The Beast AM 980 SOLD!

[TheBigA]

Interesting....I did not know that.

 

[michael hagerty]

Remember I'm looking at this from the POV of the FCC. They don't get involved in usage, merely the licensing and regulation of a public resource.

Practically, there IS no usage, but that's not the point. This was a forced sale. CBS was a willing owner, and they were forced to sell.

Fair enough, but let's assume that the rules had been changed and CBS could have kept 980. What format serving the public interest would work for CBS? This is the reason I brought up 1550 in San Francisco. CBS tried a bunch of things (simulcasting a Country FM, talk with Opie and Anthony, an all-podcast format, Scott Shannon's True Oldies) before finally just leasing the time out to Radio Zindagi and now it's what KFWB is probably going to be---Asian Indian.

The only practical difference is CBS gets to keep the San Francisco license and cash the checks from Radio Zindagi, but that's a money distinction, not a public interest one.

 

[TheBigA]

What format serving the public interest would work for CBS?

In my view, what they were doing is better than what the new owner will do, assuming he'll do what he typically does.

What goes through my mind is that there are so few quality owners left in radio that don't have billions in debt and CBS seems to run their stations well. Why is the FCC forcing one of the best to do something it doesn't want to do? What is their justification? Providing a minority service to foreign speaking immigrants? Maybe. But why should some arbitrary limit force an otherwise qualified owner to sell? What other industry operates this way?

 

[K.M. Richards]

In my view, what they were doing is better than what the new owner will do, assuming he'll do what he typically does.

There are those who frequent this board who typically deride any of the sports-formatted stations (based on "not showing up in 6+", as if that mattered, but I digress) as being a waste because we have so many of them. And this is not the first time a sports AM in Los Angeles changed owners and went non-English language ... anyone remember 1540?

KLAC/570, KSPN/710 and KLAA/830 remain in the format. There is speculation that the Clippers will sign with KABC/790 to replace KFWB. There's going to be some shuffling of programming, but none of the three extant stations (nor KABC, if it becomes the fourth) is going to be materially different from KFWB.

So Mike's question makes sense, and I will rephrase it to see if it creates a different thought process and answer from you, A:

Presume that KFWB was no longer going to be a sports-formatted station, regardless of ownership. What could they do that is viable, with a less-than-ideal AM signal? Remember that they tried various incarnations of news/talk and going back to the old all-news format from the Group W days is unlikely.

 

[TheBigA]

I will rephrase it to see if it creates a different thought process and answer from you, A:

I understood his question, and I feel I answered it, given the context of the discussion. My point isn't about practical formatics, but the justification of the FCC forcing willing owners into selling stations. It would seem to me given the difficulty of operating a station profitably, the government would be anxious to retain certain owners rather than force them out. Haven't FCC regulations done enough damage? Haven't their policies already forced out many of radio's best owners? And who have replaced them?

 

[davideduardo]

In my view, what they were doing is better than what the new owner will do, assuming he'll do what he typically does.

What goes through my mind is that there are so few quality owners left in radio that don't have billions in debt and CBS seems to run their stations well. Why is the FCC forcing one of the best to do something it doesn't want to do? What is their justification? Providing a minority service to foreign speaking immigrants? Maybe. But why should some arbitrary limit force an otherwise qualified owner to sell? What other industry operates this way?

The issue is whether a little-listened-to general market station, such as what KFWB has been, is better than a similarly listened to niche format station serving a previously unserved or underserved population. Such would be the case of a Desi Radio format on KFWB.

I'd say that the service to the listeners from the Indian sub-continent would be of greater value than the existing format.

 

[CTListener]

I understood his question, and I feel I answered it, given the context of the discussion. My point isn't about practical formatics, but the justification of the FCC forcing willing owners into selling stations. It would seem to me given the difficulty of operating a station profitably, the government would be anxious to retain certain owners rather than force them out. Haven't FCC regulations done enough damage? Haven't their policies already forced out many of radio's best owners?

Let me try. I understand that your beef is with the regulators and that you want to see AM stations survive. But why is foreign-language talk/music/preaching for immigrants less of a public service than English-language talk about sports? Both types of programming serve minority audiences -- one made up of various recent immigrant groups, the other made up of people who follow spectator sports. Yes, the latter is a minority -- the figures I've always seen for newspapers is that 30-35 percent of readers read the sports section -- about 65 percent of men, about 20 percent of women. So sports talk has no real edge over brokered ethnic in the vague "public interest" criterion.

