Could Bonneville's Changes In Washington Reverberate Far Beyond The Beltway??

[Joseph_Gallant]

The programming changes announced by Bonneville/Washington yesterday (January 4th), some of which took place immediately and others to take place at the end of March, had me thinking.

Could this series of format changes have a major impact on the entire industry and in markets all across the country??

In making these changes, Bonneville abandoned the idea of programming popular music (in this case, a Hot AC format) in the nation's capitol. It moved classical music to a two-signal rimshot simulcast which was previously the home of the company's Hot AC format.

It also moved it's all-news format off of a 50,000-watt AM signal (the market's best AM signal, although quite directional; heading west from D.C., you lose the 1500 signal about 25-30 miles west of the city) onto a strong FM signal as good as any in the city.

Traditionally, all-news stations have been on powerful 50,000-watt AM signals with wide reach (WCBS-880 New York, WBBM-780 Chicago, KNX-1070 Los Angeles, and between 5 A.M. and 8 P.M. Eastern, WBZ-1030 in Boston, although 'BZ runs talk evenings and overnights).

The 1500 signal that until now was WTOP's will (along with an FM signal on 107.7 in Warrenton, Virginia) soon (likely in late March) be home to a new "in-depth" news and talk format programmed with the help of onetime WTOP owner the Washington Post.

Bonneville's decision to abandon pop music and move a very successful all-news station from AM to FM may signal the end of an era. It may be recognition that:

(1) AM radio, which over the past 20-25 years has become the home of narrowly-niched, mainly talk-oriented formats, may become the home of even more narrowly-niched talk-based formats. News and Talk formats with considerable popular appeal will be heard on FM, not AM.

(2) I-Pod's, Satellite Radio like XM and Siruis, and Internet music downloads are starting to steal large numbers of listeners away from "traditional" music-formatted radio and that some broadacsters believe that the future of the medium isn't in music, but in talk-based formats that have one advantage over music-based formats: They're live. Unless your I-Pod also has a radio as part of the unit, you can't listen to any live programming on it.

 

[davideduardo]

> Could this series of format changes have a major impact on
> the entire industry and in markets all across the country??

In most markets, the leading news or news talk station is on a full market signal. DC has no full market signal on AM.

So, I do not see that this has any impact at all on markets with good AM signals.

 

[11south]

> > Could this series of format changes have a major impact on
>
> > the entire industry and in markets all across the
> country??
>
> In most markets, the leading news or news talk station is on
> a full market signal. DC has no full market signal on AM.
>
> So, I do not see that this has any impact at all on markets
> with good AM signals.
>
Not sure I totally agree with you David, however in markets where there is a vibrant AM band...it will be farther down the road. But in places like DC, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc. where the AM band is made up of directional regional signals I think it will happen faster.

I also think the trend of CCU converting an underperforming property in markets like Pittsburgh and Minneapolis will continue, and we will watch them dismantle KDKA and WCCO systematically.

Emmis' KFTK is hurting the younger end of KMOX in STL.

Whether we like it or not, AM is a tough putt for anything under 40 years of anymore...over half of the 25-54 demo. There is only so much direct business, or 50+ business out there. They have to figure out a way bring the audience composition younger and land in top five 25-54.

The interesting experiment to watch will be KSL is Salt Lake where they are simulcasting on a full power fm station. KSL does not have a signal problem like WTOP or Charlotte's WBT. They are just opening another location in a more high traffic location.

Let me pose this question; would KFI do better in younger demos if they were on full power FM station in LA?

The problem with it all is it leads to the premature death of AM band.

Return to you duties

 

[FloridaBear1776]

The premature death of AM...

> The problem with it all is it leads to the premature death
> of AM band.
>
The AM band is 80+ years old. I'd say that's a good long life. It may not be over yet... if the big owners decide to get out and sell for fire-sale prices to people with ideas. But knowing corporate radio, all those now-useless AMs will probably end up in the hands of various ministries, Salem Communications, and the likes of Birach (rhymes with yuck) Broadcasting.

 

[davideduardo]

>
> Let me pose this question; would KFI do better in younger
> demos if they were on full power FM station in LA?

I think we may have a "cart before the horse" situation. We think that AM only gets 35+ because it is not a cool band for under-35 persons. On the other hand, would AM programming get under 35 listeners if it were on FM.

