• 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

Billboard Radio Monitor relies on the NY Post

P

PW

Billboard Radio Monitor relies on the NY Post's reporting and verifies that multiple investigations are underway in the AAR/Gloria Wise affair:

Spitzer Eyes Air America, Gloria Wise Loans
Aug. 09, 2005
By Ken Tucker


New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is looking into questionable loans made by the New York-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club to Air America Radio (AAR) early in the liberal talk network’s life. Spitzer’s interest in the case, which is already being investigated by the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI), was first reported by the New York Post and has been confirmed by Billboard Radio Monitor.

<font color="red">[EDIT: LINK TO FULL STORY]</font>
http://billboardradiomonitor.com/ra...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001011651


The NY Times still hasn't printed a word about the matter although it found the space today to run at least four articles about radio including an investigation by the NY State attorney general of a radio staion sponsored face slapping contest. All the news that's fit to print, you see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/nyregion/09slap.html?<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 08/10/05 01:05 PM.</FONT></P>
 
PW: Next time snip the story, give credit to source and provide the link. Don't paste the whole story. Thanks!<P ID="signature">______________



</P>
 
Do you even read the stuff you post?

First, Billboard did not "rely" on the New York Post. They "confirmed" it. Meaning they did not take the Post's word for it. They checked it out themselves.

And what did the Times report on yesterday?

Yes, they did the face slapping contest in the Metro section. It involved a local FM station, currently number four in the market. It's 12+ AQH share is currently four times that of WLIB. As people keep pointing out here, WLIB's audience is relatively small. The face slapping contest is a better story. The Post and Daily News did this one, too. I'm surprised the Times did it. It's the sort of thing at which they normally turn up their nose.

They did the Payola scandal, which potentially affects every music station in the country.

They did Clear Channel profits down. And they did Disney profits up. Since Clear Channel owns most of the progrssive talk stations in the country and Disney owns none, maybe you can take some solice from that.

And except for Murdoch's Post, The Reverend Moon's Washington Times, and a few op-ed pieces, major newspapers have ignored this story. Locally, even the Daily News has not touched it. Nobody ever accused the Daily News (the paper Archie Bunker read) of being liberal. Except for the Post and a few columnists, this story is restricted to bloggers and opinion websites.

Maybe out in the real world, this story is not as big a deal as it is to you.

And do you even live and pay taxes in New York?

Your moral indignation appears narrowly focused only at those with whom you disagree politically. Are your posts about anything other than your political viewpoint? Why didn't we hear similar outrage from you when the Bush administration was paying a columnist to promote the administration line on political talk shows? And why is your outrage directed at the current management of Air America, rather than at Evan Cohen who appropriated the money for his own business and for the other club directors who let him do it?




> Billboard Radio Monitor relies on the NY Post's reporting
> and verifies that multiple investigations are underway in
> the AAR/Gloria Wise affair:
>
> The NY Times still hasn't printed a word about the matter
> although it found the space today to run at least four
> articles about radio including an investigation by the NY
> State attorney general of a radio staion sponsored face
> slapping contest. All the news that's fit to print, you
> see.
>
 
Re: Do you even read the stuff you post?

> And what did the Times report on yesterday?
>
> Yes, they did the face slapping contest in the Metro
> section. It involved a local FM station, currently number
> four in the market. It's 12+ AQH share is currently four
> times that of WLIB. As people keep pointing out here,
> WLIB's audience is relatively small. The face slapping
> contest is a better story. The Post and Daily News did this
> one, too. I'm surprised the Times did it. It's the sort of
> thing at which they normally turn up their nose.
>
And of course, something actually HAPPENED in the face-slapping story. The owners of a top-rated radio station paid a $240,000 fine, while in the Evan Cohen story it's unclear whether the former Republican operative did anything illegal. All we know about the Cohen story is that there's an "investigation," the results of which have yet to be determined.

From the Times:

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said at a news conference that the parent company of a New York radio station, WQHT-FM, known as Hot 97, had agreed to pay $240,000 in penalties for its "Smackfest" competition, in which two contestants, usually young women, slap each other while standing several feet apart in the station's studio in Greenwich Village.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/nyregion/09slap.html<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 08/10/05 09:46 PM.</FONT></P>
 
There go the News/Talk Radio Political Police again

> First, Billboard did not "rely" on the New York Post. They
> "confirmed" it. Meaning they did not take the Post's word
> for it. They checked it out themselves.

