Cliff Winston & "That Other Board"

[zumahans]

Forget the audience, what about the talent?

Does Piolin have his papers yet?

[Cut the carp. Love it.]

 

[mostb1]

Lets start at the end. I would be ashamed to be working for a company such as Univision that promotes how to break the laws of the United States of America. Univision should lose ALL of their licenses for aiding and abetting illegal aliens (which in some cases is a felony). The day is coming when much of the audience you serve (illegal aliens) will be asked to leave the United States. Those that don't will be physically removed. Hopefully you'll lose your job along with the loss of much of your audience. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself.

OK, prove that Univision promotes breaking of any laws. You can not, because that statement is untrue, defamatory and an outright lie.

You should be aware that anyone... citizen, resident, tourist, etc., within the borders of the US enjoys certain protections granted by the Constitution and by the legal system based on our constitution.

In any case, since illegal immigrants are not generally diarykeepers, the audience served by ALL LA and US Spanish language or Hispanic targeted stations is the legal resident and citizen community.

You're an idiot, David. Cox has well served Hispanics and will in San Antonio with a better sounding hip-hop station than the poorly programmed Beat in San Antonio. One example of Cox's serving Hispanics with a hip-hop format is already in Orlando.

Cox' Orlando station is serving a community that is predominathly Puerto Rican, which is nothing like the Mexican American population of San Antonio. And the SA station is all of two weeks old, so whether it is serving anyone is still quite subject to the passage of time. It is a little hard to judge a station that is still running "10 thousand in a row" with one that has been the established #1 for five years... neither you nor I know how this is going to play out, so you are just guessing with absolutely no knowledge of the market, either (the market you dismissed as an insignificant small market, by the way).

KKBT was never owned by Clear Channel. Your dates are way off. Clear Channel NEVER operated AMFM stations in Early 2000. Per the FCC what? Your imagination FCC? The merger of AMFM and Clear Channel did not close until August 30, 2000 and Clear Channel had NO control until that date as there was no LMA or JSA of the AMFM stations such as KKBT. But Clear Channel never assumed control of KKBT. Radio One started their purchase of KKBT and 11 other stations from Clear Channel and AMFM on March 13, 2000. It took over KKBT just hours before the closing of the AMFM and Clear Channel merger on August 29, 2000.

This is more complex than you think.

02/97 Chancellor sells to AMFM
10/99 AMFM sells to Clear Channel via merger pending approval
In the interim, in 03/2000 AMFM sells KKDB to Radio One to comply with concentration of control.

So the deal was part of and approved by Clear, as part of the decision on wht to divest to comply with FCC rules and DOJ scrutiny. In other words, Clear made a decision on which of the LA assets it wanted to retain, and what it would dispose of and, as part of the "deal in porogress" the properties it did not wish to retain were spun off. So Clear was very much involved even if the licences were never in the name of Clear Channel.

In fact, most Clear Channel licences are not in the name of Clear Channel today... they are in the name of licensee corporations which, in turn, are owned by CCU. The name on the licence is not the critical issue... it is who owns the licensee.

The switch from 92.3 to 100.3 (KCMG going from 100.3 to 92.3 and KKBT going from 92.3 to 100.3) under AMFM was made on June 30, 2000. Clear Channel did not own or control either station at that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKBT

But Clear was calling the shots as to disposition of assets to make the deal pass regulatory scrutiny.

And Clear Channel NEVER has given Radio One any kind of permission to use 'The Beat' in Los Angeles. Period. So stop your nonsense when you have absolutely no idea what you are posting.

Yes they have. If they did not have an agreement, there would be abandonment of the mark, and CCU could not defend its use. The principles of marks involve usage, registration and defense of the mark. If you fail on any, you can lose your brand.

Once again, there is no 'agreement' from Clear Channel to Radio One in Los Angeles for the use of a service mark for 'The Beat'. Clear Channel has no rights what-so-ever to the use of 'The Beat' in Los Angeles and Radio One isn't paying a dime for it or has had to sign any agreement pertaining to its use under a service market. Period. So no there isn't, you are 100% wrong and you don't have first hand knowledge of the situation so you shouldn't be posting about it in the first place.

Clear Channel never had control of KKBT. I'm right and you are wrong. It's plain and simple. Clear Channel NEVER had control or made any internal decisions of the programming or operations of KKBT. None of their subsidiaries, such as Citicasters, ever had control of KKBT. Clear Channel nor ANY of its subsidiary names were EVER on the KKBT license nor did Clear Channel or any of its subsidiaries ever operate the station under any LMA or similar type of operating agreement. Period. Once again you are wrong as you don't know what you are posting about. And it's KKBT not KKDB. Now I've posted my proof through links and an EXACT timeline, I am waiting to see your proof (of course, there is none).

An agreement by AMFM, Radio One and Clear Channel is what led to the date of formats being flipped on 6/30/2000 from 92.3 to 100.3 and vice versa. AMFM didn't have to agree to it as they were in full control of KKBT and could have kept the respective formats on their previous sticks until Clear Channel and Radio One assumed control after the merger was complete in late August 2000. And again, Radio One assumed control of KKBT from AMFM not Clear Channel PRIOR to merger of AMFM and Clear Channel.

Radio One had no control of KKBT during the month of 3/2000. They did not assume any control nor did any of their management step into the radio station until 8/29/2000 (to assume control). Some may say they had control at the end of the business day on 8/28/2000 but no management from Radio One were seen in the station until the morning of 8/29/2000.