Most talk programming such as is on KMOX or KFI or WSB or any traditional AM talker has very little young appeal. It could be on FM or on an ipod but I do not think that the content is of interest. When talk gets younger numbers, it is hot talk, with sexusal overtones, and not the topical or poilitica talk of traditonally AM stations.

 

[peppertree]

Re: The premature death of AM...

What is the matter with that? If you don't like it, then put up some money and buy your own station. (If Big Brother at the FCC will allow you one.)

You got nerve with this attitude that certain buyers of radio stations are not worthy. I think we should take some time out to read the First Ammendment once in a while.


> But knowing corporate radio, all those now-useless AMs will
> probably end up in the hands of various ministries, Salem
> Communications, and the likes of Birach (rhymes with yuck)
> Broadcasting.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[radionut987]

Re: The premature death of AM...

> > The problem with it all is it leads to the premature death
>
> > of AM band.
> >
> The AM band is 80+ years old. I'd say that's a good long
> life. It may not be over yet... if the big owners decide to
> get out and sell for fire-sale prices to people with ideas.
> But knowing corporate radio, all those now-useless AMs will
> probably end up in the hands of various ministries, Salem
> Communications, and the likes of Birach (rhymes with yuck)
> Broadcasting.
>

Agreed. Let's face it, many of those AM stations you speak of barely cover the downtown area of most places, even during the day. At least those companies will have some use for these stations. It definitely beats taking them off the air, and letting them go dark.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radionut987 on 01/09/06 03:40 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[FloridaBear1776]

It WOULD be better for those frequencies to go dark...

> What is the matter with that? If you don't like it, then
> put up some money and buy your own station. (If Big Brother
> at the FCC will allow you one.)
>
> You got nerve with this attitude that certain buyers of
> radio stations are not worthy. I think we should take some
> time out to read the First Ammendment once in a while.
>
>
> > But knowing corporate radio, all those now-useless AMs
> will
> > probably end up in the hands of various ministries, Salem
> > Communications, and the likes of Birach (rhymes with yuck)
>
> > Broadcasting.
> >
>

Yes, it would be better if these frequencies went dark, if the alternative means turning them into national time-brokerage brothels. It would give those few remaining broadcasters that are trying to serve their communities with local content and news a better chance of survival by cleaning up interference and lessening competition for the ad dollar.

What about the First Amendment rights of the people who would do something better with the radio station, but get beat out on price by those whose business model is selling half hour blocks to snake oil salesmen or screaming preachers? If we were truly talking First Amendment here, anyone could throw up a transmitter on any frequency. Since that's impossible, inevitably someone's rights are going to be stepped on. Salem and Birach would get those stations because they put up more money, not because of their First Amendment rights. Folks like you only make that argument when someone else who's not part of the corporate radio charmed circle closed club of owners wants to get into the game.
My view is closer to the First Amendment than yours is, because it doesn't assume that the rich dude or corporation that owns the license is the only one who possesses rights worthy of respecting.

A great example of how brokered is crowding out good radio is unfolding in Phoenix. There, a company called Communicom that specializes in brokered religious programming, and whose flagship in New Orleans drew no significant audience even before Katrina, is buying out KXXT and shutting down the progressive talk format. Whatever you think about liberal talk, it was drawing listeners in Phoenix, more than Communicom's format ever will. But the brokered format enables a station to make money WITHOUT listeners, and to drive out formats that actually draw audiences. What about the first amendment rights of all of the liberals in Phoenix who are losing their radio voice? Oops, they're not owners, they don't count.

If stations could be had at fire-sale prices, and no one was bidding them up based on a business model that does not serve the listener's or the public's interest, then companies would not be saddled with huge debt service and could air more local content. (I'd be in favor of requiring that, also. It seems a small price to pay for access to a public resource to make money.) If they can't do that, they should shut down and clean up an already cluttered AM band where too many scrawny kittens are scrapping for too small a piece of the pie.

