stations left and right, giving an opportunity for smaller, local and independent owners to get back into the game. Admittedly, it’s a more distant hope than the reinvigoration of the publishing industry, since another smaller consolidator, like CBS Radio, might choose to pack its stables, outbidding smaller players.

That’s the problem with licensing, and, to an extent, why the founding fathers organized against the Stamp Act of 1765. As it was designed, radio pretty much needs to be licensed because it was premised on scarcity partially imposed by the technological limits of 1927. But it’s not necessarily an inherent fact about radio. Perhaps the future of wireless communications will render this period of licensing a short historical anomaly. It’s an open question and no better than a 50/50 proposition right now.

Doug has his own relatively new radio show, The Media Squat, on the great noncommercial station, WFMU. In the interview we talked about his program and our shared challenged of trying to do an original weekly program on a completely volunteer, non-profit basis. That part of the interview will air on the next edition of mediageek. You can listen to it live on Thursday, Sept. 10, at 9 PM Central time on WNUR 89.3 FM in Chicago and online at http://www.wnur.org. Of course, the program will be archived online next week.

No related posts.

KRXQ general manager Jim Fox acknowledged to the Sacramento Bee that there have been some ad accounts canceled, but he wouldn’t say what the station would be doing in response. Well, one thing the station did was pull the list of advertisers that was on their website just a day ago. In this case, it’s Google Cache to the rescue (in case the cache expires, see the list after the jump).

I do have to thank Chipotle, Snapple and Sonic for doing the right thing by not ignoring this disgusting example of homophobia. But there are more advertisers who are still bankrolling this kind of defamation on KRXQ and elsewhere. And while these three companies decided to do the right thing, there is an economic element, too. My guess is that these three companies wisely realized that they would benefit by doing the right thing, earning or retaining more loyal customers. Perhaps more companies can be made to realize that continuing to fund hateful racist, misogynistic and homophobic programming on the radio will lose them customers and money.

While this broadcast of the Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning stands out as particularly egregious because the target for the abuse was children, how many of the same advertisers sponsor Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, to name just a few? How uncomfortable can their advertisers be made?

It’s fundamentally a commercial system. But when we demonstrate that we won’t buy what the commercials are selling when they sponsor the continuation of on-air bigotry, maybe it won’t be so profitable.

These are KRXQ’s major advertisers as of June 3:

The New Chrysler
Griffin & Reed Eyecare
Pro City Mortgage
Attorney Debt Reset
Tobacco Republic
Delimex
State Farm Insurance
Albertson’s
Carl’s Jr.
Flex Your Power
Jared
Kragen Auto Parts
Nissan
Wells Fargo Bank
Orchard Supply Hardware
Guitar Center
Mc Donalds
Mervyn’s
Red Bull
Roseville Automall
Hot Tamales ICE
Breathe California – Emigrant Trails
Atlantis
Sacramento Stormwater
Quality Partnership
Bank of America
WyoTech
The Sleep Train
Purina
California Sun Centers
at&t
Black Bear Outdoors
Verizon Wireless
MMAFanShop.com
Harley Davidson of Amador County
Harley Davidson of Rocklin
Harley Davidon of Folsom
Smart & Final
UC Davis Health Care System
Tava
Scranton Law Firm
Washington Mutual
D.R. Horton
Cost-U-Less Insurance
Lennar Homes
Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
Office of Problem Gambling
Roseville Hyundai

No related posts.

So what about the children who might have been listening to Sacramento, CA station KRXQ on May 28 when morning show hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States went on a hate-filled bigoted tirade against children who question their gender? Anyone, including children, tuning in would have heard that if States’ son ever put on high heels, he would beat him, saying

“If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels.”

States went on to advocate and encourage the humiliation and abuse that transgendered young people experience:

“You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’…

“You know, my favorite part about hearing these stories about the kids in high school, who the entire high school caters around, lets the boy wear the dress. I look forward to when they go out into society and society beats them down. And they end up in therapy.”

If you happened to be a young person or teenager hearing this, you might actually laugh, given the degree of uncertainty most young people feel about their sexuality and gender identity. It might also contribute to feeling justified in having disdain for other children who are gay or transgendered. And, unfortunately, it might also make you feel entitled to act violently towards someone whose sexual identity differs from yours, to hit a person with a shoe, or worse.

And what of the child who is questioning his or her own sexuality or gender who hears this? The message she or he will receive is that according to the show’s two most prominent hosts that child is a “freak” or “abnormal,” worthy of ridicule and deserving of violence. Given that suicide is a real pervasive problem amongst transgendered teens, this is a truly destructive message to broadcast at 9 AM in the morning.

