Bill Nojay on WYSL

[The Voice of Reason]

Local News on WYSL

I think that WYSL should probably focus more of it's energy on boosting it's newsgathering and (local) hard-news reporting

So what are you suggesting that WYSL dump carrying Channel 10 news and hire their own reporters? I hear plenty of local news when I listen to the station. Besides other Rochester radio stations seem to be following the trend of using TV for their local news. WROC-AM carries Channel 8's news and even the big 1180 cut some of their radio news staff last year, and there is talk that WHAM may start relying more on Channel 13 for its local news. The only radio station that doesn't appear to rely on television for news is WXXI-AM. But then again their coverage is more centered on what's happening with the RPO, or kissing up to some possible contributor to the station.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Re: Local News on WYSL

The only radio station that doesn't appear to rely on television for news is WXXI-AM. But then again their coverage is more centered on what's happening with the RPO, or kissing up to some possible contributor to the station.

Having worked at WXXI for many years I can attest to the fact that your observation the news department only concentrated on the RPO or, as you put it “kissing up to possible contributors for money" is the furthest thing from the truth.

We reported on a number of local news stories and even broke a number of stories that other stations didn't have. WXXI has won numerous awards over the years for its news coverage and features.

Consider if you will that the WXXI news department consists of a full-time reporter covering the state capitol, and three reporters in Rochester, not counting the news director, and the radio news department is working with less staff compared to when I first started in 1990.

I feel that the station does a damn good job of reporting on local issues. And you’re right; WXXI does not air TV news. It’s the radio news division that carries the ball.

Your obvious bias towards public broadcasting reflects in your post.

 

[Savage]

I called Ms. Brooks "The Magster" again this morning, so "hork away," my friend - and thanks for listening.

 

[dampier]

With CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, AAR, MSNBC, NPR/PBS, Current and most local TV populated and controlled by leftists, and more being churned out by the socialistas at our universities every year, there can't possibly be enough conservative voices on radio to balance the warped media landscape today. Kudos to Bob Savage.

I missed this nonsense the first time around. Spare us the playbook rhetoric about the "liberal media." This reflexive palaver doesn't play in the reality-based community. And to suggest that Current has enough of an audience to impact anyone with its YouTube format (much less suggest a directed partisan bent) indicates you don't even watch it. But that's okay, because nobody else does either.

My recommendation is that you take a breather from the conservative talk radio, the Fox News, and the right wing blogs which has you convinced of a grand Hugo Chavez-like conspiracy. They've made you paranoid. The reality, after two weeks of non-stop Anna Nicole and Ms. Spears Goes to Shear Ego, is that the media you speak of has two interests:

1) To cancel news on cable news.
2) To spend as little money as possible on the most irrelevent stories that could attract the most viewers away from E! and Entertainment Tonight.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Re: Local News on WYSL

Having worked at WXXI for many years I can attest to the fact that your observation the news department only concentrated on the RPO or, as you put it “kissing up to possible contributors for money" is the furthest thing from the truth.

We reported on a number of local news stories and even broke a number of stories that other stations didn't have. WXXI has won numerous awards over the years for its news coverage and features.

Consider if you will that the WXXI news department consists of a full-time reporter covering the state capitol, and three reporters in Rochester, not counting the news director, and the radio news department is working with less staff compared to when I first started in 1990.

I feel that the station does a damn good job of reporting on local issues. And you’re right; WXXI does not air TV news. It’s the radio news division that carries the ball.

Your obvious bias towards public broadcasting reflects in your post.

I have no bias towards public broadcasting at the national level, but I do object to the "poor poor us" routine Silverstein pulls every time I hear his voice on the air during pledge drives begging for money. If WXXI is in such financial dire straits, which they are not, then maybe he and other top executives of that public broadcasting operation should take a cut in their huge salaries and benefits. As for the claim that the station does not cater to the rich and influential in their news coverage, that is a bunch of baloney. Of course they do because that is where their operating funding comes from, along with their underwriting. When is the last time WXXI covered a story about the plight of homeless people in Rochester? How about the growing hispanic population? All I am saying is that if WXXI wants to truly be a "public" broadcasting station, then represent the entire public and not cater to those with money in their pockets. Maybe when you worked there the station covered more news, but lately that isn't the case, at least in my opinion.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Re: Local News on WYSL

What does fundraising and the salaries executives make have to do with WXXI's news coverage? Again you have proven my point that you're bias against public broadcasting by using that worn-out chestnut as part of your argument. Yes some people make more money than others. That's a given no matter where one works. Big deal! If someone doesn't like the salary they're making, then move on to another job.