AM is an old neighborhood, the oldest in the electromagnetic spectrum next to long wave. Like many old neighborhoods, it has become rundown and attracted
"crack dealers" (brokered stations). To clean up the neighborhood, the "crack houses" (small-time, weak signal brokered stations that attract no audience)
need to be condemned and bulldozed, IF they can't be converted to a better use (which I define as a station that actually draws enough listeners to make it onto the bottom of the Arbitron rankings or better). Nobody outside of a fringe element stands up for the constitutional rights of crack dealers. If you truly want AM to continue to survive in this era, you should support this.

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by FloridaBear1776 on 01/09/06 08:16 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[11south]

Re: The premature death of AM...

> > The problem with it all is it leads to the premature death
>
> > of AM band.
> >
> The AM band is 80+ years old. I'd say that's a good long
> life. It may not be over yet... if the big owners decide to
> get out and sell for fire-sale prices to people with ideas.
> But knowing corporate radio, all those now-useless AMs will
> probably end up in the hands of various ministries, Salem
> Communications, and the likes of Birach (rhymes with yuck)
> Broadcasting.
>
I like your spirit, and hate what has happened to AM with the large corporate broadcasters who either donate their AM Stations to a religious organization, or do some crap time brokered stuff. The problem still remains; if you sold it to someone with ideas...could it be a viable business for the person with ideas? Are there enough people with ideas out there, to salvage it?

One of the problems with the AM band also is; it takes to much land to make them work vs. FM. And in larger metro areas, the land is often worth more that the station itself.

Turning some of the off to reduce interference on the band makes some sense.

In my hometown you can reach more people by yelling in the sporting goods department at the local Walmart than the entire cume of the AM station in that market on 980khz.

It's a shame. That station would have more listeners if it had good content, but the owner can't afford good content, so they put on crap they can get for cheap...and no one listens. They still eek (sp) out a living, as they have people selling it that are well known in the community. What is left of the local merchants feel sorry for them, or have some affinity for the local high school sports broadcast that no one really listens to.

Don't get me started on brokered time.<P ID="signature">______________
I get paid to be suspicious when I've got nothing to be suspicious about.</P>

 

[Ed_Walker]

Here's how your wrong

Your comments are short-sited, naive, and somewhat prejudical.

> What about the First Amendment rights of the people who
> would do something better with the radio station, but get
> beat out on price by those whose business model is selling
> half hour blocks to snake oil salesmen or screaming
> preachers?

Snake oil salesmen and screaming preachers have First Amendment
rights too - ask the ACLU - and if they want to purchase half hour
blocks to do their thing, they deserve that right also. The First
Amendment means those people too.

> A great example of how brokered is crowding out good radio
> is unfolding in Phoenix. There, a company called Communicom
> that specializes in brokered religious programming, and
> whose flagship in New Orleans drew no significant audience
> even before Katrina, is buying out KXXT and shutting down
> the progressive talk format.

Remember too that someone is "selling out" KXXT too; there would be
no buyer if there wasn't a seller. The buyer has their First Amendment
rights to program the station as they please.

What you're forgetting is that brokered radio stations will
never show the audience numbers mainstream formats do. To make a
statement about Communicom's New Orleans audience numbers is pretty
naive.

You just can't maintain high AQH when your audience (and programming)
changes every half hour. You cannot measure the success of a brokered
format radio station on the same scale as mainstream broadcasters.

Does this mean brokered radio stations are not serving anyone? No.

Religious broadcasters who broker time can only afford
to do so if there's listeners who send in their contributions.
This only happens if someone is listening.

> More than Communicom's format ever will. But the brokered format
> enables a station to make money WITHOUT listeners, and to
> drive out formats that actually draw audiences.

Wrong. See my last paragraph. The financial model might be
different - where the radio station isn't taking the risk - the
brokered program producers are - but if they don't draw an audience
they won't survive and the station won't get the money. It still
means listeners - although you can't measure a brokered station's
audience on the same scale as a traditional radio station with a
consistent 24/7 format.

> What about the first amendment rights of all of the liberals in Phoenix
> who are losing their radio voice? Oops, they're not owners,
> they don't count.

If the format is that appealing to listeners and advertisers (you've
got to have both), then it will reappear somewhere else on the dial.
Radio is still a business, not a charity. Looking at the Phoenix 12+
numbers, there's quite a few stations with smaller audiences.

