Manoj Bhargava would seem to hardly be hiding an intention of forcing a shotgun marriage between Audacy and Cumulus. Whether he'll be able to get enough people on board to pull it off is an open question, but, if that were to happen, Mary Berner would seem a much better fit for CEO of a combined company assuming she'd want the job.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Audacy Bankruptcy Goes To FCC
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Manoj Bhargava would seem to hardly be hiding an intention of forcing a shotgun marriage between Audacy and Cumulus. Whether he'll be able to get enough people on board to pull it off is an open question, but, if that were to happen, Mary Berner would seem a much better fit for CEO of a combined company assuming she'd want the job.
Politicians continue to pound their shoes on the table:
radioink.com
www.insideradio.com
This committee created a crisis so they could campaign on it. The problem is that nobody cares.
Everything the FCC did was out in the open, it's all a matter of public record.
The House is not in session until after the election, so this is a total waste of time.
More Congressional Scrutiny For The FCC Over Soros 'Fast Track' - Radio Ink
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is the latest demanding answers from the FCC over George Soros and Audacy.
radioink.com
Second Congressional Committee Investigates FCC’s Review Of Audacy Reorganization.
Audacy may have secured approval from the FCC for its bankruptcy reorganization plan, but opposition to the decision continues on Capitol Hill. Several Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce
This committee created a crisis so they could campaign on it. The problem is that nobody cares.
Everything the FCC did was out in the open, it's all a matter of public record.
The House is not in session until after the election, so this is a total waste of time.
Last edited:
It's a private business - Congress should stay out of it.
They're complaining about the agency procedure. Except that the changes they're complaining about were instigated by Ted Cruz. As I said, they created a crisis so they can campaign on it. It has nothing to do with Audacy or bankruptcy. It's all politics.
Guest Commentary: When the FCC Plays Politics, All Broadcasters Lose
*It’s rare that the inner regulatory workings of the FCC escape from Washington into the general public’s attention, but these are rare times, and Audacy’s plan to emerge from bankruptcy has become one of those stories that’s taken on political dimensions far beyond the usual obscurity of the...
radioinsight.com
Unfortunately, problem creation then solving is a very effective management and leadership tool. Almost every job I've ever left, both in and outside of radio, was because of that kind of person.
This isn't about that kind of thing. These are politicians creating a political issue that has nothing to do with solving the company bankruptcy problem.
Audacy has asked the Texas court to close its bankruptcy case so it can move forward:
www.insideradio.com
The stock has ceased trading, and the company will go private.
Audacy Asks Texas Court To Close Its Bankruptcy Case.
The end looks to be near for Audacy as it moves to wrap up its Chapter 11 reorganization. The company has filed a motion in federal bankruptcy court in Houston
The stock has ceased trading, and the company will go private.
Do you think Ted Cruz will fly in from Cancun at the last minute to try to stop it?Audacy has asked the Texas court to close its bankruptcy case so it can move forward:
Audacy Asks Texas Court To Close Its Bankruptcy Case.
The end looks to be near for Audacy as it moves to wrap up its Chapter 11 reorganization. The company has filed a motion in federal bankruptcy court in Houston
The stock has ceased trading, and the company will go private.
Does all this mean there's a better chance that Audacy will flip more stations to Alternative? 
What I want to know is how soon all the Audacy news/talk stations will begin carrying “Democracy Now!”
(too soon?)
(too soon?)
That's a non-commercial show for non-commercial stations.
The main thing they'll be doing for the rest of the year, according to the article, has to do with asset sales.
You do know I was joking, right? I mean, I’ve been often tagged as having a very dry sense of humor but I didn’t think it had reached Atacama Desert levels.
Not until hurricane season ends.
The FCC has responded to criticism from congress about the way it handled the Audacy bankruptcy:
www.insideradio.com
Audacy Review Was Standard, FCC Tells Congress.
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is defending how the Commission handled Audacy’s bankruptcy reorganization paperwork and ultimately came to a decision clearing the company to move forward. In a letter to
Their concern is to preserve that. What they don't seem to know is that Audacy only has 22 talk stations, and most are local hosts.
They also don't know that the foreign ownership review is still going on. So this isn't fully approved yet.
They're too busy listening to AM radio.
The issue with this is the whole Trump strategy of shooting with a shotgun and not a rifle.
Example: they came out about getting the FCC to sanction the CBS Television Network over the editing of an interview. Of course, the FCC does not regulate networks. And, of course, they don't regulate content except for the vague obscenity and indecency areas.
So, more recently, they focused only on CBS owned and operated TV stations, and changed the issue to one that is not about content but about a "deceptive" process of doctoring via editing an interview.
But the average voter does not know what the FCC regulates. How many of us who, as GM or PD, have had threats from irate listeners about a "dirty" song or joke. I even had a listener complain about a sports commentator not being "fair" to a particular team or player and invoking the "Fairness Doctrine" and demanding a retraction of negative comments.
In this case, it seems that it is a strategy of the Republican Presidential Campaign to issue very broad comments, knowing that most undecided voters will get the overview and not question the details.
To make this observation about radio and TV, the issue here is: "where does the editing of sound bites change the sentiment and meaning of the original statement(s)?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I was always amused, when the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect, how many people (hint ... a huge majority) did not understand precisely what it did and did not mandate, choosing instead to interpret it on their own as meaning "forcing my point of view onto the airwaves and stifling everything I disagree with".
In and of itself, the Doctrine's dual mandates, both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints, likely would have slowed the growth of conservative talk formats, had it not been abolished in 1987 (fun fact ... it wasn't until 2011 that the rule itself that implemented the Doctrine was abolished).
You mean "The Rush Limbaugh Empowerment Act" of 1987?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Yeah, that's the one.
- Status