Regarding news coverage, the station, at least when I was there, did report on several topics you mentioned. We were the first to report on efforts to find a permanent museum for Fredrick Douglass which NPR carried as a national story provided to them by yours truly. I personally have done several stories about the homeless and not just during the winter months either.

Because of your lack of knowledge about what the news department has covered in the way of stories and features, I highly doubt you listen to WXXI-AM at all.

 

[dampier]

Re: Local News on WYSL

I have no bias towards public broadcasting at the national level, but I do object to the "poor poor us" routine Silverstein pulls every time I hear his voice on the air during pledge drives begging for money. If WXXI is in such financial dire straits, which they are not, then maybe he and other top executives of that public broadcasting operation should take a cut in their huge salaries and benefits. As for the claim that the station does not cater to the rich and influential in their news coverage, that is a bunch of baloney. Of course they do because that is where their operating funding comes from, along with their underwriting. When is the last time WXXI covered a story about the plight of homeless people in Rochester? How about the growing hispanic population? All I am saying is that if WXXI wants to truly be a "public" broadcasting station, then represent the entire public and not cater to those with money in their pockets. Maybe when you worked there the station covered more news, but lately that isn't the case, at least in my opinion.

I think the one universal truth about WXXI that I have witnessed first hand (and that includes direct involvement with Mr. Silverstein and the former VP who was a family friend and took off for Springfield, Massachusetts when she didn't land the top spot when the former president left), is that there is a MAJOR difference between the management and news department at WXXI. It's night and day. And part of that is to be expected. The management needs to concern itself with keeping the whole thing viable -- fundraising can occupy a massive amount of any manager's time and attention. I've been president of a non-profit locally for several years now, and it occupies our time, even though I do it for no salary. Of course, being intimately involved in the non-profit community exposed to be the seedy side of it as well, especially among the more wealthy non profits -- people are extremely paranoid about their money supply. Collaborative efforts are stimied out of fear the group you work with will swoop in and steal your donor list or projects only get done when there is a guarantee of funding for them, regardless of need. There are horror stories involving everything from the United Way and American Red Cross to WXXI. A lot of it involves the use of funds by upper management in ways that are simply profligate.

The bigger an operation you run, the more likely you are to lose touch with the people you are supposed to serve and the more you end up serving your donor base. And I think today's WXXI targets its programming far more to the family living in Pittsford than they do to the folks renting a place on North Clinton Avenue.

None of this does or should reflect one iota on the on-air and news staff at the station, because they have absolutely no responsibility for making it that way.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

I hate to characterize anyone's opinion as being wrong. But I will do so in the case of "Voice of Reason." I have known WXXI's news director, Peter Iglinski, for 15 years. He is one of the most sound radio journalists I know. Peter would never assign or do a story solely for the purpose of appealing to underwriters or the wealthy. "VOR," I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know what you're talking about. I've reviewed the last 100 or so stories WXXI has done at its web site. I see a number of government stories, which represent what most newspapers, TV and radio tend to cover because -- well -- government officials tend to make news. I would then assume you would criticize the D&C and local TV stations as well if you think such coverage is unwarranted. A few business stories that were done focused on a negative aspect such as a supermarket closing in the city and company layoffs. They certainly weren't glowing puff pieces on the businesses in question. There were a couple of pieces on young people doing some good things. So, where is your criticism coming from? Mark Giardina worked in that newsroom. As I said, I KNOW Peter and have the utmost respect for him. I think we're better qualified to express an opinion on this matter than you. Instead of flaming away at Mark and me, give us specific examples of stories to buttress your argument. Then, we can have a discussion and debate. But making broad generalizations that WXXI News skews its coverage is unwarranted and blatantly unfair! I will add that I don't know WXXI's upper management. Living in Buffalo, I haven't heard WXXI's fundraisers. So, I can't comment on VOR's opinions of the on air solicitations. But that's a separate issue anyway. What I do know is that a firewall exists that protects the WXXI newsroom from the station's fundraising and underwriting departments.