First, do you always confront people with your "corrections" with such charming statements as: "Do you even read your own posts?" It's very ill-mannered. If you did that in person to some people (which I'm sure you don't) you might find yourself picking yourself up off the floor.

Second, nitpicking between the word "relying" and "confirming" reveals a sensitivity that is unbecoming. Maybe professional jouuuurr-nalists don't use the word rely, but it fits the definition. They "relied" on The New York Post's coverage of a story which they then "confirmed".

>> And do you even live and pay taxes in New York?

Is that the new requirement to criticize New York media? And here New York advertises itself as "The World's Capital."

>> Your moral indignation appears narrowly focused only at those with whom you disagree politically.

And just where in his post did he express any "moral indignation"? He made observations and left us to draw our own conclusions. You drew conclusions but didn't stop there, you then decided his motivation was political and then ranted about it.

If he is using this forum to focus on those "with whom [he] disagrees politically", it's a slow motion crusade. He's got 60 posts since 2003. That's a week's output for some people on "News Talk".

> And except for Murdoch's Post, The Reverend Moon's Washington Times, and a
> few op-ed pieces, major newspapers

Reverend Moon, huh? You are revealing your intolerance of those who disagree politically more than those you criticize.

Proverb: He who looks under the bed has once hidden there himself.
 
Talk Radio

Apparently, you were offended that I do not share your upset over Rush's screener hanging up on and so you want to take a few shots at my totally unrelated post in this thread.

Apparently when you looked at how many times PW has posted, you did not notice the number of posts he/she has made in the past week or so on this one topic. I am a professional journalist. I also own several dictionaries and I am familiar with word rely. The Billboard article did not use the Post as a source for their story. They followed up on the story and confirmed the story independently (possibly from a more reliable source).

PW has complained in his posts about use of (New York) taxpayer money. This raises the question of whether he is a taxpayer.

Moral indignation is what I called his tone after reading through PW's several posts on this topic. I question whether this is true indignation or possibly he just does not like the whole idea of progressive talk radio and wants to discredit one of its program providers.

I can't tell whether you are a fan of progressive talk or are upset with them, too, because Mike Malloy was rude to you. Sorry, when you call a talk show you have to know what you are getting yourself into. Talk shows for the most part are rude. Rude is what they do. Rude gets listeners.

And yes, The Unification Church does own the Washington Times. Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon



>
> First, do you always confront people with your "corrections"
> with such charming statements as: "Do you even read your own
> posts?" It's very ill-mannered. If you did that in person to
> some people (which I'm sure you don't) you might find
> yourself picking yourself up off the floor.
>
> Second, nitpicking between the word "relying" and
> "confirming" reveals a sensitivity that is unbecoming. Maybe
> professional jouuuurr-nalists don't use the word rely, but
> it fits the definition. They "relied" on The New York Post's
> coverage of a story which they then "confirmed".
>
> >> And do you even live and pay taxes in New York?
>
> Is that the new requirement to criticize New York media? And
> here New York advertises itself as "The World's Capital."
>
> >> Your moral indignation appears narrowly focused only at
> those with whom you disagree politically.
>
> And just where in his post did he express any "moral
> indignation"? He made observations and left us to draw our
> own conclusions. You drew conclusions but didn't stop there,
> you then decided his motivation was political and then
> ranted about it.
>
> If he is using this forum to focus on those "with whom [he]
> disagrees politically", it's a slow motion crusade. He's got
> 60 posts since 2003. That's a week's output for some people
> on "News Talk".
>
> > And except for Murdoch's Post, The Reverend Moon's
> Washington Times, and a
> > few op-ed pieces, major newspapers
>
> Reverend Moon, huh? You are revealing your intolerance of
> those who disagree politically more than those you
> criticize.
>
> Proverb: He who looks under the bed has once hidden there
> himself.
>
 
Re: Talk Radio

> Apparently, you were offended that I do not share your upset over Rush's
> screener hanging up on and so you want to take a few shots at my totally
> unrelated post in this thread.

You have an interesting habit of deriving many conclusions from few supporting facts, especially with regard to the motivations of others.

> I can't tell whether you are a fan of progressive talk or are upset with them,
> too, because Mike Malloy was rude to you. Sorry, when you call a talk show you
> have to know what you are getting yourself into. Talk shows for the most part
> are rude. Rude is what they do. Rude gets listeners.

Hey, you finally got one right. I have indeed made a point of calling people on their rudeness this week. It is a common thread among my posts. Malloy's, Rush's call screener, and now yours.

It's got to be at least as interesting as reading the latest left/right insults each trying to impress himself with the cleverness of your putdowns.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom