Audacy Sportstalkers and Houston future

[BamaTX]

The Soros talking points brought up earlier are simply regurgitating a lot of nonsense

Please, by all means point out the "nonsense". The adjectives you use are clearly to shame and discourage people from having honest conversations about the intent of LMN. It's dishonest.

For us to pretend like there is absolutely no political, social, or even religious affiliations behind some radio groups is quite puerile. We have to acknowledge where the owners stand in order to understand their intent.

You might want to learn about the Soros family’s experience with European fascism in the 1930’s and you might understand them a bit more.

Now you're getting political. No one has any desire to discuss politics on this board, much less justify such actions. All we are doing is pointing out the political inclination of the group behind LMN.

NO ONE IS CRITICIZING OR DEFENDING THE POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OF ANYONE

Please give me examples of the politics that LMN has applied to their stations outside of Miami and the unique to the market anti-Castro dynamic.

For starters, I didn't say they did. And even if I were to oblige your request, you're asking me to do something you wanted to avoid in the first place (which is talk specifically about politics).

So in essence, you're just being argumentative because, with all due respect, you're emotionally unstable when it comes to politics. And now you're trying to bait people into talking about something that goes against board rules.

But I will oblige. Like David pointed out, the move was not about the content they planned to put on the air. It was likely more about stopping Salem, a for-profit conservative group, from launching an alleged center right Spanish talk network.

I am doing no such thing, and I resent your accusation, especially when so many rightwingers are bullying their opponents, led by the Orange Narcissist.

You're now indulging on the very thing you said you wanted to move away from; POLITICS.

You played yourself.

Do that again and I will put you on ignore, along with the now-banned “TV Autism” guy.

No skin off my back. But before you do, please don't ignore my original query; what exactly was said that constitutes "paranoia"?

Just answer that please.

 

[BamaTX]

City of Houston feels its safe to build apartments on superfund sites next to the tower site

I know they're moving forward with opening that apartment this spring. But wasn't that housing site raided by a federal agency around the time of the accident? If I recall, they confiscated soil samples to test. Not sure whatever came of that.

I also recall that the city lied to the federal government in their application when it came to the height of the tower. But of course, that was likely more of a metric/imperial error since they listed the tower at 305 feet (some documents have it listed at 305 meters). Of course, the city probably feels that error is settled after the accident brought it down.

I guess the moral of the story is to use discretion when it comes to trusting the Housing Authority.

 

[BamaTX]

The new owners did not kill it, but they tried to make it more centrist.

That's my definition of "killing it".

Radio Mambi was simply too influential. It's the only stations I know of that had two Hispanic Republicans fight each other outside the studios over stuff said on-air.

 

[davideduardo]

That's my definition of "killing it".

Point taken. I have always been a supporter of the exile community (and got an award or two for that) and found that "neutralizing" Mambí totally defeated its raison d'etre.

Radio Mambi was simply too influential. It's the only stations I know of that had two Hispanic Republicans fight each other outside the studios over stuff said on-air.

There were several other vehemently anti-Castro voices, but none had the commentators and reputation that Mambí had earned under Pérez Roura. And they capitalized on the highly politicized exile community.

Old Miami Cuban joke that translates well: Three Cuban exiles have an angry argument about politics. One leaves and starts a newspaper, another leaves and forms a political party. They third goes to a gun shop and buys a rifle and goes to the Everglades to train for the invasion of Cuba.

 

[2Speakers]

Please, by all means point out the "nonsense". The adjectives you use are clearly to shame and discourage people from having honest conversations about the intent of LMN. It's dishonest.

Soros Fund Management certainly isn't shy about their goals or the political nature of them. They seem to be quite proud of their poltical aims.

Which makes it puzzling that so many people here appear to get their wittle feewings hurt when you simply quote the SFM website. They've been spinning this false narrative that the ONLY goal of SFM is to make money with Audacy and LMN, and appear to get really offended when you point out that SFM itself says they have other goals for their investments.

You bested them in the debate, so they hit back the only way they can, trying to shout down the truth, and taking passive-agressive swipes like laughing at every post that doesn't fit their narrative.

But the Soros family made their intentions very plain. If they are invested, their goals are both to make money, and to advance the ideals of the Open Society Foundations. If push comes to shove, the latter goal is the more important one, which is the only thing that can explain their investment in two money losing radio companies.

 

[TheBigA]

SFM itself says they have other goals for their investments.

It doesn't matter what they say. It matters what they do. In the 4 years that they've had ownership of radio stations, they haven't done anything political. If you have an example otherwise, post it here.

 

[2Speakers]

It doesn't matter what they say. It matters what they do. In the 4 years that they've had ownership of radio stations, they haven't done anything political. If you have an example otherwise, post it here.