 

[vistua]

Here we go again, "the liberal media" canard from the O'Reilly-Hannity-Fox News-Bauerle-Limbaugh cabal.

Perhaps you should reread my post, I am not at all in this supposed cabal. Also, a welfare-statist is one who seeks to apply the government to fix societal ills. Not necessarily someone who cuts taxes on big business. Some, perhaps many, so-called "neo" conservatives are technically welfare-statists, but this term is generally not applied to them.

Regarding comments that WYSL is OK because it is heavily dependent on WHEC-TV. That is exactly the point! News 10 NBC is getting sillier and sillier every day (see http://vistua.freeshell.org/cgi-bin/page.cgi?method=posting&y=2007&m=feb&id=15-utterly-silly)! It's reporting, and journalistic sense is-- in my opinion defective-- that is why I think that WYSL should cease relying on it. (Beside, the more reporters there are, the more likely they, as a body, are to nose something up.)

What does fundraising and the salaries executives make have to do with WXXI's news coverage?

I am forced to admit... National Public Radio actually knows what is valid news, and what isn't. They are highly biased, true, but they do know what the news is! If you can pick through the bias you can come to an understanding of what is happening in your world today. The same thing applies to the BBC, the News Hour, and other "public" broadcasters. At the present time I have not noted any commercial broadcaster except for BBC World, which cares about news. Unfortunately, however, my knowledge of commercial broadcasting outside the English Speaking world is dim. (I would have included ITN, in this list, however I am not sure about them.)

I should also note that it is very important to listen to liberals, and conservatives, and fascists, and anarchists, and communists, and totally incoherent people, like Rev Straik . Just because each individual group of beliefs may be wrong as a whole, or from time to time, does not mean that they have nothing at all to say.

Mr Savage: some of the reasons that I do not want you to refer to Ms Brooks as "The Magster" are

• It is immature (You have graduated from high school, act like it!)
• It is unprofessional (I can only just imagine Murrow referring to McCarthy as "The Carthster")
• It is impolite, (you would not call her this to her face)
• This behavior reduces your credibility (I don't think I should listen if you told me something important, just after saying "The Magster")

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I hate to characterize anyone's opinion as being wrong. But I will do so in the case of "Voice of Reason." I have known WXXI's news director, Peter Iglinski, for 15 years. He is one of the most sound radio journalists I know. Peter would never assign or do a story solely for the purpose of appealing to underwriters or the wealthy. "VOR," I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know what you're talking about. I've reviewed the last 100 or so stories WXXI has done at its web site. I see a number of government stories, which represent what most newspapers, TV and radio tend to cover because -- well -- government officials tend to make news. I would then assume you would criticize the D&C and local TV stations as well if you think such coverage is unwarranted. A few business stories that were done focused on a negative aspect such as a supermarket closing in the city and company layoffs. They certainly weren't glowing puff pieces on the businesses in question. There were a couple of pieces on young people doing some good things. So, where is your criticism coming from? Mark Giardina worked in that newsroom. As I said, I KNOW Peter and have the utmost respect for him. I think we're better qualified to express an opinion on this matter than you. Instead of flaming away at Mark and me, give us specific examples of stories to buttress your argument. Then, we can have a discussion and debate. But making broad generalizations that WXXI News skews its coverage is unwarranted and blatantly unfair! I will add that I don't know WXXI's upper management. Living in Buffalo, I haven't heard WXXI's fundraisers. So, I can't comment on VOR's opinions of the on air solicitations. But that's a separate issue anyway. What I do know is that a firewall exists that protects the WXXI newsroom from the station's fundraising and underwriting departments.