I am well aware of who owned, controlled, managed and made decisions at KKBT. I go back to the Evergreen days. There is nothing 'complex' about KKBT's ownership over the years - especially during its AMFM days - and your statement is silly. Also, the money involved in the sale of KKBT went to AMFM companies not Clear Channel.

You see, David, I have the dates down to almost the second - along with links that prove it - and what occurred. You don't. So all you've done is dig a deeper hole for yourself as you don't know the facts.

Arbitron doesn't ask if you are a legal resident or not. Your 'Resident Community' definition = ILLEGAL ALIEN.

You already contradicted yourself by saying "not generally" referring to illegal immigrants as diary keepers. Get your story straight. BTW, there is NO such thing as an illegal immigrant they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

On to San Antonio. First, it's going to be great seeing Univision's 'Beat' cut in half or worse. You posted "Hispanic" when referring to 'Univision' and 'Cox' NOT Mexican-American, David. You didn't not make a distinction between Mexican-American or Puerto Rican. So why are you trying to 'spin' your nonsense again? Orlando has had quite an increase of Hispanics with many different backgrounds not just Puerto Rican. Many Hispanics of Mexican decent, both legal and illegal, have moved there. And we all know San Antonio has a higher percentage of Americans whose decent is Mexican. Many who will deny they are even Hispanic. In San Antonio, it's cool to deny you can speak Spanish unlike Los Angeles which is full of illegal aliens from Mexico who can't speak a lick of English and refuse to assimilate as they must. You know, a high percentage of who your stations target.

Illegal aliens are not entitled to the all the rights afforded to American legal residents. You should know that since your stations embrace so many people who do not legally belong here.

I could post ALL DAY how Univision aides and abets illegal aliens (we already know why). And I'd be legally right. But lets start here and we'll follow up with others as you continue your open borders Reconquista nonsense. http://www.americanpatrol.com/04-FEATURES/040411-MEX-PROPAGANDA-TV/040411_Feature.html
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/ramos.htm
Your Piolin and his off color show would make Howard Stern blush. Frankly, I don't know why anyone hasn't gone after it yet. Well, maybe they soon will It should make those Janet Jackson fines look like monopoly money. But thank him for encouraging illegal aliens to go out and march in the streets. If it wasn't for him and his ilk (the other Spanish language hosts that he colluded with), American citizens would not have seen the invaders that Univision, among other companies, targets. American citizens and legal residents are up in arms about illegal aliens demanding civil rights which they not only don't deserve but they can't even receive. Your company should be ashamed of being anti-American and encouraging and promoting illegal activity with the United States of America. You should be telling your hosts to tell the many illegal aliens you court this http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
The best thing Univision and you should prepare for is the coming end for much of your target audience as Univision is going to take a serious financial hit. That is unless we get a ruling forcing your company to give back their FCC licenses for aiding and abetting, first.

 

[mostb1]

I see the MASTER OF GRAND ILLUSION DAVID EDWARD FRAKLETON GLEASON KNOWN AS THE OLD GRINGO BY HIS FELLOW ENLOIGHTEN DESPOTS IS AT IT AGAIN WITH SPINNING FABRICATION.
'KISS" is used by Clear Channel BUT "KISS" is not owned by them. ask the owner operators and people who have managed,worked and were on the air at the original KISS-FM in San Antonio. KISS -FM STILL EXISTS,NOT OWNED BY CC. Those calls have been there for decades and CC tried to eliminate them when they registered a KISS TRADEMARK, and then tried to buy them. The result? Ruling was KISS WAS NOT AND REMAINS NOT BEING OWNED BY CC.
The master of grand Illusion will be back shortly so he can create a cut and paste link disputing the fact you have just been given.

The same issue exists with Entercom (Milwaukee), CBS (Seattle, Tampa) and Emmis (New York), among others. Clear Channel lost its battle with Entercom. Clear Channel only wins when the other company doesn't want to battle due to legal fees. None of these companies pay a dime to CCU or have any type of agreement for the use of or service mark of 'KISS'.

 

[mostb1]

Glenn and David, you two are providing a great deal of entertainment, and I'll wager anything that dialogues that take place here on Radio-Info boards are a WHOLE lot more entertaining than that other board in KMR's fiefdom.

Now as to Old Gringo remarks below:

[OK, prove that Univision promotes breaking of any laws. You can not, because that statement is untrue, defamatory and an outright lie.

You should be aware that anyone... citizen, resident, tourist, etc., within the borders of the US enjoys certain protections granted by the Constitution and by the legal system based on our constitution.

In any case, since illegal immigrants are not generally diarykeepers, the audience served by ALL LA and US Spanish language or Hispanic targeted stations is the legal resident and citizen community.

Your statement taken literally is illogical.

I am not a "diarykeeper", as millions upon millions all over the U.S. have never been "diarykeepers" , so does that mean if you are not a "diarykeeper" are you part of the audience "served" or are you not "served"? Cut the carp, David, we all know where your sympathies lie in this debate. If there were never any illegal aliens entering this country illegally FROM south of the border, and that means never, then it's logical to think that Spanish language radio would NOT have as big an audience as it has today, NO???
Spin that.

Great observation.

I am not trying to entertain but rather set the facts straight from someone who doesn't know them and/or is trying to lie their way out of it.

And let me add, since we got into Illegal Aliens, the best show on all of Los Angeles radio is www.theterryandersonshow.com He's the best. I love John & Ken but Terry Anderson is the best there is on radio, hands down.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

I remember Terry Anderson making appearances on George Putnam's show even back when George was on 870 AM.

