Goodbye Broadcasting Magazine

[txchipk]

Do you have any M-Street Journals I do not have?

M STREET JOURNAL: Format Changes, FCC filings - 1990 - 2002

M Street Journal covered the changes and applications at the FCC as well as format changes and station sales

www.worldradiohistory.com

Yes, I started subscribing in 1988.

 

[txchipk]

Yes, I started subscribing in 1988.

I also have a lot of years of FMedia! if that is of interest. I see you have the annual FM Atlas books out there. This was the monthly newsletter that basically fed it.

 

[davideduardo]

I also have a lot of years of FMedia! if that is of interest. I see you have the annual FM Atlas books out there. This was the monthly newsletter that basically fed it.

Write me at [email protected] and let's talk about both of those!

 

[newsbot2]

When I was in high school, I couldn't afford a subscription to Broadcasting. (IIRC, it cost about $300 a year in the '70s.)

I just went to my local public library, which had decades of archives. Same for Billboard. I ended up subscribing to CMJ, but I never got more than one CD out of the deal. I felt cheated!

 

[yeoldeschool]

Many here miss local and live talent and their "fun and local" content. In fact, most morning show hots subscribed to a variety of joke and content services that provided the raw material for shows. There were all kinds of services, ranging from jokes to weird facts to just buying the latest Guinness book of Records.

Jay Thomas used to incorporate tons of those content service bits into his KPWR morning show in the 1980s. When you mentioned this, a recurring skit called "Big Fat Donna" that he used to run popped into my mind. Googling it brought up absolutely nothing, except two PDFs from your site (of course!) where its availability was being advertised. To my surprise, it was produced by the comedy team Stevens & Grdnic, whose material I used to hear frequently on Dr. Demento's program during his live KLSX days.

In fact, some jocks would do daily little contests based on strange facts or strange people. It was all bought and mailed to the jock. Some even offered market exclusivity and were more expensive.

Some people used to believe Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan, and the like wrote all their own jokes and came up with all their own skits too.

 

[yeoldeschool]

That has always been part of the problem with Wikipedia. If those with editing privileges (I presume that the Chimp, like myself, have actual accounts at Wikipedia for that purpose) don't update pages they can quickly get outdated.

Some controversial or vandalism-prone articles are locked and require accounts to edit (you'll see padlock icons at the top right of the page in their cases). But accounts are unnecessary to edit 99% of Wikipedia's articles. So if you or someone else see bad information somewhere, just click the section's "[edit]" link (or the master "Edit" link at the top of the page) and make your changes. I do this all the time without hesitation -- at least when it comes to subjects where I actually possess some facts.

The other problem there is people who add things which are unsourced. I had to practically rewrite one page from scratch because of that. This is why I always advise fact-checking Wikipedia before presuming it is correct

Like radio-locator pattern maps, Wikipedia is largely "for entertainment only"

I regret that Wikipedia has gotten this reputation. It is undeserved and comes exclusively from people abusing its design, i.e. the intent of its creators. The main means is what Mr. Richard cited (people not adding citations). But the other big one is bias -- i.e. citing sources while still lying through omission. Thankfully, that's only typical when it comes to political articles. Otherwise, the site generally is not flawed in its design. It provides marvelous, full facilities for citing up to literally every sentence in an article, or even every implication within a single sentence, if necessary. And as long as people make use of that, the site works well as as an invaluable source of verifiable knowledge ... well, again, when it comes to non-political articles, at least.

Anyway, don't be afraid to edit the site without an account, folks. They don't mind. Just cite and all will be fine. There are all sorts of automatic alerting mechanisms built in so that various moderators learn about and review anonymous changes. If you do anything wrong by accident, it will usually be undone very quickly and as long as you're still at the same IP you had when you made the unwanted change, a little notice will appear at the top of each page on the site when you next visit, letting you know, so you can go back and try your changes again properly.

 

[K.M. Richards]

But accounts are unnecessary to edit 99% of Wikipedia's articles. So if you or someone else see bad information somewhere, just click the section's "[edit]" link (or the master "Edit" link at the top of the page) and make your changes. I do this all the time without hesitation -- at least when it comes to subjects where I actually possess some facts.

I knew this ... but needed an account when a block of IP addresses used by my ISP were blocked from editing due to abuse and spam. (Having a verified account means your login overrides the IP block.)

But, having had same for several years, I am more convinced than ever that either they should be necessary to edit or that edits without accounts should be held for review before appearing. Wikipedia had a good idea in being user-editable, but there are an increasing number of "bad actors" that render that ideal more and more difficult to maintain.

 

[vchimpanzee]

edits without accounts should be held for review before appearing.

Some articles have this feature.

 

[vchimpanzee]

That has always been part of the problem with Wikipedia. If those with editing privileges (I presume that the Chimp, like myself, have actual accounts at Wikipedia for that purpose) don't update pages they can quickly get outdated.

I have nearly 70,000 edits buy a lot of those are correcting typos I made.

The other problem there is people who add things which are unsourced.

They are better at making sure edits are good than they used to be.

I had to practically rewrite one page from scratch because of that.

This is why I always advise fact-checking Wikipedia before presuming it is correct and then inadvertently posting false information here. I tend to read the source links for anything I may want to quote; I get a fuller picture that way as well.

Yeah, the sources are usually there. Some are not easy to check. You can request help with that if you really need to.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Some people used to believe Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan, and the like wrote all their own jokes and came up with all their own skits too.