Please allow me to respond. You stated in your post that you went to WXXI's web page and read over a number of stories the news department has covered during a certain period of time. It should be noted that the news department does not have to put every story they air on their web page, and most likely don't. I not only have heard so-called news stories that the station has aired catering to certain wealthy people and businesses, I personally and professionally know some of those individuals and they have told me how time and time again how they've been, using their words, "hounded" by Mr. Silverstein to donate money to the station. One person, whose name I will not mention on here, was even a guest on WXXI's talk show and this person told me how, after the talk show was over, he literally had to sneak out of the building before being corralled by Mr. Silverstein who was lurking in the hallways in order to get this individual to donate money. That being said, I also know people who used to or currently work with Peter Iglinski. They agree with your assessment that Mr. Iglinski is a highly respective journalist. Yet these same people also admit that when Mr. Silverstein wants a certain story covered, even if Mr. Iglinski has concerns about crossing a journalistic boundary, the story gets covered; or else. I urge you to listen to WXXI for a period of time and you will notice what I have for some time now. I am not fabricating what I've wrote on here just to slam WXXI. I base my writings on information provided to me by reliable individuals and what I've heard myself on the radio. And again, I will state for the record, that I am not an opponent of public broadcasting; just a person who believes that it is hypocritical of any non-profit organization to engage in tactics to secure funding from the public by claiming financial distress while that organization's top executives are paid substantial salaries and receive luxurious perks like a free SUV every few years.

 

[therealjm12]

Mr Savage: some of the reasons that I do not want you to refer to Ms Brooks as "The Magster" are

* It is immature (You have graduated from high school, act like it!)
* It is unprofessional (I can only just imagine Murrow referring to McCarthy as "The Carthster")
* It is impolite, (you would not call her this to her face)
* This behavior reduces your credibility (I don't think I should listen if you told me something important, just after saying "The Magster")

I think that Bob Savage would have no problem calling Ms. Brooks "The Magster" to her face and she would not be offended. In fact, she would probably find it very funny.

 

[vistua]

I think that Bob Savage would have no problem calling Ms. Brooks "The Magster" to her face and she would not be offended. In fact, she would probably find it very funny.

I politely submit that something is wrong with him, in this eventuality. As I noted in point two, this is not an appropriate way for journalists to refer to elected officials. Not only is it irreverent it gives a comprising appearance of familiarity.

However. I do believe that the topic at hand was Bill Nojay's show. It appears that we have begun to diverge (and I admit some guilt in the matter) into such topics as Maggie Brooks, Mr Savage's business acumen, those EVIL WXXI Fatcats (real or imagined), the liberal media, and the very real iniquities of Rush Limbaugh

Gently I suggest that perhaps we should start discussing the programme again.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

When his show first aired I was critical of Mr. Nojay because instead of concentrating on New York's upstate economy, he spent the entire hour going after Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. I thought to myself this program is just another conservative hot-air festival. However I will admit that over the past few weeks Mr. Nojay has brought up some very interesting topics relating to our dismal economy and his show has improved to the point that not only am I a regular listener now, but have encouraged my friends and business associates to listen as well.

 

[Element9]

Not only is it irreverent it gives a comprising appearance of familiarity.

Did it ever occur to you that these two people might be longtime friends... in other words, they might be familiar with each other? Hence, the appearance of familiarity?

Gently I suggest that perhaps we should start discussing the programme again.

Yes, let us discuss the programme. Ehh?

-9-

 

[Mark Giardina]

Where on God's green Earth do you get your so-called information from? People sneaking out of the building; the management dictating what stories the radio news department carries. To put it bluntly someone has been feeding you a lot of BS.

Never once did I see a guest of WXXI's talk show sneak out of the building to avoid anyone. The truth is that many of Bob's guests stayed after the show was over with to talk with either Bob or chat with us in the radio news department. If Norm Silverstein happened to come into the newsroom it was to greet that individual, not "lurking in the hallways" as you put it.

As for this notion that Peter Iglinski received his marching orders from the front office when it came to news coverage is pure baloney. General assignments were either handled by Peter, Bud Lowell, or me.

Part of the job of an executive of a non-profit organization is to raise operating capital and how do you expect Norm Silverstein or anyone else to do that unless they have contact with people and organizations that can provide such funding? Would you prefer to have commercials on public radio and TV stations, or go the way the British do when it comes to funding the BBC?

It's been three years since I left WXXI and I am not here to defend them. But I can't sit by and read this fairy tale you are spinning here about so-and-so told you this, and informed sources told you that. You didn't work at WXXI ... I did. And what you are claiming is 100% incorrect.

 

[Radknowski]

The Evolution Of This Thread

Whoa! Time out.