In the reaction to this story I’ve read many people on social networks questioning how this station can keep its license. Of course the answer is simple: nothing legally qualifying as indecent was said on the program. Now, if Arnie States had said that he’d “throw a fucking shoe” at his son, or called transgendered children “fucking freaks,” well then a $15,000 fine would be on its way to KRXQ right now. That’s because that “fuck” would have destroyed the children listening in ways that the advocacy of violence and ridicule could never do, at least in the eyes of the FCC.

In the usual lame defense that comes from talentless, ignorant morning DJs, Arnie States said on air that “I know a lot of people don’t understand this…. That’s a joke.”

In the comment sections of Sacramento news sites the debate over this incident generally devolves into a shallow debate over supposed calls for free speech. Defenders of KRXQ and the hosts call detractors “politically correct” and lament that there’s no tolerance for free speech. Myself, I’m leery of having the FCC step in to regulate speech, also. Yet, the Commission already does step in to protect children from speech, but only if the speech is about fucking or shitting. Speech about beating up people who are different than you is A-OK, even if the people being rhetorically beat up are children.

The real issue is not free speech but the responsibility broadcasters have to local communities as the quid pro quo for having a monopoly over a particular frequency of the airwaves. Not everyone can have an FM station in Sacramento, and therefore KRXQ and Arnie States have a bully pulpit that still outclasses most people in Sac, even in this age of blogs, Twitter and podcasts. The real question is: is this the kind of broadcast the people of Sacramento would want if they actually had a choice or any control over what is broadcast over their airwaves?

As of now KRXQ only has to appeal to narrow demographic of white men 18-35 in order to satisfy its advertisers. So it panders to what it perceives that audience wants, regardless of what the rest of the community might want. It can continue to do this, and will suffer very little for these sorts of incidents because the station actually has nearly zero accountability to the people of Sacramento, due to the wholesale gutting of public service requirements for broadcast stations, combined with thirteen years of industry consolidation.

The likelihood of the FCC taking any sort of effective action against KRXQ for advocating violence against transgendered children is next to zero. I won’t be surprised if one or more commissioners chooses to speak out on the subject if the outrage reaches a louder volume. But don’t expect fines or any real jeopardy to the station’s license to be forthcoming. No, that jeopardy would require an assload of shits and fucks; nothing else will do.

However, because KRXQ panders to a particularly narrow audience in order to satisfy its advertisers, that’s where the station is most vulnerable, especially in this rotten ad climate. KRXQ boasts a large slate of both local and national advertisers, including such well known brands as Sonic Drive-Ins, Snapple, State Farm Insurance, Albertson’s, Carl’s Jr, Nissan, McDonalds and Wells Fargo. I wonder what they’re ad buyers would think about the station’s advocacy of violence towards children?

Sure, it’s not as effective as real local accountability. But hitting KRXQ and its owner Entercom in the pocketbook by haranguing their sponsors is at least one tactic that has a little promise. Another is to stop listening to KRXQ and all of Entercom’s stations in 23 different markets. And, then, let local advertisers know that you’re not listening, and why you’re not listening.

Such a boycott may or may not work, though I think it’s worth trying. However, this won’t be the last incident of this type so long as commercial radio continues its sprint to the bottom, both financially and ethically. The root cause of the promotion of this sort of ignorant, homophobic bigoted advocacy is greed, pure and simple, and the selective regulations that promote this kind of reductive, destructive greed.

No related posts.

Of course, this situation begs the question of why the cops felt the need to have a second 2-way radio in the first place, given that police departments have their own set of frequencies set aside for just their use. Makes a person wonder just what, besides profanities, the cops were talking about on the 2-meter band that they didn’t want to talk about over normal police frequencies.

As it turns out the 2-meter band wasn’t such a good choice if privacy was their motivation. Hams tend to be pretty protective of the bands allocated for amateur radio, policing them pretty closely, generally on a 24-hour basis.

According to a local news report, “the FCC is letting Indianapolis police handle the issue internally,” even though apparently, “officer use of unauthorized frequencies goes back many years.” Should we be surprised at the double-standard in the treatment of flagrant unlicensed use of the airwaves? If the culprits had been plain old civilians making potty-mouthed broadcasts for “many years” without a license on the 2-meter band do you think the FCC would let them off the hook without a notice of apparent liability, nevermind a fine?

