Jargon and Irony

I got an email from my brother, who said he liked my blogs (well he IS my brother), but that I was using a lot of media jargon, and that if I wanted to broaden my audience, I'd avoid the radioese. The irony is that I always "suggest" to the doctors I interview on the radio that they avoid doctorese and that Chief Palmer avoid the "cop talk." Ah, physician...or in my case, media crisis guru, heal thyself.

I was listening to The Dianne Reim Show on NPR , National Public Radio (no jargon for me, baby) this morning. The discussion was about radio, mostly centering around the Clear Channel sale and the satellite radio merger. The commentators didn't have much nice to say about corporate radio, how radio was losing market share dramatically because it had gotten away from localization in favor of McRadio. There probably aren't many people would argue that (actually, I think I said something similar in a preceding blog), but that wasn't what caught my attention. What I noticed was the callers. They asked about the XM-Sirius deal, internet radio, iPod's, but NOTHING about terrestreal radio...except NPR.
Here's my thought: Listeners don't hate radio the way it is or even yearn for the way radio was "back in the day." They just don't much care. Has radio as an industry lost its will to live,or will we use the new media and the creativity that radio still has in abundance to reconnect and return radio to the position of prominance it used to enjoy. Your comments are welcome.