In Which We Survey a Small Slice of Our Changing Economy, and Bid It Good Riddance

CNN and CareerBuilder team-up to provide a glimpse of jobs that are disappearing. Among those careers that appear to be disappearing, there is this:

8. Radio and television announcers

Why it's evolving:
New technology and advancement of other media sources like satellite radio and syndicated programming means less need for radio and TV announcers.
Salary: $36,120
Decline rate: 8 percent

With the exception of a tiny elite, radio announcing has always been a bad job. The pay is low, job security is non-existent, and climbing the career ladder requires movement to bigger markets every couple of years. The only people who thrive in that environment are heartless mercenaries, complete whores who will do anything for money and complain the whole time that life's treating them unfairly.

That's one of the reasons I hated dealing with voice talent. There were literally hundreds of people who were drawn to the trade by some imagined glamor. They all had professional training from the kind of schools that advertise on matchbooks, and were desperately looking for work. Almost all had other jobs and, if you cast them, you had to work around their schedules. And then they'd go all prima dona on you once you'd get them into the studio.

When I was working for the advertising agency, I landed a client who wanted a series of radio ads. I don't even remember what the ads were for; it may have been a political campaign. Anyway, it wasn't a big job, so I cast the thing from a demo CD the production studio provided, talent they'd worked with before and who would work cheap. The guy I eventually cast turned out to be a copywriter at another ad agency that had competed for the same commercial production deal. All through the recording he was bitching about the copy -- which I had written -- claiming that the spots they'd pitched to the client had been much, much better, and that we must have got the contract because we knew someone.

Another time, I cast a woman to do a series of radio spots for a chain of jewelry stores. The spots worked well, and the next thing you know the client wants to do television. So we cut a deal with the radio voice to do the TV commercials, and we hauled her and the crew out of town to a shoot at a mall in Ohio somewhere. She spent the whole day convincing the client that I was overcharging for the commercials, and that her brother's production company could do the job better and cheaper. Two weeks after we delivered the TV spots the client jumped ship, taking their half-million-dollars-a-year account to the announcer's brother's company. Three weeks after that the same woman showed up at an open casting call I was conducting, and got pissed when I wouldn't let her audition.

So, as you can probably guess, I'm not all that concerned about a shortage of radio announcing careers.

Comments

[Frank]

I've not had nearly as much exposure to radio talent as you, but my dealings have been nearly identical to yours. I can't believe how stuck up these people are just because they can annunciate their words properly. Good riddance to them.

My favorite DJs of all time were on a local rock station in southern Arizona. They spent nearly all of their off air time in the booth that wasn't being utilized, drinking whiskey straight from the bottle and listening to 70s rock. They were two guys who were as professional as they could be on air, but the second the mic went off they were a couple of 40 year old teenagers. Which was great for me, because I was a teenager at the time and they let me hit the bottle with them occasionally.

[NewMexiKen]

All I ever really wanted to be was a DJ.

Now I read what you've written.

Damn. It really was ideal for me.

[Bezza]

At least the Jewellery lady didn't demand sex, and then, when you refused, call you a homosexual.

Right Squidley? It happens all the time.

[Squidley]

Thank you for proving my point, Bezza.

As pointed out in this article, when homosexuality is normalized, about the only way for a guy to "prove" he's a straight is to have sex with girls. Combine this with sexual mores allowing casual sex, and you get the situation you described.

Contrast this with the long-lost ways of the past, when yes, all guys still wanted it, but had numerous reasons not to go all the way--yet did not need to fear the questioning of their manhood.

Are we really better off because teenagers, already dealing with too much as hormones surge while becoming adults, feel forced into having sex just to "prove" they're not homosexuals? Has the combination of sexual and homosexual liberation helped teen birth rates, rates of infection of STDs, marriage, and the family? Do we have a better society as a result of this "liberation"?

That'd be a big fat "no" from this side of things.

[Bezza]

The idea that teenage males are forced into sex by females, for fear of being declared homosexual, is pretty damn stupid.