A guy who used to work for me got into the illegal immigration lobby way back in early 2001. One of the leaders of that group Barbara --- (forgot her last name, but she's also a regular on Putnam) used to call my office to talk with my guy. He has since departed to Oregon.

 

[mostb1]

I remember Terry Anderson making appearances on George Putnam's show even back when George was on 870 AM.

A guy who used to work for me got into the illegal immigration lobby way back in early 2001. One of the leaders of that group Barbara --- (forgot her last name, but she's also a regular on Putnam) used to call my office to talk with my guy. He has since departed to Oregon.

Barbara Coe. She's calls in on his show most every Sunday night. Don't know who the guy would be.

 

[SuperRadioFan]

Thanks, Glenn. No the "guy" used to work for me. He was really into it (the issue). So while the issue has been around for a lonnnnng time, the mainstream is finally "getting it" (I hope)

 

[mostb1]

Thanks, Glenn. No the "guy" used to work for me. He was really into it (the issue). So while the issue has been around for a lonnnnng time, the mainstream is finally "getting it" (I hope)

I wouldn't say the drive-by media (as Rush would say) is getting it yet. Although, there are a few surprising stories in places like the hated liberal L.A. Times from time to time. Most of the liberal elite media remains staunch open borders advocates. But at least we have (on a national level) Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Cavuto and many other conservative radio & tv talk show hosts (even a few liberals like Chris Matthews are on our side). Locally, Bill Handel, John and Ken, Doug Macintyre and a number others at KFI, KABC and KRLA to varying degrees.

Still, Terry Anderson can't be missed. Sundays at 9 PM on 870 KRLA in L.A. and the huge 50KW signal of AM 720 KDWN in Las Vegas which can be heard over much of the Western United States (10 PM Mountain time on KFNX in Phoenix). He's streamed on his site www.theterryandersonshow.com as well. One hour is just too short for this guy. His knowledge and passion are unsurpassed on the Illegal Alien issue.

In the last few years we have started to win the battle but there is much work to be done to return America to the greatness it once was. It's unfortunate that business advocate Republicans (George Bush, Wall Street Journal, Home Depot and many, many other companies - all of whom want to rape cheap wage earners), as well as the liberal elites that control the Democrat party (they need votes - legal or illegal) are against us. But we'll still win anyway as 80% of Americans want this to be a country of legal American citizens and residents. Even a majority of American Hispanics want the rule of law imposed. And NO AMNESTY (Amesty otherwise known by the less lethal term George W. Bush uses "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"). Go home and wait your turn. Only when we deem that you can come here and live the American dream, will you. And that should average 10-15 years. Then get ready to assimilate as an AMERICAN and drop all allegiances to any foreign country once you are here.

Watch out for open borders advocates and how they like to confuse/blur the term "immigrant" with legal and illegal. It's ILLEGAL ALIEN and nothing else.

 

[OldGringo]

I see the MASTER OF GRAND ILLUSION DAVID EDWARD FRAKLETON GLEASON KNOWN AS THE OLD GRINGO BY HIS FELLOW ENLOIGHTEN DESPOTS IS AT IT AGAIN WITH SPINNING FABRICATION.
'KISS" is used by Clear Channel BUT "KISS" is not owned by them. ask the owner operators and people who have managed,worked and were on the air at the original KISS-FM in San Antonio. KISS -FM STILL EXISTS,NOT OWNED BY CC. Those calls have been there for decades and CC tried to eliminate them when they registered a KISS TRADEMARK, and then tried to buy them. The result? Ruling was KISS WAS NOT AND REMAINS NOT BEING OWNED BY CC.
The master of grand Illusion will be back shortly so he can create a cut and paste link disputing the fact you have just been given.

Clear Channel owns the national mark on "Kiss" for radio stations.

What happens in cases like this here there are isolated and individual prior usages is that there is an agreement whereby the priour users continue said usage with the agreement and consent of the two parts. Clear owns the national mark, but has agreed to let San Antonio, Albuquerque, New York and some others continue to use the mark.

The "Kiss" issue in Bakersfield establishes clearly the situation. Clear actually had a CHR called Kiss they put on after a local station group put one on. The local group had prior usage, but not prior to Clear's registration nationally and in CA (KIIS-FM in LA) so they were forced to cease the usage after many months of having two Kiss's in the market.

A similar case exists with the Educational Media Foundation for the K-Love religious stations nationally. They obtained a national mark, which conflicted with pre-existing state marks in CA and Texas (KLQV, KOVE, KLVE) and in a settlement, the areas of these 3 FMs was excluded from the national mark in a separate agreement and EMF allowed them to continue to identify as K-love. However, the national mark belongs to EMF.

I did not say Clear owns the SA station. I said they own the service mark, and they have reached agreements with other "Kiss" named stations that predated the national registration to continue to use the mark only in thier local market areas.

 

[OldGringo]

The same issue exists with Entercom (Milwaukee), CBS (Seattle, Tampa) and Emmis (New York), among others. Clear Channel lost its battle with Entercom. Clear Channel only wins when the other company doesn't want to battle due to legal fees. None of these companies pay a dime to CCU or have any type of agreement for the use of or service mark of 'KISS'.

Clear owns the national mark and has a agreement with the "exceptions" which predated the national mark being granted. I did not say they "pay" but they must have a "license" in the form of an agreement... whether it is based on simple acceptance of continued usage with restrictions or via payments such as Clear collects in some cases for other stations of other operators who are using or wish to use one of their marks.

 

[OldGringo]

Forget the audience, what about the talent?

Does Piolin have his papers yet?

[Cut the carp. Love it.]

Eddie Sotelo grew up in the Bay Area where he went to high school. He is here as legally as you and I.

 

[OldGringo]

Your statement taken literally is illogical.

Not at all. To be a diarykeeper, you get a call from Arbitron (or a pre-call letter follwed by a call) and you are asked to participate. You must give your name, address, and the names and ages of all in the household. You are asked some income and demo questions.

Illegal immigrants will not give out their address, and will not, as a rule, participate in any consumer research that requires name and address to be revealed.

I am not a "diarykeeper", as millions upon millions all over the U.S. have never been "diarykeepers" , so does that mean if you are not a "diarykeeper" are you part of the audience "served" or are you not "served"?

I was making a specific reference to illgal immigrants, not to you. Since illegals do not get surveyed, they are not reflected as part of the audience served by radio stations and do not contribute economically to the pricing model for ad time.

Cut the carp, David, we all know where your sympathies lie in this debate. If there were never any illegal aliens entering this country illegally FROM south of the border, and that means never, then it's logical to think that Spanish language radio would NOT have as big an audience as it has today, NO???
Spin that.

Illgals don't participate in Arbitron, so they are marginalized by the process.

 

[OldGringo]

Once again, there is no 'agreement' from Clear Channel to Radio One in Los Angeles for the use of a service mark for 'The Beat'. Clear Channel has no rights what-so-ever to the use of 'The Beat' in Los Angeles and Radio One isn't paying a dime for it or has had to sign any agreement pertaining to its use under a service market. Period. So no there isn't, you are 100% wrong and you don't have first hand knowledge of the situation so you shouldn't be posting about it in the first place.

Clear Channel owns the national mark. Do a service mark search (it is relatively inexpensive) and you can see this. A transaction like the AMFM and CCU merger would have specified even before the sale was announced the stations to be spun off and under what conditions. In the case of LA, where Clear wished to keep the better frequency and spin the lesser one, all details would have been established prior to the deal. And Clear, the surviving company in the merger, would have called the shots.

Clear Channel never had control of KKBT. I'm right and you are wrong. It's plain and simple. Clear Channel NEVER had control or made any internal decisions of the programming or operations of KKBT.

We are not talking about internal operations. We are talking about "what got sold" to comply with the market caps. And it is ingenuous to assume that Clear did not deal with AMFM in determining what properties, formats and even staff they wanted to keep and what would be spun to permit the deal to meet regulatory scrutiny and eventual approval.

In other words, Clear Channel would have made, in concert with AMFM, the decisions on what AMFM had to do to make the merger happen. This could include things like acceptable buyers with the ability to close on time right down to what would be given to said buyers as to format rights, etc.

An agreement by AMFM, Radio One and Clear Channel is what led to the date of formats being flipped on 6/30/2000 from 92.3 to 100.3 and vice versa. AMFM didn't have to agree to it as they were in full control of KKBT and could have kept the respective formats on their previous sticks until Clear Channel and Radio One assumed control after the merger was complete in late August 2000. And again, Radio One assumed control of KKBT from AMFM not Clear Channel PRIOR to merger of AMFM and Clear Channel.

Clear, as the surviving company, would have had to approve and sign off on this, whenever it happened. The dates are immaterial. The two reached a merger agreement, and had to determine what to do prior to closing to make the deal legally acceptable. Since any sale materially affected the valuation of one of the merger partners, the other would have to have approved.

Radio One had no control of KKBT during the month of 3/2000. They did not assume any control nor did any of their management step into the radio station until 8/29/2000 (to assume control). Some may say they had control at the end of the business day on 8/28/2000 but no management from Radio One were seen in the station until the morning of 8/29/2000.

The date I gave was the sale date, not the closing date. It is assumed that prior to the sale being announced, all the details of the transaction were worked out. In other words, before the sale was even public knowledge, Clear and AMFM had agreed on that being one of the spin-offs, that the frequency swap was part of it, and that the format moved to the new frequency and buyer, complete with the name.

In other words, Clear had to have approved the sale, the use of the fomat and the name in advance of announcing the sale to ROIA.

I am well aware of who owned, controlled, managed and made decisions at KKBT. I go back to the Evergreen days. There is nothing 'complex' about KKBT's ownership over the years - especially during its AMFM days - and your statement is silly. Also, the money involved in the sale of KKBT went to AMFM companies not Clear Channel.

Since AMFM merged with Clear, everything they did was part of the surviving entity. A merger is not a sale. It is a trade of stock to the shareholders.

You see, David, I have the dates down to almost the second - along with links that prove it - and what occurred. You don't. So all you've done is dig a deeper hole for yourself as you don't know the facts.

You are failing to understand that the terms of the sale, including use of the format and name, were approved prior to the sale being announced.

Arbitron doesn't ask if you are a legal resident or not. Your 'Resident Community' definition = ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Nope. Illegals do not accept diaries, as to do so requires revealing personal data that no illegal would do willingly.

You already contradicted yourself by saying "not generally" referring to illegal immigrants as diary keepers. Get your story straight. BTW, there is NO such thing as an illegal immigrant they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

The two terms mean the same. An immigrant is one who moves from one nation to another. An illegal immigrant is one who does that withoug permission from the "new nation." An illegal alien is a foreigner who is illegally present in another nation. Same thing, different words.

On to San Antonio. First, it's going to be great seeing Univision's 'Beat' cut in half or worse. You posted "Hispanic" when referring to 'Univision' and 'Cox' NOT Mexican-American, David.

Mexicans are Hispanics. We serve Hispanics in 17 markets in both English and Spanish and even in Spanglish.

You didn't not make a distinction between Mexican-American or Puerto Rican. So why are you trying to 'spin' your nonsense again? Orlando has had quite an increase of Hispanics with many different backgrounds not just Puerto Rican.

92% of the Orlando Hispanics are Puerto Rican or of Puerto Rican heritage. There is a small Mexican communitee near Ocoee, but the market is predominantly Puerto Rican. Orlando Hispanics do not like the same kind of music as San Antonio Hispanics.

Many Hispanics of Mexican decent, both legal and illegal, have moved there.

But they are very few compared to the Puerto Ricans. And the illegal issue comes in. There are no illegal Puerto Ricans. There are no Puerto Ricans with green cards. They participate at a high rate in Arbitron, while the small Mexican community does not.

And we all know San Antonio has a higher percentage of Americans whose decent is Mexican. Many who will deny they are even Hispanic. In San Antonio, it's cool to deny you can speak Spanish unlike Los Angeles which is full of illegal aliens from Mexico who can't speak a lick of English and refuse to assimilate as they must. You know, a high percentage of who your stations target.

1. San Antonio has aobut 10 generations of Hispanic presence in significant numbers. This is why only 25% of SA Hisapnics are Spanish Dominant. LA has far less heritage, and 60% of Hispanics are Spanish dominant.

2. Assimilation has always in America's history taken place in the second generation and beyond. Adults have almost no ability to become truly fluent in another language, as language learning ability deteriorates prior to adolesence and is nearly gone in adulthood. That was the same with Italians, Germans, Poles, etc., too.

Illegal aliens are not entitled to the all the rights afforded to American legal residents. You should know that since your stations embrace so many people who do not legally belong here.

I did not say "all" and specified that many of the rights granted by our laws and constitution apply to citizens, residents, visitors and even illegal immigrants.

I could post ALL DAY how Univision aides and abets illegal aliens (we already know why). And I'd be legally right. But lets start here and we'll follow up with others as you continue your open borders Reconquista nonsense.

Covering news is not illegal. And FYI, the April protest marches were to oppose a particular House Resolution that would have criminalized aiding in any way an illegal, even when the status of the illegal was not known to the "offender." Most of the marchers were legals, as illegals do not go out in public where they might be identified and arrested.

Your Piolin and his off color show would make Howard Stern blush. Frankly, I don't know why anyone hasn't gone after it yet. Well, maybe they soon will :-

The show is not dirty, and it is very family-aware. Like the fund raiser for the LA Children's Hospital two weeks ago where $625,000 was raised by KSCA listeners in 3 days! I really doubt you understand colloquial Mexican Spanish enough to determine what is proper and what is not... but the program is very carefully produced and is nt what you say it is...

Your company should be ashamed of being anti-American and encouraging and promoting illegal activity with the United States of America.

Protesting what was perceived by the entire community to be anti-Hispanic legislation is America at its best.

The best thing Univision and you should prepare for is the coming end for much of your target audience as Univision is going to take a serious financial hit. That is unless we get a ruling forcing your company to give back their FCC licenses for aiding and abetting, first.

The illegals will be given a residence path and a citizenship path, particularly if the Democrats take control of Congress.

In any case, there are more than 36 million legal Hisapanics in the US, which is a nice consumer groupp to target... and they use 23 to 24 hours a week of radio!

 

[ChannelFlipper]

**Note - this post is intended to be somewhat rhetorical, not a slap.**

David,

How do you have time to consult all of your stations while posting so much?

I'm starting to get the idea consulting is not as hard as I thought it was.

 

[OldGringo]

**Note - this post is intended to be somewhat rhetorical, not a slap.**

David,

How do you have time to consult all of your stations while posting so much?

I'm starting to get the idea consulting is not as hard as I thought it was.

For one, I am not a consultant. Today started at 4 AM in LA, and has not ended yet at 10 AM in Chicago.

Taking a few minutes during the day to particpate on the boards is sort of like a coffee break... you come back better! In addition, I learned several things on the boards today, like a staff change at a competitor in Dallas, some non-published data on a major staff change in San Diego and a format shift in Puerto Rico. So there is some definite value, too.

 

[BACKnUSSR]

For one, I am not a consultant. Today started at 4 AM in LA, and has not ended yet at 10 AM in Chicago.

Actually that's 4am-8am LA time .......(4 hour day??? Not a bad gig).

 

[OldGringo]

For one, I am not a consultant. Today started at 4 AM in LA, and has not ended yet at 10 AM in Chicago.

Actually that's 4am-8am LA time .......(4 hour day??? Not a bad gig).

Actually, it ended at midnight, Chitown time... a nice 18 hour day, and we started up again at 7 AM today.

 

[mostb1]

The same issue exists with Entercom (Milwaukee), CBS (Seattle, Tampa) and Emmis (New York), among others. Clear Channel lost its battle with Entercom. Clear Channel only wins when the other company doesn't want to battle due to legal fees. None of these companies pay a dime to CCU or have any type of agreement for the use of or service mark of 'KISS'.

Clear owns the national mark and has a agreement with the "exceptions" which predated the national mark being granted. I did not say they "pay" but they must have a "license" in the form of an agreement... whether it is based on simple acceptance of continued usage with restrictions or via payments such as Clear collects in some cases for other stations of other operators who are using or wish to use one of their marks.

