1090 XEPRS Has Gone Back to Oldies Plus Wolfman - L.A. Daily News

[K.M. Richards]

And again---there are dozens of men and women in Southern California who know the industry who could have said "Yeah, I'll write about what I love for lunch money a few hours a week" when Gary died or who could have taken over LARadio-dot-com when Don got sick.

None of 'em did.

I think enough time has passed since Don's death for me to reveal this. When he announced that LARadio.com was going to end due to his cancer, David (Eduardo) Gleason offered to archive the entire site's backlog of columns, bios, etc. at WorldRadioHistory.com -- I acted as the middleman for those discussions -- but Don did not want that to happen and I did not pressure him for his reasoning.

It was during that same discussion that I suggested assuming responsibility for continuing the site with current news, proposing that the reporting duties could be split between myself, Alan Oda, Ben Fong-Torres, and (yes) Richard Wagoner. Don dismissed that suggestion as well.

So it wasn't so much a case of "none of 'em did" as it was respecting Don Barrett's last wishes.

 

[TheBigA]

And again---there are dozens of men and women in Southern California who know the industry who could have said "Yeah, I'll write about what I love for lunch money a few hours a week" when Gary died or who could have taken over LARadio-dot-com when Don got sick.

The same could be said about radio stations. Anyone with money and desire can buy a radio station. Lots of them have been available. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to get Cumulus to sell KABC. They just turned in the license for WFAS in Westchester, which was their last NYC area signal. At some point, it's likely that same fate will befall 790.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

I think enough time has passed since Don's death for me to reveal this. When he announced that LARadio.com was going to end due to his cancer, David (Eduardo) Gleason offered to archive the entire site's backlog of columns, bios, etc. at WorldRadioHistory.com -- I acted as the middleman for those discussions -- but Don did not want that to happen and I did not pressure him for his reasoning.

This is so unfortunate. So much information of his should be preserved for history. Not doing so is a tremendous loss. Any reason not to is unfathomable to me. It's not like the information is monetizable - it is not. But it is nevertheless very valuable.

 

[michael hagerty]

I think enough time has passed since Don's death for me to reveal this. When he announced that LARadio.com was going to end due to his cancer, David (Eduardo) Gleason offered to archive the entire site's backlog of columns, bios, etc. at WorldRadioHistory.com -- I acted as the middleman for those discussions -- but Don did not want that to happen and I did not pressure him for his reasoning.

It was during that same discussion that I suggested assuming responsibility for continuing the site with current news, proposing that the reporting duties could be split between myself, Alan Oda, Ben Fong-Torres, and (yes) Richard Wagoner. Don dismissed that suggestion as well.

So it wasn't so much a case of "none of 'em did" as it was respecting Don Barrett's last wishes.

Yeah, but that’s a handful of people and Don’s site.

Nobody started one on their own in the last 20 years, or since Don passed.

I’m not saying you should have, K.M., or Alan or Ben. But again, there are dozens of people who could and aren’t, and by default, the source for news about Los Angeles radio is Richard Wagoner.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Yeah, but that’s a handful of people and Don’s site.

Nobody started one on their own in the last 20 years, or since Don passed.

I’m not saying you should have, K.M., or Alan or Ben. But again, there are dozens of people who could and aren’t, and by default, the source for news about Los Angeles radio is Richard Wagoner.

The reason I did not, for the record, was because it would have been a tremendous effort to get the existing base of site visitors to be made aware of a replacement, and I also didn't want to do it without also preserving Don's work.

 

[radiofan2023]

Oh no, not that rabbit hole...again.

Rich Lieberman’s site is like the Star Wars cantina, a wretched hive of scum and villainry.

 

[KilowattKat]

Yeah, but that’s a handful of people and Don’s site.

Nobody started one on their own in the last 20 years, or since Don passed.

I’m not saying you should have, K.M., or Alan or Ben. But again, there are dozens of people who could and aren’t, and by default, the source for news about Los Angeles radio is Richard Wagoner.

Michael, IIRC didn't you take over the Saturday media column from Charlie Van Dyke in the AZ Republic? You definitely would have been a good choice to take over from Don Barrett, or maybe if Richard Wagoner ever retires...

 

[michael hagerty]

Michael, IIRC didn't you take over the Saturday media column from Charlie Van Dyke in the AZ Republic?

No, Kat. Charlie and I met when he was writing the column for the Republic and I was writing for @BossRadioDJ 's RadioOnline-dot-com. We both showed up to be in-studio for the re-launch of KZZP in 1996 after it spent four years as KVRY.