I know that most of my male highschool friends (10 years ago) would take pretty much any opportunity available, and I sincerely doubt it had anything to do with a fear of being tagged homosexual. There are far greater forces at work.

Teen birth rates, STDs, marriage and family have nothing to do with Homos, and that article does not demonstrate a credible connection.

[Squidley]

Bezza, you must be a woman. PC nonsense aside, one of the worst things a guy can call another guy is a fag, and while yes, teenage boys are randy little buggers for whom even the proverbial crack of dawn is appealing, there are some girls whom even teenage boys refuse (normally for social reasons, like the girl has a bad repuation). If Stacy the Scag calls you a fag, well, you must be! In order to avoid that, some boys will give in.

It may be stupid--but as a former teenaged boy, I can assure you it's a real reason.

In normal times (i.e., before the Cultural Revolution), you'd be correct in saying that marriage and family have nothing to do with homosexuals. In our post cultural/sexual revolution world, with homosexual activists clamoring for marriage and adoption, can you really say that now?

As for the other points, I think you could argue that there is a reciprocal relationship between the sexual revolution and homosexual liberation, with both feeding and feeding off of each other. The point, of course, is that traditional sexual morality is the desired state, and a return to same would mean a reduction in teen sex, teen birth rates, and STDs.

I don't think that homosexuals need to be persecuted. However, the widespread acceptance of homosexuality has not been good for society. There is a happy middle ground somewhere. I think it lies somewhere around where J. Edgar Hoover can be a respected and prominent man, and where Abe Lincoln can share a bed with his best friend Joshua Speed, and no one thinks any of them is homosexual.

[Bezza]

I can see how it *could* happen but to use the scenario as a basis for an argument against homosexuals is not rational unless you have more than anecdotes to back it up.

As far as the *correlation* between sexual liberation and homosexual liberation there is no doubt it exists but then again why is it bad?

Does a Homosexual couple adopting a child or getting married affect regular families in any practical way? I am asking for a direct negative effect, not some fuzzy theory that society as we know it will break down because of gay marriage.

[Squidley]

The family is the most fundamental building block of society, predating human society itself. Marriage has an ideal form: one man and one woman coming together and making babies, thus creating a family and perpetuating the species. That this ideal is not always met does not detract from its existence. Be that as it may, we tamper with marriage at our own peril.

The breakdown of traditional sexual morality has had a clearly deleterious effect on marriage. Public recognition of homosexuality only exacerbates that breakdown.

Also, marriage a very public institution, regardless of libertarian dogma; furthermore, it is normative. The push for homosexual "marriage" is a push for public recognition and validation of homosexuality. This flies in the face of every religious tradition on earth (yes, including Christianity, Tom). It goes against our society's traditions, our cultural heritage. Furthermore, homosexual "marriage" creates a "family" that cannot ever be what an ideal family is: reproductive.

This should not be construed to mean that the meaning of marriage lies solely in procreation; anyone in a good marriage knows there is much more to it than that. Still, we should deviate from the ideal as little as possible.

This should also not be taken to mean that marriage should be denied to those unwilling or unable to have children. Medical science progresses; people change their minds; and miracles happen.

Let me end by quoting:

"[A] homosexual can behave as a decent person, obey the laws, support his government, defend his country in time of war. But because he is alienated or separated from heterosexuality and thus from marriage, which is the basis of human society, he is limited in his ability to explain and defend the principles on which society rests. Therefore he cannot be a good citizen in the fullest sense."

Allowing homosexuals to "marry" is like electing anarchists to govern: the people involved are alienated from the instition they would join.

[Squidley]

"As far as the *correlation* between sexual liberation and homosexual liberation there is no doubt it exists but then again why is it bad?"

Why is sex out of wedlock bad? Well, why are STDs and unwanted pregnancies bad? Why is a lowering of people's moral standards bad? Why is the weakening of society's fundamental building block--the family--bad?

I'm sure you don't need me to answer those questions for you, Bezza.

If anyone posts, I'll respond to you about the folly of allowing homosexuals to adopt. (I try to avoid consecutive posts, but....)