Honestly, just looking at the numbers publically available, KXXT's
current format isn't exactly setting the world on fire; and since its
sold in the traditional ways with a station sales staff, I'm sure its
only marginally profitable - if that at all. But I could be wrong.

As one who has done "brokered radio", you're forgetting that such
radio stations appeal to the fringe groups that don't have fulltime
radio stations that serve them.

In the suburbs of Chicago, for instance, there's lots of low powered
AMs that could not survive without doing brokered radio. And while
they carry some of the preachers you apparently loath, they also carry
programs produced by minority groups: The Czech and Polish communities;
the German communities; the guy who wants to do a heavy-metal program;
and the gay and lesbian communities.

Without the brokered radio station, these groups would never have their
voice on the air. And while you might not like (I'm not certain why) the
business model where blocks of time are sold, its the best way to make
this happen. The program producers are closer to the communities and
advertisers for that programming than the radio station could ever be.
And the program producers are making money too.

Serving people and making money. Its the American way.

I used to board op programming like this while in high school. If
you knew how much the phone rang during the "German Hour" or the polka
show, you'd understand how important a brokered radio station is.

 

[FloridaBear1776]

Re: Here's how your wrong

>
> Snake oil salesmen and screaming preachers have First
> Amendment
> rights too - ask the ACLU - and if they want to purchase
> half hour
> blocks to do their thing, they deserve that right also. The
> First
> Amendment means those people too.
>
Nobody has a first amendment right to make fraudulent claims about a product.
Many of the products that have been featured in radio infomercials have been taken off the market after Cease and Desist orders -- or the marketing has been changed radically. Sea Silver is a good example, as is coral calcium. The only reason the snake oil types are able to sell at all is that there is a time lag between when their infomercials hit the market, and when the Feds catch up to them. Inside that window, they can sell a bunch of junk, then pay the fines as a
CODB (cost of doing business).

As for the preachers, while they have the first amendment right to preach,
many on the radio have taken the parable about the "widow's mite" far too literally. In effect, they victimize the elderly, getting them to send their last dime in so they can stay on the air in Peoria. So two or three senior citizens sending in their rent money override thousands of potential listeners to something a little more entertaining.

>
> Remember too that someone is "selling out" KXXT too; there
> would be
> no buyer if there wasn't a seller. The buyer has their
> First Amendment
> rights to program the station as they please.

Again, only the "owners" have any rights under your scenario.
>

> You just can't maintain high AQH when your audience (and
> programming)
> changes every half hour. You cannot measure the success of
> a brokered
> format radio station on the same scale as mainstream
> broadcasters.
>
> Does this mean brokered radio stations are not serving
> anyone? No.

If what you say is true, then brokered stations would show high cume but low TSL in their low AQH. Brokered stations CUME badly too. They have low cume AND low TSL. In other words, damn near nobody's listening.

I know of one brokered station in Florida whose only caller was a drunk who slept on a park bench near the studios, and claimed he could hear it in his
head.

>
> Religious broadcasters who broker time can only afford
> to do so if there's listeners who send in their
> contributions.
> This only happens if someone is listening.
>
See above. There's also the possibility that the religious broadcaster is moving around the money -- taking the widows' mites from L.A. to pay for airtime in Phoenix.

> Wrong. See my last paragraph. The financial model might be
>
> different - where the radio station isn't taking the risk -
> the
> brokered program producers are - but if they don't draw an
> audience
> they won't survive and the station won't get the money.

You're forgetting an important aspect of brokered programming -- vanity.
Many of the folks who broker time haven't got a clue how to attract an audience.
They do it to feed their egos. Even if there's no audience, they'll keep doing the show. Or, they might cancel after 13 weeks, but there's always another sucker waiting to take their time slot, who simply doesn't know any better and thinks brokered is a good deal.

Which brings me to another aspect about most of the brokered operators. They almost always overstate their audiences and often overstate their coverage areas, since they know they're dealing with suckers. Needless to say, once those who've been victimized figure out the truth, it sours them on all AM radio, and on radio advertising in general.

Basically the whole brokered radio racket depends on victimization: the owners sell a pig in the poke to brokers, who sell same pig in poke to advertisers, or who have a pig in a poke of their own (quack remedies) to sell to listeners.