While I’ve been critical of the FCC’s policies for the licensing of broadcast stations and the accompanying enforcement measures, I do believe in equal treatment under the law. Seems as though having a badge means you can abuse the airwaves without a license, with the only punishment being that your chief will take your toys away.

No related posts.

Then we’ll hear some excerpts from the Chicago Journalism Town Hall that brought together a diverse panel and audience to discuss the future of local journalism.

The mediageek radioshow airs live Thursday night at 9 PM CST on WNUR 89.3 FM in Chicago, IL, and streaimng live online at wnur.org. The podcast will be posted this weekend.

No related posts.

Indie 103.1 was a commercial alternative rock station that attempted to break out of the typical mold by hiring DJs who actually chose some of the music they played and having close ties to the alt rock community. For instance, former Sex Pistols guitarist Steve Jones had his own show for a while, as did Henry Rollins and Rob Zombie. But the station sort of stuck out like a sore thumb in owner Entravision‘s portfolio, given that the company is a mid-size player specializing in Spanish-language radio and television stations.

I’d listened to the station once or twice online since the format went live in 2003, and I will have to admit that it was refreshing compared to most commercial radio, but hardly freeform or revolutionary compared to most college or community stations. Still, now the dream is over, as the station is off the air and exclusively online.

But the hook that the transition online is some sort of play to preserve the station’s integrity in the face of ratings pressure is pure bullshit. I don’t doubt that ratings played a part in the station going off the air as Indie 103.1, but the reality of the transition to online is that the internet incarnation will bare little resemblance to the FM signal. According to the station’s music director, “None of the primary DJs or music programmers at the station are involved in the website and it’s not being run by people who ran the station.”

That quote was published last Friday, the 16th, and just a while ago on the 19th I checked the Indie 103.1 website and there’s a new message declaring that many of the station’s DJs actually will be doing shows:

In true Indie fashion, these DJs have offered to continue their labor of love and host their shows on-line. …

While some might view that as a victory, resulting from a public relations backlash, I say it’s still an example of consolidation in action. Sure, fans of Indie 103.1 will still be able to listen to some of their favorite shows online, but only while tethered to their computers–not yet on the go, in their cars or anywhere they don’t have a persistent internet connection. Furthermore, on the internet Indie 103.1 simply isn’t that special. The lower cost of entry means there’s hundreds of stations playing eclectic alternative rock that’s got more “integrity” than Indie 103.1.

What made Indie 103.1 special at all was the fact that it survived as an actual broadcast commercial radio station in the nation’s second market playing a less repetitive and not strictly playlisted format that still allowed DJs a hand in picking the tunes. If it had integrity, that’s where it was. There’s no indication that the staff and management were give the choice of go mainstream or go off the air. Rather, they were told they were going off the air, and their only outlet would be online. The whole “maintaining integrity” line is marketing bullshit, pure and simple.

Some commentators say that this is just another example of a dying medium giving way to the superior opportunities the internet offers. My counterargument is that the station at 103.1 FM in LA is not going off the air — it will be back with a new format, probably Spanish-language. Entravision knows that demographic well and I’m sure it’s well prepared to position it with its other two LA stations to consolidate ad sales across Spanish-speaking sub-demographics, Clear Channel style. Entravision will make plenty of money with that strategy, if for no other reason than the likelihood that most of the broadcast day will be automated, syndicated and voice-tracked, free of the higher cost of actual live on-air talent.

This has nothing to do with radio being trumped by the Internet, and everything to do with the short-term profit-maximizing of the Clear Channel era that was brought on with wholesale removal of the national radio ownership cap in the Telecomm Act of 1996. It’s not that radio doesn’t make money. No, it’s hard to make money when you’ve leveraged yourself into oblivion buying up stations as fast as possible, with all your competitors doing the same stupid thing, while also dropping ad rates and firing staff like it’s going out of style.

Consolidation is a failed business model, but one that’s hard to recover from. The stations that once had local DJs, news reporters and management now just have liquidated assets, a satellite dish and an automation system–a hollow shell of their former selves. Before 1996 when you bought a commercial station you were paying for its talent, its audience and its place in the community. After ’96, the strategy was that you were buying a space on the dial that should be programmed as cheaply as possible, with as few employees as possible, so you operate as many stations as allowed, with the bet that you’d retain enough audience to compensate for dropping ad rates to run your competitors out of business.

Of course, that bet hasn’t worked out so well, resulting in a homogenized radio dial that drove away listeners who by 2001 had new alternatives like iPods, internet and satellite (if you also happened to be middle-class). The problem is, the owners don’t have the money to reinvest in radio to make it a competitive commercial medium again, and the down economy means there isn’t a surplus of buyers wanting to get into the business.

