We learned two things about last night’s Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Lance Armstrong.  One is that Armstrong is not a very nice person and the second is that Oprah is not as smart as we all thought.

Let’s start with the first point.  We all knew (or at least suspected) that Lance cheated and threw anyone and everyone under the bus (including filing a lawsuit against his former masseuse Emily O’Reilly for outing him).  Armstrong came across as a very cold and calculating human being who would stop at nothing to win for fame and glory (what the hell did Sheryl Crow see in him).  Look up “Control Freak” in the dictionary and you’ll see his picture next to it.  That part of last night’s interview was actually not that shocking.

What was surprising is how Oprah handled the broadcast.  Many blogs and pundits are heaping praise on the former Queen of daytime talk, and while she did create a lot of buzz for OWN (The Oprah Winfrey Network), there were several places where she dropped the ball.

The actual interview took place earlier in the week.  Trying to keep what was said secret was like trying to keep Lindsey Lohan from getting in trouble; it wasn’t going to happen.  Even Oprah appeared on the CBS Morning Show to promote the interview and all but said he admitted to cheating.  So what was left to watch?   There is no denying she did her homework and delivered what she promised (a no-hold bars interview), but unfortunately the news cycle had already moved on.

Sports fans had already turned their attention to the captivating drama surrounding Notre Dame super star Manit Te’o and his mystery girlfriend.  The window of public interest closes quickly, and Oprah did herself no favors by pushing the interview back.  She also could have saved the mea culpa for later in the broadcast.   The broadcast opened with her asking yes and no questions and we knew immediately that Armstrong doped in all seven Tour de France victories.

What was left after that?  Now we’re going to show what a real asshole you are?   No thanks, I get it.   It reminds one of a public flogging where crowds got to watch someone get punished in a public arena, but did you really feel Armstrong was getting beaten up by her questions?   If you didn’t get enough you’re in luck; the whipping continues tonight with Part Two.

There are many lessons to be learned from the horrific events that took place at last
Friday’s massacre in Connecticut.  Debate on gun control, dealing with people who suffer from mental health issues and how, we as society cope with what can only be described as unimaginable are all being talked about around water coolers and dinner tables.

There’s another part to this tragedy that we can’t over-look; the way the media is covering breaking news stories.  In an effort to “get it first”, they threw out misinformation with reckless abandonment.  The best of the worst was identifying the shooter as Ryan Lanza, 24, and tweeting his Facebook profile picture around cyberspace.  The news outlets had to correct themselves when it turned out that the shooter was 20-year-old Adam Lanza, his brother.  (Ryan ended up posting “Fuck You CNN, it wasn’t me” on his Facebook wall in an attempt to help clear up the confusion)

There were also reports early on incorrectly reporting Lanza’s mother taught at the Newtown elementary school which again, proved to be flat out wrong and massive confusion as to what, and how many, weapons had been used.

And, even before the dust had settled, there was a statement attributed to actor Morgan Freeman in the wake of the shooting that spread faster than nude photos of Princess Kate Middleton that spoke of how the media is making these psychopaths into super heroes.  The problem?  He did not write it, nor had no idea where it came from.   It doesn’t matter though, because it’s still being shared on Facebook and Tweeted at warp speed.

All of this is misinformation is leading us down a very slippery slope.  Why is anyone going to pay attention, and much less believe anything the media reports from the scene of breaking news, when so much of it turns out to be wrong?   It has become such common practice that most outlets don’t even bother to acknowledge their mistakes anymore, but simply remove the page from their website in the hopes no one will remember and then let some PR flak try to explain it away.

Can you imagine what it must have felt like if you had a child in that school, or knew somebody that worked there and you were trying to find out what happened?  In a world where instant gratification is quickly becoming the norm, perhaps a little more homework and a little less rush to be first would be one lesson we could learn this horrible tragedy.

The battle for your ears has taken an interesting twist.  Traditional over the air broadcasters and internet radio companies are duking it out over something called the “Internet Radio Fairness Act”.  This bill, introduced in both the House and the Senate, tries to level the playing field and put the fees internet radio pays for music at the same rate as other digital music providers.  Last year, according to Pandora, it paid roughly 50 percent of its total revenue in royalties, more than six times the percentage paid by satellite radio provider Sirius-XM.

“On the surface, the rates paid by PANDORA and other online radio services appear onerous and in need of congressional relief” wrote Richard Greenfield, a media analyst for BTIG.  “However, the reason why companies such as PANDORA pay such high royalty rates as a percentage of revenues is because they severely limit audio advertising to protect the user experience and keep people on the platform.”

So their answer is to have Pandora run more advertisements to make up for the revenue (God forbid anyone should “protect the user experience”).   A recent radio study by ALAN BURNS AND ASSOCIATES and TRITON DIGITAL showed that radio is less strongly bonded to listeners under 35 because younger listeners want music control and fewer commercials.  The response by BTIG brings to mind the infamous quip; “let them eat cake!”

Radio will point to studies showing how many people listen to them during the week, and that number is very impressive, but Internet Radio also has a compelling story to tell.   Pandora reported that, in September of 2012, it showed an increase of 67% from 687 million to 1.15 billion of listening hours during the same period last year.

Another point Greenfield raised in his report was “why should the U.S. government allow musicians to be harmed simply to help PANDORA and its investors generate enhanced returns?”   It’s an interesting argument because it is the same one used by the radio industry.   Many radio executives feel they should pay smaller royalties to musicians because they help promote artists and sell records.  Both points of view have merit, but you can’t play both sides.

If radio were smart (and there are many smart people working in radio), they would develop new ways to advertise that continue to produce a healthy profit while enhancing; not hurting its user experience instead of trying to thwart companies like Pandora.  Product placement type ads, shorter commercial breaks and smoother insertion of advertisements could all lead to increased listening among younger demos which would result in higher revenues.

Will anyone in radio willing to take the chance, or will they end up listening to Wall Street instead of Main Street.