Trying to make Radio Mambi politically neutral, then killing it outright comes to mind. And if David Eduardo is right, the whole point of LMN was to keep those stations from becoming right wing Spanish outlets owned by Salem.

I'd call that political, wouldn't you?

Again, the Soros family will wait until the time is right to make their move with Audacy. It's a much bigger prize than LMN. Making their move now, with the Trump administration in control of the FCC would be a really bad idea. They'll wait for a friendly political climate.

 

[TheBigA]

Trying to make Radio Mambi politically neutral, then killing it outright comes to mind.

Who won the election? How did changing Mambi help Soros politically? It didn't.

The Mambi listeners found another station that did what they wanted. Radio programming doesn't change minds.

My take on that investment is he wanted to help two Hispanic women become radio owners at a time when financing was tough. That's it.

Who else was going to give two Hispanic women with no radio experience $60 million? Nobody.

 

[2Speakers]

Who won the election? How did changing Mambi help Soros politically? It didn't.

The Mambi listeners found another station that did what they wanted. Radio programming doesn't change minds.

My take on that investment is he wanted to help two Hispanic women become radio owners at a time when financing was tough.

And what Hispanic leadership has SFM put in place at the bigger prize, Audacy?

The corporate leadership is all white.

The board of directors is 100% white.

Any other theories?

 

[TheBigA]

And what Hispanic leadership has SFM put in place at the bigger prize, Audacy?

He isn't a cookie cutter investor. That was his goal with them

Any other theories?

I have several. But I don't think it has anything to do with radio programming.

As I said, radio doesn't change minds. The easiest was to piss off an audience is try to change their views. Look at CBS News.

 

[2Speakers]

He isn't a cookie cutter investor. That was his goal with them

You're entitled to that opinion, but I'd wager the sinking of Radio Mambi is far more impactful than elevating a couple of executives with no radio experience from a SFM/OSF standpoint, as is keeping the stations away from Salem.

When the time comes, and it will, I suspect SFM won't care about alienating the audience of their money losing radio operation. Advancing their agenda will.

 

[TheBigA]

You're entitled to that opinion, but I'd wager the sinking of Radio Mambi is far more impactful than elevating a couple of executives with no radio experience from a SFM/OSF standpoint, as is keeping the stations away from Salem.

They had no impact at all on the 2024 election. Salem had no money to buy more radio, and ultimately shifted direction after that.

 

[2Speakers]

They had no impact at all on the 2024 election. Salem had no money to buy more radio, and ultimately shifted direction after that.

I think I said somewhere earlier in the thread that this is a long game.

Let's flip this. Why did SFM buy two money losing radio companies, one of which has an all-white C-suite and board?

I think history has proven radio companies can't slash their way to profitability, so they had to have some other reason for buying Audacy, right?

 

[TheBigA]

I think history has proven radio companies can't slash their way to profitability, so they had to have some other reason for buying Audacy, right?

Someone earlier pointed out that before the CBS purchase, Entercom was a profitable company.

His investment basically solved their debt problem. We'll see how they handle the new FCC ownership rules.

 

[2Speakers]

Someone earlier pointed out that before the CBS purchase, Entercom was a profitable company.

His investment basically solved their debt problem. We'll see how they handle the new FCC ownership rules.

"Solving" the debt problem would be paying it off instead of paying ~$70M annually to service it. For whatever reason, they haven't done that.

It's not about "ownership rules." It's about political ideology. SFM will wait for a Democrat controlled FCC before making his move with Audacy.

 

[TheBigA]

SFM will wait for a Democrat controlled FCC before making his move with Audacy.

The current FCC would like to see them disqualified from ownership of broadcasting.

DOJ is pushing prosecutors to criminally charge George Soros: report

US attorneys are directed to open criminal investigations into billionaire philanthropist’s Open Society Foundations

www.independent.co.uk

 

[2Speakers]

The current FCC would like to see them disqualified from ownership of broadcasting.

DOJ is pushing prosecutors to criminally charge George Soros: report

US attorneys are directed to open criminal investigations into billionaire philanthropist’s Open Society Foundations

www.independent.co.uk

Ding! Ding! Ding!

So you get why they're waiting until there's a friendly administration in power to make their move?

 

[TheBigA]

So you get why they're waiting until there's a friendly administration in power to make their move?

They may not last that long. That would be disastrous for Audacy. Certainly would have an impact on this discussion.

 

[davideduardo]

It doesn't matter what they say. It matters what they do. In the 4 years that they've had ownership of radio stations, they haven't done anything political. If you have an example otherwise, post it here.

Among their first moves was to castrate WAQI and remove the entire anti-Castro focus of this heritage station.

 

[TheBigA]

Among their first moves was to castrate WAQI and remove the entire anti-Castro focus of this heritage station.

But as I said, it didn't affect the 2024 election. The listeners and some staff just moved to another radio station.

People like what people like. That's the same regardless of the programming. Music or talk.