As for a victory for internet broadcasting? We’ll see about that. I’ll be surprised if Indie 103.1 online lasts a year with a lineup of live DJs from the station’s broadcast days. Hell, I’ll be surprised if it lasts a year with any live DJs at all.

That’s not to say I have doubts about internet radio, its value or viability. Instead, it’s pretty darn clear that it’s much harder and more expensive to reach an audience online that’s anywhere near the size that Indie 103.1 had with a broadcast signal in Los Angeles. And if it hopes to survive as a commercial station, it can’t avoid the fact that audience=dollars.

The Internet didn’t kill the radio star. The owners did, and the internet isn’t ready to replace it yet.

No related posts.

My pal Aj alerted me to this boingboing post about the news that Pioneer is ending production of laserdisc players. The funny thing is, I honestly didn’t think Pioneer was still making laserdisc players.

Image credit: Marcin Wichary / flickr

That’s not a joke. Although I’ve been a fan of the format, and new players are still available, I was under the impression that whatever you can buy are just backstock from the early 2000s.

I’ve had a laserdisc player since 1993, and currently have a collection of around 100 discs. Similarly to my vinyl collection, I cleaned up buying used discs around ’97-’98 when DVD hit the market and the early adopter videophiles dumped their LD collections for the next big thing. In that crucial transition period there was quite a bit of debate amongst hardcore videophiles and home theater enthusiasts–a tiny population compared to today–about the comparative benefits and deficits of DVDs versus laserdisc.

Photo credit: Rockies / flickr

Of course we now know that DVD soundly trounced laserdisc, which never grew past being a small cult format to begin with. While a lot of the late 90s debate sounded a lot like the analog vs. digital debate of the LP vs. CD argument, I think it’s safe to say that the relative charms of analog video in the form of laserdisc were not as alluring nor palpable as with vinyl records. I could go into a long dissertation on how that relates to the differences between audio and video recording (which is different than analog motion picture film), but I’ll spare you.

Photo credit: craig1black / flickr

Now, there were thousand of movies and other programs released on laserdisc during the format’s 20+ year run, and there are still some films on laserdisc that have yet to see the light on DVD (though the number is dwindling). So if you have a decent laserdisc collection and a player, the format’s not dead to you.

But in the broader view, laserdisc must be declared a dead format . We won’t be seeing any new laserdisc releases, and I’d be surprised if there were any pressing plants still left in operation. Now there will be no more new players, when even enthusiasts like me thought they weren’t being made anyway.

By “dead” I mean that aside from whatever media you might already own, or what you might buy used, you will not see anything new coming on the format. Furthermore, you will soon be quite out of luck trying to find a new replacement player should you have one that dies — you’ll be forced to rely on the used market.

So, by this definition, I do think we can say formats like 8-track tape and Betamax are also dead. However, dead does not equal useless. So, if your laserdisc player, 8-track tape deck and Beta VCR still provide you with fun and pleasure, then there’s no reason to give them up, so long as you’re prepared to deal with the inevitable difficulties of relying on a dead technology. For some people, that challenge is a source of fun, learning how to creatively use media and machines that other people toss aside. It can also be a good way to amass a collection of classic albums or movies for pennies on the dollar.

But there it is highly unlikely there will be any growth or resurgence of laserdiscs, 8-tracks or Betamax. Although the death of vinyl, cassettes and film has been declared many times over in the last decade or two, at no point did the manufacture of new media (blank or prerecorded) or machines actually stop. Laserdiscs, my friends, quit being made available in the US eight years ago, while the distribution of pre-recorded VHS movies is only coming to a halt now.

Unlike folks who are still using their VHS VCRs, I don’t think there are any laserdisc owners who somehow think that the format is thriving. In fact, given that laserdisc was more of a high-end rather than mass-market item, I’d guess that nearly every current laserdisc user also owns a DVD player, and some have probably already upgraded to BluRay. That means they’re probably not being left behind on new movie releases unless they’ve made a very definitive choice not to upgrade to DVD.

Nevertheless, my position and advice on laserdisc is the same as VHS. If you have a laserdisc player and a collection of discs that you enjoy, there’s no reason to abandon them. For the most part I have not replaced any of my laserdisc movies with DVD versions–the extra expense isn’t worth it because the differences are minor. If your laserdisc player dies, then you have to weigh the hassle and cost of getting a replacement (new or used) versus the cost of getting your favorite movies on laserdisc replaced with DVDs.