There goes David backtracking and covering up his prior statements again. Get it right the first time so we don't have to constantly bust your statements.

 

[mostb1]

Once again, there is no 'agreement' from Clear Channel to Radio One in Los Angeles for the use of a service mark for 'The Beat'. Clear Channel has no rights what-so-ever to the use of 'The Beat' in Los Angeles and Radio One isn't paying a dime for it or has had to sign any agreement pertaining to its use under a service market. Period. So no there isn't, you are 100% wrong and you don't have first hand knowledge of the situation so you shouldn't be posting about it in the first place.

Clear Channel owns the national mark. Do a service mark search (it is relatively inexpensive) and you can see this. A transaction like the AMFM and CCU merger would have specified even before the sale was announced the stations to be spun off and under what conditions. In the case of LA, where Clear wished to keep the better frequency and spin the lesser one, all details would have been established prior to the deal. And Clear, the surviving company in the merger, would have called the shots.

Clear Channel never had control of KKBT. I'm right and you are wrong. It's plain and simple. Clear Channel NEVER had control or made any internal decisions of the programming or operations of KKBT.

We are not talking about internal operations. We are talking about "what got sold" to comply with the market caps. And it is ingenuous to assume that Clear did not deal with AMFM in determining what properties, formats and even staff they wanted to keep and what would be spun to permit the deal to meet regulatory scrutiny and eventual approval.

In other words, Clear Channel would have made, in concert with AMFM, the decisions on what AMFM had to do to make the merger happen. This could include things like acceptable buyers with the ability to close on time right down to what would be given to said buyers as to format rights, etc.

An agreement by AMFM, Radio One and Clear Channel is what led to the date of formats being flipped on 6/30/2000 from 92.3 to 100.3 and vice versa. AMFM didn't have to agree to it as they were in full control of KKBT and could have kept the respective formats on their previous sticks until Clear Channel and Radio One assumed control after the merger was complete in late August 2000. And again, Radio One assumed control of KKBT from AMFM not Clear Channel PRIOR to merger of AMFM and Clear Channel.

Clear, as the surviving company, would have had to approve and sign off on this, whenever it happened. The dates are immaterial. The two reached a merger agreement, and had to determine what to do prior to closing to make the deal legally acceptable. Since any sale materially affected the valuation of one of the merger partners, the other would have to have approved.

Radio One had no control of KKBT during the month of 3/2000. They did not assume any control nor did any of their management step into the radio station until 8/29/2000 (to assume control). Some may say they had control at the end of the business day on 8/28/2000 but no management from Radio One were seen in the station until the morning of 8/29/2000.

The date I gave was the sale date, not the closing date. It is assumed that prior to the sale being announced, all the details of the transaction were worked out. In other words, before the sale was even public knowledge, Clear and AMFM had agreed on that being one of the spin-offs, that the frequency swap was part of it, and that the format moved to the new frequency and buyer, complete with the name.

In other words, Clear had to have approved the sale, the use of the fomat and the name in advance of announcing the sale to ROIA.

I am well aware of who owned, controlled, managed and made decisions at KKBT. I go back to the Evergreen days. There is nothing 'complex' about KKBT's ownership over the years - especially during its AMFM days - and your statement is silly. Also, the money involved in the sale of KKBT went to AMFM companies not Clear Channel.

Since AMFM merged with Clear, everything they did was part of the surviving entity. A merger is not a sale. It is a trade of stock to the shareholders.

You see, David, I have the dates down to almost the second - along with links that prove it - and what occurred. You don't. So all you've done is dig a deeper hole for yourself as you don't know the facts.

You are failing to understand that the terms of the sale, including use of the format and name, were approved prior to the sale being announced.

Arbitron doesn't ask if you are a legal resident or not. Your 'Resident Community' definition = ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Nope. Illegals do not accept diaries, as to do so requires revealing personal data that no illegal would do willingly.

You already contradicted yourself by saying "not generally" referring to illegal immigrants as diary keepers. Get your story straight. BTW, there is NO such thing as an illegal immigrant they are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

The two terms mean the same. An immigrant is one who moves from one nation to another. An illegal immigrant is one who does that withoug permission from the "new nation." An illegal alien is a foreigner who is illegally present in another nation. Same thing, different words.

On to San Antonio. First, it's going to be great seeing Univision's 'Beat' cut in half or worse. You posted "Hispanic" when referring to 'Univision' and 'Cox' NOT Mexican-American, David.

Mexicans are Hispanics. We serve Hispanics in 17 markets in both English and Spanish and even in Spanglish.

You didn't not make a distinction between Mexican-American or Puerto Rican. So why are you trying to 'spin' your nonsense again? Orlando has had quite an increase of Hispanics with many different backgrounds not just Puerto Rican.

92% of the Orlando Hispanics are Puerto Rican or of Puerto Rican heritage. There is a small Mexican communitee near Ocoee, but the market is predominantly Puerto Rican. Orlando Hispanics do not like the same kind of music as San Antonio Hispanics.

Many Hispanics of Mexican decent, both legal and illegal, have moved there.

But they are very few compared to the Puerto Ricans. And the illegal issue comes in. There are no illegal Puerto Ricans. There are no Puerto Ricans with green cards. They participate at a high rate in Arbitron, while the small Mexican community does not.