While reading Mark's strident rebuttal (in bold, no less) in this ongoing WXXI dust-up, the thought occured... are not PBS and NPR arguably running de facto commercials with the seemingly ever increasing underwriting announcements?

When all is said and done, these ten-fifteen second promos might just as well be called commercials. Despite the fact that they don't contain "call to action" directives, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If John or Jane Doh were surveyed and asked what these short announcements were, it's likely six out of ten would respond, "they sound like commercials to me."

We now return to "Days Of Our Lives At WXXI."

 

[Mark Giardina]

Re: The Evolution Of This Thread

Whoa! Time out.

While reading Mark's strident rebuttal (in bold, no less) in this ongoing WXXI dust-up, the thought occured... are not PBS and NPR arguably running de facto commercials with the seemingly ever increasing underwriting announcements?

When all is said and done, these ten-fifteen second promos might just as well be called commercials. Despite the fact that they don't contain "call to action" directives, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If John or Jane Doh were surveyed and asked what these short announcements were, it's likely six out of ten would respond, "they sound like commercials to me."

We now return to "Days Of Our Lives At WXXI."

The bold lettering was because I forgot my glasses and couldn't read what I wrote. ;D

As for "underwriting" yes Mike they are commercials, or mini-commercials, and NPR & PBS do air them as part of an overall plan to wean public broadcasting away from government funding while still providing needed revenue.

I don't know why I am bothering to defend WXXI since I don't work for them anymore so let someone else defend them.

We now return you to The Price is Right.

 

[vistua]

Did it ever occur to you that these two people might be longtime friends... in other words, they might be familiar with each other? Hence, the appearance of familiarity?

Since aparrantly we are NOT going to discuss the topic at hand I may as well rebut this.

There is an obscene but applicable saying "I dont care if [journalists] f--- the elephants, just as long as they don't cover the circus." This gives the appearance of a compromise in impartiality. If Mr Savage really is a friend of Ms. Brooks, he needs to recuse himself from covering her. I do not know if Brooks and Savage are friends. And it doesn't matter.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Since aparrantly we are NOT going to discuss the topic at hand I may as well rebut this.

There is an obscene but applicable saying "I dont care if [journalists] f--- the elephants, just as long as they don't cover the circus." This gives the appearance of a compromise in impartiality. If Mr Savage really is a friend of Ms. Brooks, he needs to recuse himself from covering her. I do not know if Brooks and Savage are friends. And it doesn't matter.

Actually I thought the topic was Bill Nojay on WYSL. You brought up the "Magster" issue while Mark Giardina continues to defend his friends at WXXI. Anyways I would be happy to discuss your topic that refers to Bob Savage calling the County Executive "Magster." I happen to agree with you that such terminology is disrespectful to Ms. Brooks, but it something that I am not about to lose sleep over. Regarding your statement that WYSL should concentrate more on local news, you never answered my question. Does your comment mean that the radio station should sever its ties with Channel 10 and instead have their own news department? While I have no knowledge how Mr. Savage runs his operation, I highly doubt that his budget could afford to hire the necessary staff it would take to cover local news in both Monroe and Livingston counties. If memory serves me correctly, the station used to have a news director and the station did not depend on TV for their local news. But since WYSL (I am assuming) is a small-staffed operation, why not use WHEC TV news plus have Savage and his announcers read other local stories?

 

[vistua]

Ok, lets just have an anarchic board ;D

you never answered my question.

Sorry! I didn't realize I was insufficiently clear.

They should have a news organ all of their own. I did not say that they should completely sever ties with WHEC. That's a thought. But it isn't required. What I view as a problem with WYSL's current setup, is that they are apparently, wholly dependant on WHEC's news production. I browse through WYSL's staff page:http://www.wysl1040.com/?pg=personalities I see no signs of any reporters, unless you count Luckey; I have reasons for not counting Luckey. The mechanism of rebroadcasting a newscast produced elsewhere causes all the flaws inherent in that newscast to be rebroadcast. For example: If Ms Blank on WHEC does a puff piece about children flushing their hot-wheels down the toilet (WHAM-AM Actually did do such a story), then when WYSL is broadcasting it, it appears one more time, to trouble the public.

More probably WYSL should gradually add reporters to it's staff.