We became friends, and about a year and a half later, did the morning show at KGLQ (97.9) for a few months until Nationwide sold itself to Jacor. The show lasted months---the friendship is still going after more than 28 years.

Charlie replaced Bud Wilkinson, and if memory serves, Bill Goodykoontz followed Charlie.

You definitely would have been a good choice to take over from Don Barrett, or maybe if Richard Wagoner ever retires...

That's very kind, but I really think that person needs to be in Southern California, and I haven't lived there for decades.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

Yeah, but that’s a handful of people and Don’s site.

Nobody started one on their own in the last 20 years, or since Don passed.

I’m not saying you should have, K.M., or Alan or Ben. But again, there are dozens of people who could and aren’t, and by default, the source for news about Los Angeles radio is Richard Wagoner.

That's right. He's just a listener who likes to write about radio, he means well, he writes in good faith; and he doesn't deserve the shade thrown at him.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Rich Lieberman’s site is like the Star Wars cantina, a wretched hive of scum and villainry.

There isn't a support system like that for local radio writers anymore, if it ever existed.

There are any number of current and former broadcast people living in Southern California who could have said "Hey, I have knowledge, contacts and a laptop. Pay me $100 a week and I'll write about radio on my patio for a couple of hours every weekend."

They didn't.

Richard Wagoner did.

In the SF Bay Area, Lieberman is probably the most extreme example of that principle. No one is paying him for his work. He subsists on donations.

Here’s the funny thing: when he plays it straight, he actually does a somewhat reasonable job. In those instances, he has seemed fairly realistic and capable of gathering and reporting facts. But, much of the time, he chooses not to pay it straight. Perhaps he feels he has to adopt the written-word version of a shock jock persona to attract attention and donations. Perhaps he believes a blunt “tell it like it is” pose will cause people to see value in what he’s writing (or, more recently, his videos).

It’s all horribly misdirected, of course. I can leave aside the persistent nostalgia for KGO circa 1990; Usenet’s ba.broadcast suffered from the same problem - and, to be fair, ba.broadcast *was* around during the later years of KGO’s prime. But I can’t leave aside the blatant sexism and homophobia that Lieberman often has demonstrated. You know, the judging of women meteorologists by their cup size and the attacks on anchors who are “out”. I have no doubt he’s alienated countless potential donors with those remarks.

But ya get whatcha pay for. To my knowledge, Bill Mann was the next-to-last media columnist writing regularly about radio in the Bay Area. (Disclaimer: I’m not counting occasional news stories; I’m referring to a reporter with a regular column on the subject.) In the end, he was writing for the suburban East Bay papers that later got pulled into the Bay Area News Group. He did good work at the Oakland Tribune in the 80s, but the later work had a bitter, sarcastic tone to it.

I assume Ben Fong-Torres is still around, but there’s very little about the *business* of radio in what he writes. When there has been a story prominent enough to cause the Chronicle/SFGate to have someone write about it, there’s also very little about the *business*. Quite frankly, these days, it’s business-related issues that are driving what’s newsworthy in radio, not a tabulation of what DJ is going where. I don’t know enough about Los Angeles radio to apply that yardstick to what Wagoner writes, but, based on the comments in this thread, I can hypothesize that his work is a throwback to the earlier days of fandom, not reflective of the current harsh realities that drive much of what happens.

 

[K.M. Richards]

That's right. He's just a listener who likes to write about radio, he means well, he writes in good faith; and he doesn't deserve the shade thrown at him.

While your reasoning is factual, Daryl Lynn, yes, he does deserve the shade. It's pretty obvious that we have nothing against him personally, but the rose-colored glasses have to go.

Every time he posts even a hint about past, no longer viable formats, returning as something other than the brokered XEPRS situation, the fanboys of whatever format can be counted on to start a whole new blitz of posts about same. Even though Wagoner's column that started all this was harmless enough, he still ended it with a wish that similar programming could return to KHJ.

Quite honestly, those of us still trying to survive in the business that has changed so much over the years that we have found ourselves adapting multiple times just since the turn of the century just to keep going, Wagoner is -- pure and simple -- a distraction.

Yes, he likes to write about radio, but his affinity for the past is annoying when he tries to make the tenuous connection to the present. As I have said at least a couple of times, and now feel I need to say again: The best thing he could do is write his column in a way that tells the history of Southern California radio without advocating that any of it could or should return. As also has been said, there is little "current" news to report, but he could still mention anything at the bottom of his column.

I'd just like to see what he does be useful and entertaining instead of worthless and irritating.