And we all know San Antonio has a higher percentage of Americans whose decent is Mexican. Many who will deny they are even Hispanic. In San Antonio, it's cool to deny you can speak Spanish unlike Los Angeles which is full of illegal aliens from Mexico who can't speak a lick of English and refuse to assimilate as they must. You know, a high percentage of who your stations target.

1. San Antonio has aobut 10 generations of Hispanic presence in significant numbers. This is why only 25% of SA Hisapnics are Spanish Dominant. LA has far less heritage, and 60% of Hispanics are Spanish dominant.

2. Assimilation has always in America's history taken place in the second generation and beyond. Adults have almost no ability to become truly fluent in another language, as language learning ability deteriorates prior to adolesence and is nearly gone in adulthood. That was the same with Italians, Germans, Poles, etc., too.

Illegal aliens are not entitled to the all the rights afforded to American legal residents. You should know that since your stations embrace so many people who do not legally belong here.

I did not say "all" and specified that many of the rights granted by our laws and constitution apply to citizens, residents, visitors and even illegal immigrants.

I could post ALL DAY how Univision aides and abets illegal aliens (we already know why). And I'd be legally right. But lets start here and we'll follow up with others as you continue your open borders Reconquista nonsense.

Covering news is not illegal. And FYI, the April protest marches were to oppose a particular House Resolution that would have criminalized aiding in any way an illegal, even when the status of the illegal was not known to the "offender." Most of the marchers were legals, as illegals do not go out in public where they might be identified and arrested.

Your Piolin and his off color show would make Howard Stern blush. Frankly, I don't know why anyone hasn't gone after it yet. Well, maybe they soon will :-

The show is not dirty, and it is very family-aware. Like the fund raiser for the LA Children's Hospital two weeks ago where $625,000 was raised by KSCA listeners in 3 days! I really doubt you understand colloquial Mexican Spanish enough to determine what is proper and what is not... but the program is very carefully produced and is nt what you say it is...

Your company should be ashamed of being anti-American and encouraging and promoting illegal activity with the United States of America.

Protesting what was perceived by the entire community to be anti-Hispanic legislation is America at its best.

The best thing Univision and you should prepare for is the coming end for much of your target audience as Univision is going to take a serious financial hit. That is unless we get a ruling forcing your company to give back their FCC licenses for aiding and abetting, first.

The illegals will be given a residence path and a citizenship path, particularly if the Democrats take control of Congress.

In any case, there are more than 36 million legal Hisapanics in the US, which is a nice consumer groupp to target... and they use 23 to 24 hours a week of radio!

-------------------------------------------

Illegal alien "squatters" will not be given any form of amnesty including any path to citizenship. Congress will not go Democrat in 2006. Even if the House has a slight majority Democrat, those gains will be short lived. There are enough good Republicans and a few scared Democrats in the House to stop any Nancy Pelosi San Francisco values agenda. The Democrat party is on its way to extinction, anyway. There will be no amnesty bill that will even come up let alone pass with just two years to go before a Presidential election regardless of who is in congress. Now, go and watch the border fence signing on Thursday. Although we don't expect Bush (who is running an illegal parallel government to create a North American Union http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52576
and should be impeached for it) to build it, with the bill signed we can force it to be built through the United States courts. Of course, the fence should be electrified but maybe I'm just asking for too much. I don't know why but I suddenly just have a taste for deep fried Mexican food.

 

[mostb1]

(continued from previous post).

No, David, what is going to be occurring from now on is making life hell for illegal aliens to be in the United States. We are going to clamp down on and put in jail employers who hire them, we are going to put owners of buildings in jail who allow them to live in their buildings and we are going to correctly interpret the Constitution as to stop "Jackpot Babies" (babies of illegal alien mothers who incorrectly have become American citizens automatically just for being in the United States. Something that isn't allowed in any other industrialized nation including Mexico). The best thing we've learned from liberals who would have no power at all if they didn't go off constantly and file lawsuits is to do the same. Life is going to be hell for Univison and it's illegal alien listeners from now on. And we have Univision to thank for bringing the illegal alien issue to at or near the top of the most important problems in America of all law abiding VOTING Americans (that includes U.S. citizen Hispanic voters - but of course we know they don't vote as a block and vote less than other groups. Just the facts, please.). Thank you.

What 36 million Hispanics are you speaking of? There will soon be 20 million mostly Hispanic illegal aliens who will be removed from the United States. I'd hate to be the one buying Univision when the future for much of its current and future target audience is going to be seriously eroded. But of course, Univision, as it is today, is going to broken up after the sale is complete, anyway. Now there is even talk of Tribune's tv stations and Univision's tv stations under the same owner. The radio stations, of course, will be sold off onto the trash heap.

What "entire community" perceived the legislation to be anti-Hispanic? Most everyone I know - including many Hispanics and the vast majority of Americans - believed it was to solve the problem of CRIMINALS (Illegal Aliens) who do not belong within our borders. Of course, the laws are already in place to take care of this problem. The feds just need to be forced to enforce those laws. We don't need any new laws to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

Univision, along with many other companies such as Home Depot and Miller Beer, donated much of the money to organize and promote the illegal alien marches. But it all backfired on all of you. They got nothing out of it but Americans saw what kind of "invader" criminals are here. It was a great day for United States citizens and legal residents. Univision's donations to Mecha Azlan type groups that organized the marches alone is enough to show how they aide and abet CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Univision and its illegal alien listeners should be giving back hundreds of millions of dollars to hospitals to pay back for the services they steal from them. A paltry amount, I may add, is that of what you claim Univision raised.