And I agree with the previous poster that specific formatics IS relevant. If conservative talk is too old for KFWB, and music is a non-starter because all the listeners have migrated to FM or satellite, and sports won't work because of signal limitations, what format would CBS make money with if it were allowed to keep KFWB? What format other than brokered time could ANY broadcaster put in place there and make enough money to satisfy investors?

 

[TheBigA]

I'd say that the service to the listeners from the Indian sub-continent would be of greater value than the existing format.

As I said, that's fine if they justify it by providing minority service to immigrants. But I'm not sure that should be the goal of a government agency. This isn't the marketplace that has caused this change, but a government regulatory agency. Very different thing.

I'm also talking about the quality of ownership. There is a lot of criticism on these boards and elsewhere about the quality of radio owners, in terms of their ability to create entertaining content, create service for the public, and operating as a profitable business. So now the FCC has forced a high quality heritage owner into selling a weak station to an owner whose MO is brokering time to various foreign language programs. Somewhere down the road, the industry might get criticized for the state of its programming, using this as an example. But the industry isn't to blame for why this happened. And in my view, there are other similar examples.

 

[TheBigA]

Let me try. I understand that your beef is with the regulators and that you want to see AM stations survive. But why is foreign-language talk/music/preaching for immigrants less of a public service than English-language talk about sports?

I'm not interested in that part of the discussion. My issue is how that programming change happened. And it happened as the result of an antiquated regulation that forced a company to sell a radio station to the highest bidder, rather than for marketplace or programming reasons. The public interest was not involved in the decision. It was strictly about the number of stations the company owns.

 

[frankberry]

This is becoming a circular argument. CBS was well aware of the FCC regulations when they made the decision to own two television stations in LA. Please don't make CBS a victim.

 

[TheBigA]

This is becoming a circular argument. CBS was well aware of the FCC regulations when they made the decision to own two television stations in LA. Please don't make CBS a victim.

I agree that they knew the rules AT THE TIME, but the rules also clearly state that ownership limits must be reviewed every few years, and the FCC has kicked that can down the road. CBS had the expectation that the FCC might do what the law required, and that hasn't happened. As a result, they have to sell a station.

I feel the same way about the government forcing newspapers to sell their broadcast stations. Stupid rule. It's one of the ownership rules that, by law, should be reviewed every few years, and for some reason, has not been addressed. So now we have a situation where newspapers AND radio stations are struggling, but can't combine resources to help each other because of federal law.

 

[frankberry]

Would you rather have a single corporation own every newspaper, radio and television station?
CBS is HUGE (I once worked for them). They gambled and lost. They didn't even attempt to request that the FCC review the ownership limits.

 

[TheBigA]

They didn't even attempt to request that the FCC review the ownership limits.

They shouldn't have to. The law requires this review.

I'm not saying one company should own everything. I'm saying the FCC should do the review the law requires, and explain why those ownership limits are justified. That's what Congress expected when it passed the law.

If after that review, the company is still over the limit, then they should sell in order to comply. But that's not the situation here.

 

[frankberry]

Why not put pressure on your Representative? Ask why the FCC has not reviewed the ownership rules.
It won't do a bit of good to complain about it here.
Go for it! I'm on your side!

 

[TheBigA]

Why not put pressure on your Representative? Ask why the FCC has not reviewed the ownership rules.

It actually was brought up when the Chairman was brought before Congress to testify.

 

[frankberry]

I'm only guessing .... Congress hasn't provided the funds ........

 

[TheBigA]

I'm only guessing .... Congress hasn't provided the funds

Doesn't matter. Unfunded mandate. Government does that all the time. The Chairman didn't use that excuse.

 

[frankberry]

It's a Governmental game. Mandates without the necessary funding.
Why are we even bothering to write posts about this silly subject?

 

[K.M. Richards]

It's a Governmental game. Mandates without the necessary funding.
Why are we even bothering to write posts about this silly subject?

I agree with Frank, and not just because he runs the place.

This has shifted from the specific topic of KFWB's ownership change and what the new owner will likely do to a discussion of what's wrong with the FCC. That's not, strictly speaking, a Los Angeles radio subject.

 

[frankberry]

I agree with K.M.
Let's move on, folks.