 

[radiofan2023]

Yes, he likes to write about radio, but his affinity for the past is annoying when he tries to make the tenuous connection to the present. As I have said at least a couple of times, and now feel I need to say again: The best thing he could do is write his column in a way that tells the history of Southern California radio without advocating that any of it could or should return.

Better yet, explaining why it couldn’t/can’t without throwing money down a black hole, would actually make his columns better and educate people.

 

[michael hagerty]

While your reasoning is factual, Daryl Lynn, yes, he does deserve the shade. It's pretty obvious that we have nothing against him personally, but the rose-colored glasses have to go.

Every time he posts even a hint about past, no longer viable formats, returning as something other than the brokered XEPRS situation, the fanboys of whatever format can be counted on to start a whole new blitz of posts about same. Even though Wagoner's column that started all this was harmless enough, he still ended it with a wish that similar programming could return to KHJ.

Quite honestly, those of us still trying to survive in the business that has changed so much over the years that we have found ourselves adapting multiple times just since the turn of the century just to keep going, Wagoner is -- pure and simple -- a distraction.

Yes, he likes to write about radio, but his affinity for the past is annoying when he tries to make the tenuous connection to the present. As I have said at least a couple of times, and now feel I need to say again: The best thing he could do is write his column in a way that tells the history of Southern California radio without advocating that any of it could or should return. As also has been said, there is little "current" news to report, but he could still mention anything at the bottom of his column.

I'd just like to see what he does be useful and entertaining instead of worthless and irritating.

I must not have made as much sense as I thought I did yesterday.

K.M., Richard's not a journalist and never worked in the industry. Critiquing him (and this is the reason I stopped) is like critiquing the dog that rides the bicycle. It's a miracle that the dog can do it at all.

Yeah, he's stuck in the past. Don Page thought it was 1963 until the day in 1974 that James Brown replaced him at the Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper group that pays Richard to write about radio (and again, I'll bet you lunch that it's a shockingly small fee per word or story) is still paying him after 37 years. There are probably a lot of reasons for that.

As I've said, I'm sure he works cheap (that's not a knock on him---any freelancer for a newspaper---even some major dailies---is working cheaply), maybe he's an absolute prince of a guy, to boot.

But most likely the number one reason he's still writing what he does is that no one has gone to the paper and said "I can do this better" and been willing to put in however many hours a week it would take to write something interesting and relevant for the money the paper's willing to pay.

In the meantime, the South Bay Daily Breeze, The Orange County Register, the L.A. Daily News and wherever else his columns run are hardly the newspapers of record for Southern California. The best antidote to his being a distraction is to not read his stuff.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I must not have made as much sense as I thought I did yesterday.

K.M., Richard's not a journalist and never worked in the industry. Critiquing him (and this is the reason I stopped) is like critiquing the dog that rides the bicycle. It's a miracle that the dog can do it at all.

Yeah, he's stuck in the past. Don Page thought it was 1963 until the day in 1974 that James Brown replaced him at the Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper group that pays Richard to write about radio (and again, I'll bet you lunch that it's a shockingly small fee per word or story) is still paying him after 37 years. There are probably a lot of reasons for that.

As I've said, I'm sure he works cheap (that's not a knock on him---any freelancer for a newspaper---even some major dailies---is working cheaply), maybe he's an absolute prince of a guy, to boot.

But most likely the number one reason he's still writing what he does is that no one has gone to the paper and said "I can do this better" and been willing to put in however many hours a week it would take to write something interesting and relevant for the money the paper's willing to pay.

In the meantime, the South Bay Daily Breeze, The Orange County Register, the L.A. Daily News and wherever else his columns run are hardly the newspapers of record for Southern California. The best antidote to his being a distraction is to not read his stuff.

You made sense, Mike, but the fact remains that even with everything you summarized, his column is still irrelevant ... except for the fanboys who think he's reality. I do manage to avoid his column whenever I can (the column on XETRA is the first one I have read in months) but that won't stop the fallout from those who take his remarks as "proof" these formats are still viable and then post here and other boards. Then he becomes impossible for me to ignore, because the fallout becomes the irritant.

I still think my suggestion for changing his column's focus would be an improvement, and I bet the Los Angeles Newspaper Group wouldn't care one way or the other.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

You made sense, Mike, but the fact remains that even with everything you summarized, his column is still irrelevant ... except for the fanboys who think he's reality. I do manage to avoid his column whenever I can (the column on XETRA is the first one I have read in months) but that won't stop the fallout from those who take his remarks as "proof" these formats are still viable and then post here and other boards. Then he becomes impossible for me to ignore, because the fallout becomes the irritant.