Laserdisc was never a mainstream format. Despite Pioneer’s best efforts, outside of Japan it never caught on with the mainstream. Therefore, in my mind the consumer capitalist forces that forced its demise are less pernicious than when those attempting to force the obsolescence of something found in nearly every home, like LPs and VHS.

So, with that I must be willing to admit that laserdisc is dead, and long live laserdisc!

No related posts.

However, much is still unknown about Genachowski’s views on media issues, like ownership concentration and indecency enforcement. He was an assistant to Clinton-appointed FCC Chairman Reed Hundt in the 1990s, and we might learn a little bit about Genachowski by looking at his former boss’ tenure at the Commission. With regard to media ownership, Hundt opposed lifting the nationwide radio ownership cap. The lifting of the cap–which brought on the Clear Channel era–happened with the passing of the Telecomm Act of 1996 by Congress, signed by President Clinton, and was not decided by the Hundt FCC. Hundt was also a proponent of children’s programming requirements, while also pushing for indecency fines against the likes of Howard Stern.

We’re sure to learn more about Genachowski’s views on a whole panoply of communication issues when he goes up for confirmation by the Senate. Here’s hoping that his apparently progressive outlook on Net Neutrality is combined with the willingness to put the brakes on the Bush FCC’s full-speed gallop on loosening media ownership limits. I must admit that ensuring a free and open internet, along with enacting policies to stimulate high-speed broadband build-out really should be the top priority for media and telecomm, above all.

With the lessons learned from the 1996 Telecomm Act and the ill-considered experiment of taking away common carrier status from internet (therefore creating the need for Net Neutrality) there exists a blueprint for creating a much more vibrant, diverse and free media ecology.

No related posts.

Photo credit: Roadsidepictures / flickr

Digital, of course, was supposed to be the death knell of film, but things didn’t quite work out that way. Instead, digital photography sparked new public interested in photography as an art and hobby, which ended up leading a lot of folks back to film. Like the vinyl LP vs. CD debate, there are plenty of passionate photographers ready to argue that one or the other is inherently superior. As one of those people who never took a strong interest in photography until getting my first digital camera, my perspective is that is has less to do with better than different–qualitatively different.

Photo credit: laihiu / flickr

The Rochester, NY Democrat and Chronicle recently published a story about a local business you might have heard of, that’s still hanging on to the film business: Kodak. The article quotes Kodak’s marketing manager for professional film, Scott R. DiSabato:

“We call it the ‘and’ world,” DiSabato said. “We know the professional use will be significant enough the next couple years, we’ll get the investment (into those film lines) back.”

In fact, Kodak introduced a new color film formulation this past year, a time when film still makes up a third of the company’s gross revenue.

Again, I’m not arguing against technological innovation. I have nothing against digital cameras, and I own several. I also own a pile of film cameras (that I picked up for next to nothing). I’m just pointing out again that obsolescence is a business process and a social process. That is, there’s nothing inherent in film that should make it obsolete, so much as that the combination of the need to find new products to sell, the fact that some of these new products actually do offer new and significant benefits and a social shift to embrace that new technology.

The social element is important–Kodak is still making and selling film because people are buying it and using it. They’re finding value in it, whether it’s due to nostalgia, the belief that it is superior to digital, an affinity for film’s aesthetics, or simply because using disposable film cameras when you need them makes more sense than dumping several hundred bucks into a digital cam.

Photo credit: pineapplebun / flickr

Videotape, on the other hand, is reuseable. Certainly if all manufacture were to stop today eventually the tapes in use now would eventually wear out. But the true death of the medium would come more slowly than if film were to be no longer manufactured.

As (electronic and chemical) media makers we are still dependent on a consumer economy, but that doesn’t mean we are utterly subject to its whims, nor without feedback mechanism. We do not have to buy up every new so-called innovation because it’s supposed to be better, nor do we have to abandon a technique, method, medium or tool just because the industry, press or blogosphere now declares it dead. In fact, fantastic personal innovation, ingenuity and creativity can be sparked in the continued embrace, or reembrace of a reportedly obsolete technology. Whether it’s audiocassette, VHS, film, vinyl LP, laserdisc, minidsc, 8-track or daguerreotype, it’s not dead for you until you don’t want to use it any longer.

Thanks to Ken Rockwell, the most entertaining photography writer on the internet, for pointing me to the Kodak article. For more about practical, technological and qualitative strengths of film, read Ken’s essay, “Why We Love Film.”

No related posts.