I am living proof that they did not. I once -- ONCE -- wrote a joke as a freelancer that Carson used in his monologue and was dutifully paid for by his production company at NBC.

 

[yeoldeschool]

I am living proof that they did not. I once -- ONCE -- wrote a joke as a freelancer that Carson used in his monologue and was dutifully paid for by his production company at NBC.

That's beyond cool. Have you ever been able to track it down again, now that so many of his full shows are online?

But, having had same for several years, I am more convinced than ever that either they should be necessary to edit or that edits without accounts should be held for review before appearing. Wikipedia had a good idea in being user-editable, but there are an increasing number of "bad actors" that render that ideal more and more difficult to maintain.

The innocent days of the internet are largely an illusion. Although I do believe that the smartphone, by making internet access as simple as point and drool, certifiably wrecked the place. (And people thought AOL adding Usenet caused the endless September...)

 

[gr8oldies]

I worked at a small station that briefly had a comedy bit service (we paid by a ton of barter ads that got unwieldy). They had a bit going with a man running for "office". He was running on free donuts with pecans (pronounced PEE-kans). We were ready to do a sponsorship tie-in with a favorite local donut place, but they dropped the bit.

 

[K.M. Richards]

That's beyond cool. Have you ever been able to track it down again, now that so many of his full shows are online?

I haven't found it yet, but here it is. The origin was one of then-Vice President Dan Quayle's many missteps, on June 15, 1992:

Did you hear? Dan Quayle learned a new nursery rhyme!
"Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O."
(standard Carson pause)
E.

 

[CTListener]

I have nearly 70,000 edits buy a lot of those are correcting typos I made.

You're too late to correct the typo in your sentence here. (buy/but).

 

[CTListener]

The innocent days of the internet are largely an illusion. Although I do believe that the smartphone, by making internet access as simple as point and drool, certifiably wrecked the place. (And people thought AOL adding Usenet caused the endless September...)

WebTV, introduced in 1996, also included Usenet. It was my cheap first step onto the internet and I can definitely testify to the prejudice displayed by Usenet veterans toward anyone with a webtv.net address. It was much worse than what AOLers encountered.

 

[vchimpanzee]

You're too late to correct the typo in your sentence here. (buy/but).

See why I have to correct so many typos.

 

[yeoldeschool]

I haven't found it yet, but here it is.

Love it.

Remember how Carson showed various often comedic paintings as still images coming in and out of breaks? You should've sent one along with the joke -- a farmer plowing his field, pulling up Dan Quayle heads by the dozens each with the little white stick arms, black under-chin shoes, and black mustaches a la Mr. Potato Head. He would have gone to break with that after your joke for sure -- and you'd have gotten double commission.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Love it.

Thanks. The instant I saw Quayle make that gaffe about potato(e) I just heard Carson's voice in my head, and I knew that legendary pause of his was going to be gold.

Remember how Carson showed various often comedic paintings as still images coming in and out of breaks? You should've sent one along with the joke -- a farmer plowing his field, pulling up Dan Quayle heads by the dozens each with the little white stick arms, black under-chin shoes, and black mustaches a la Mr. Potato Head. He would have gone to break with that after your joke for sure -- and you'd have gotten double commission.

It was enough just to hear my joke in his monologue. I literally drove it over to NBC Burbank the same day since it was so topical. Wouldn't have even minded if they hadn't paid me (it was some standard per-joke rate for freelancers, probably didn't even cover the gasoline).

Judging from the way he smirked on that last "E", he obviously got a kick out of it. That's satisfying right here.

 

[davideduardo]

Some controversial or vandalism-prone articles are locked and require accounts to edit (you'll see padlock icons at the top right of the page in their cases). But accounts are unnecessary to edit 99% of Wikipedia's articles. So if you or someone else see bad information somewhere, just click the section's "[edit]" link (or the master "Edit" link at the top of the page) and make your changes. I do this all the time without hesitation -- at least when it comes to subjects where I actually possess some facts.



I regret that Wikipedia has gotten this reputation. It is undeserved and comes exclusively from people abusing its design, i.e. the intent of its creators. The main means is what Mr. Richard cited (people not adding citations). But the other big one is bias -- i.e. citing sources while still lying through omission. Thankfully, that's only typical when it comes to political articles. Otherwise, the site generally is not flawed in its design. It provides marvelous, full facilities for citing up to literally every sentence in an article, or even every implication within a single sentence, if necessary. And as long as people make use of that, the site works well as as an invaluable source of verifiable knowledge ... well, again, when it comes to non-political articles, at least.

Anyway, don't be afraid to edit the site without an account, folks. They don't mind. Just cite and all will be fine. There are all sorts of automatic alerting mechanisms built in so that various moderators learn about and review anonymous changes. If you do anything wrong by accident, it will usually be undone very quickly and as long as you're still at the same IP you had when you made the unwanted change, a little notice will appear at the top of each page on the site when you next visit, letting you know, so you can go back and try your changes again properly.

You paint Wikipedia as being generally accurate. It is not. In the area of radio stations, my calculation is that about 75% or a bit over are inaccurate, missing details at best and just wrong at worst.

 

[radiofan2023]

You paint Wikipedia as being generally accurate. It is not. In the area of radio stations, my calculation is that about 75% or a bit over are inaccurate, missing details at best and just wrong at worst.

I’ve never used wikipedia as a source for anything. It’s about as reliable as something written on a bathroom wall.