Many of those marching were illegal. Stop your outright lie. It was easily noticed from the crowd and reported by many media outlets including Univision. Also, from the many businesses that were forced to close or scale back on May 1 in Los Angeles, it was well known where the illegal aliens that work in those businesses were that day. It was great to see the ILLEGAL ALIEN criminals showing the allegiances to their home countries to all Americans. Please thank everyone at Univision so much for it. We couldn't have woken up America without you! You are a terrible liar, David.

Most of my friends are Hispanic, bilingual and don't work anywhere near the radio business (although two of my friends are producers for KMEX news - and that gives me much insight into your illegal alien supporting company). Some of them came here illegally but were given amnesty during the Reagan years (even they are against any new amnesty). So yes, I do understand Piolin. Any of his local Mexicanisms and nuances my friends easily translate to me. They are more shocked than I that Univision hasn't been fined by the FCC. But Univision's day is coming.

if you want to continue to post about laws that are afforded all those within the borders of the United States of America, then I'll be happy to post all the laws that those who stay beyond their visas and those who come to the United States illegally have broken and what makes each and every one of them a CRIMINAL. You should know what CRIMINALS are, David, that's much of Univision's target audience.

1. Now lets get to David's San Antonio vs. Los Angeles nonsense. Easily interpreted. San Antonio has far fewer illegal aliens than Los Angeles and more long term residents. Also, it is cool in San Antonio to claim, even if you are Hispanic, that you are not ethnic and/or that you can't speak Spanish.

2. Assimilation. The difference between what you are trying to spin from the past and what is occurring today is those coming to America in the past WANTED to be good American citizens. They came here legally and wanted to become part of American society. Those who are coming here today (mostly Mexican illegal aliens but this pertains to other illegal aliens from all over the world) in most cases want nothing to do with the United States except to take from it with no intention of every becoming part of the fabric of American society. They live, eat, shop and stay within a Spanish speaking community with their own foreign culture and never have to learn a word of English or what it means to be an American. They are destroying the United States of America by bringing in disease, bringing down wages, costing billions to legal American resident taxpayers for services they don't deserve and sending $30 billion or more outside of local communities to Mexico alone that otherwise would have been spent inside the United States. A good description of what comprises many of those that Univision targets, wouldn't you say, David? Even if you don't, It's the truth.

Here is a little addition sort of mirroring what I posted earlier and above. All those on this board can refer to it to decipher David's nonsense when he is posting his usual cheering for open borders to help his illegal alien aiding and abetting employer:

10/23/06
WORD GAMES: "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" OR "ILLEGAL ALIENS"?
by John Lillpop

Those arguing on behalf of illegal aliens and their “rights” often play word games in appealing to the pride of real Americans.

“Immigrants Built America” and “We are all Immigrants” are popular slogans at pro-illegal alien protests and in jargon used by those who favor open borders, regardless of the impact on America’s homeland security, economy or culture.

What the anti rule-of-law crowd omits is the crucial word "legal," as in "legal immigrants." While it’s true that we are all descendants of immigrants, it is not true that our forefathers came to America illegally.

America was not built by illegal aliens!

Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a long, drawn-out procedure meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care, education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for knowledge of American history and English skills.

Those who have jumped the fence into America in order to avoid our immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are illegal aliens, with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.

Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States, and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, without exception.

Another word game played by pro-illegal aliens is to call these miscreants “undocumented.” The implication of this term is that the invaders are simply missing a piece of paper or two, probably some unnecessary bureaucratic red tape designed to keep brown people out.

In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for being here.

Do not be fooled by word games and euphemistic cover-ups.

People here illegally are illegal aliens. Period!

NO DAVID, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and ILLEGAL ALIEN DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. But one thing we know is
UNIVISION is THE ILLEGAL ALIEN BROADCAST COMPANY.

Orlando: No one ever claimed or posted Puerto Ricans are illegal. Why are you even bringing that up? There are plenty of Mexicans and Central Americans now in Orlando (legal and illegal). Of course, it isn't full of illegal aliens like Los Angeles. But illegals do participate with Arbitron including Mexicans.

Much of the music initially played on Latino 96.3 was from Puerto Rican artists. And Los Angeles certainly isn't a huge Puerto Rican market. Although they are playing more than 50% hip-hop now, I wouldn't say those in San Antonio with a Mexican background don't like a form of music that Puerto Ricans have been producing (Reggaetón) just like Los Angeles. Cox has tailored Power in San Antonio to the local community just as any other radio station they have. What you got caught on was posting that Cox doesn't target Hispanics - with no distinction of their background - and you were wrong.

WRONG. Illegal Aliens do participate in Arbitron just as they have in the U.S. Census. In fact, so many illegal aliens have participated in the U.S. Census, which includes one's address just like Arbitron, that it has changed congressional districts. Some areas of Los Angeles which have few legal residents (hot zip codes for Univison - shall we work on posting data to prove that, David?) but many illegal aliens and thus few voters now have their own U.S. Congressperson (always ending up being an open borders type Latino Democrat of course). The U.S. Census counts who is here regardless of legal status and those results also affect the numbers of persons and ethnicity that Arbitron and all other ratings services use. So yes, Illegal Aliens undeniably do participate in Arbitron both directly and indirectly (of which David will continue to deny). Illegal Aliens and the jackpot babies they have had count for much of Univison (and former company names) stations' ratings gains over the last nearly three decades . The only thing I may add, which will make David happy I am sure, is illegal aliens are undercounted by the U.S. Census and thus by Arbitron and other ratings services.