I still think my suggestion for changing his column's focus would be an improvement, and I bet the Los Angeles Newspaper Group wouldn't care one way or the other.

What's lost in all of this discussion is that the radio column is the least important one of any paper, past or present. Go ahead, ask the editor.

 

[K.M. Richards]

What's lost in all of this discussion is that the radio column is the least important one of any paper, past or present.

Except to us ... 😝

 

[TheBigA]

What's lost in all of this discussion is that the radio column is the least important one of any paper, past or present. Go ahead, ask the editor.

It depends. There was originally a lot of hostility aimed at radio by the so-called "serious" print reporters. Radio was seen as entertainment. Not real news. The radio column was generally placed among the entertainment stories. Then, of course, a lot of newspaper owners started to buy radio & TV stations. Gannett, Tribune, Hearst, and many more were invested in broadcasting. That probably didn't change the view of the editors.

 

[KilowattKat]

Is all this talk about Wagoner because of this line he wrote at the end of the XEPRS segment?

... making me think our own KHJ (930 AM) could do something similar. Just for fun!

Its just a brief wishful thinking comment that even he didn't seem to take seriously...'Just for fun!'

I like reading his column, he obviously loves radio. What's the harm? I'm in agreement with Darryl Lynn. I cant comment on previous columns, but I will on this one as it has created a lot of conversation.

Much ado about nothing ..

 

[davideduardo]

It depends. There was originally a lot of hostility aimed at radio by the so-called "serious" print reporters. Radio was seen as entertainment. Not real news. The radio column was generally placed among the entertainment stories. Then, of course, a lot of newspaper owners started to buy radio & TV stations. Gannett, Tribune, Hearst, and many more were invested in broadcasting. That probably didn't change the view of the editors.

Remember, too, that many or the first 1920's stations were owned by papers, the first being WWJ in Detroit. Another famous one was the World's Greatest Newspaper. Or "Welcome South, Brother" from the Atlanta Journal. El Mundo's WKAQ in San Juan. WHK and its "satellite" stations from the Vail/Holt family's Plain Dealer. And many, many more around the country.

In fact, of the surviving stations after the FRC cleaned the dial in the late 20's, we had an assortment of owner groups which I think was led by papers and churches, followed by radio set makers and then an assortment ranging from car dealers (like KFI) to agricultural suppliers (KMA and KFMF). Even one movie studio had KFWarnerBrothers. As a group, merchants were the large, but very diverse, group ranging from department stores to insurance companies to heating oil and coal dealers.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Radio-Logbooks/Official-Radio-Log-1928-1929.pdf shows the owners of stations in the 1928-29 "DX Season" and you can see plenty of local merchants from the World's Largest Store to local merchants who wanted a presence in the new medium that they owned... even Gimbel's WGBS in Queens! And a bunch of churches, local governments and colleges, for sure.

So there was always a big presence of newspapers in ownership. But the transformation of radio from a nighttime network news, drama and entertainment medium to music formats emphasizing "drive time" and daytime listening wrecked the logic of some paper's belief in radio. Some divested as radio licensees were handed out freely after the War and others used radio to expand into TV and FM, such as WTMJ in Milwaukee.

My favorite case is that of my stepfather who insisted that the Plain Dealer's WHK in Cleveland, a declining old network affiliate, be sold. It promptly "went #1" under John Kluge as "Color Channel 14" in the later 1950's. And when I started building my first station in 1964, he told me and my mom that it would "never work" and that I was wasting my "college savings".

So what I think, after all my verbiage, you are referring to is the mostly post WW II interest by papers in new opportunities in radio and, particularly, TV. The New York Times, never an early radio owner, started its 1560 AM in New York in that era. Other papers looked at radio and TV, and until the FCC quashed cross ownership, many went into TV.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Is all this talk about Wagoner because of this line he wrote at the end of the XEPRS segment?

... making me think our own KHJ (930 AM) could do something similar. Just for fun!

Its just a brief wishful thinking comment that even he didn't seem to take seriously...'Just for fun!'

Except he does that more and more often. And -- as I said earlier -- even a "just for fun" sets off the fanboys who read that (incorrectly, but such is the nature of fanboys) as "that could happen".

And then, off we go down the rabbit hole.

In other words, it's not whether or not he was serious, it's the aftereffect. And he could fix that by going to a "history teller" format, which he could do easily since he already remembers so much, and it wouldn't have the ripple effect I mentioned.