>
>
> If the format is that appealing to listeners and advertisers
> (you've
> got to have both), then it will reappear somewhere else on
> the dial.
Not if all the stations are bought up by Salem. One estimate says there are nine religious stations in Phoenix.

> Radio is still a business, not a charity.

Putting liberal talk on in Phoenix or many other markets would be a good business move, but you won't see Salem doing it anytime soon. Business sense does not always win out and therefore we can't depend on it to give listeners what they want.

> Honestly, just looking at the numbers publically available,
> KXXT's
> current format isn't exactly setting the world on fire; and
> since its
> sold in the traditional ways with a station sales staff, I'm
> sure its
> only marginally profitable - if that at all. But I could be
> wrong.

It made a profit after only nine months on the air -- and the trends in revenue and ratings were generally pointing upward. 2006 is an election year, and I think political talk of all stripes will improve on 2005 performance.

>
> In the suburbs of Chicago, for instance, there's lots of low
> powered
> AMs that could not survive without doing brokered radio.

Then LET THEM EXPIRE! They're just taking up space and very few people can even hear them.

> And while
> they carry some of the preachers you apparently loath, they
> also carry
> programs produced by minority groups: The Czech and Polish
> communities;
> the German communities; the guy who wants to do a
> heavy-metal program;
> and the gay and lesbian communities.

Some of these could be served by specialty shows on talk stations on a sponsored basis. Not all polka shows are brokered. Others might be better served on the Internet, leaving terrestrial radio to programming that can draw a significant slice of the community.

> The program producers are closer to the > communities and
> advertisers for that programming than the radio station
> could ever be.

Again, many of them are in it for vanity reasons, or are pushing infomercials, and are in no way connected to the communities surrounding the radio station.

 

[Ed_Walker]

Re: Here's how your wrong

> Nobody has a first amendment right to make fraudulent claims
> about a product.

Very true but a whole different topic.

> Many of the products that have been featured in radio
> infomercials have been taken off the market after Cease and
> Desist orders -- or the marketing has been changed
> radically.

And many haven't. Too far off topic.

> As for the preachers, while they have the first amendment
> right to preach,

Exactly.

> many on the radio have taken the parable about the "widow's
> mite" far too literally. In effect, they victimize the
> elderly, getting them to send their last dime in so they can
> stay on the air in Peoria.

Yes, there's good and bad people in the world. In every walk of
life. Sports. Politics. Entertainment.

> Again, only the "owners" have any rights under your
> scenario.

Rights come with risk. Who put up the money for the
facility and license to begin with? Who suffers financially if a
favorite format doesn't pay the bills?

The listener risks nothing....nada.

> If what you say is true, then brokered stations would show
> high cume but low TSL in their low AQH. Brokered stations
> CUME badly too. They have low cume AND low TSL. In other
> words, damn near nobody's listening.

But apparently enough listen to pay the bills. If I read
what you're saying, any station with a low cume should be forced
off the air, despite the fact that they could well be serving
small minority groups that have no other radio outlet.

> I know of one brokered station in Florida whose only caller
> was a drunk who slept on a park bench near the studios, and
> claimed he could hear it in his head.

Slept on a park bench and had a phone? The ONLY caller
in the HISTORY of the radio station? Huh? How could you
possibly know this?

I've listened to 50kw AM blowtorches and hosts who were sweating
it out waiting for the phones to ring. It happens.

> See above. There's also the possibility that the religious
> broadcaster is moving around the money -- taking the widows'
> mites from L.A. to pay for airtime in Phoenix.

I guess anything's possible.

Imagine: George Bush could be the money behind Al Franken,
whether Al knows it or not. It could be George's "master plan":
"Let's support Franken so he makes all the democrats sound like
a bunch of boring whiners." Possible? Yes. Likely? Hmmm.

Yeah. Anything's possible. So what if the religious broadcaster
is doing that? In your scenario, my guess is that he'll only
throw money at "Phoenix" so long before he decides the market
isn't going to support him.

> You're forgetting an important aspect of brokered
> programming -- vanity.
> Many of the folks who broker time haven't got a clue how to
> attract an audience.

So what? That means they have free speech rights to be on the
radio?

"I'm sorry sir, its been determined by FloridaBear1776
that you don't have a clue about how to attact an audience.
Therefore, we're not only going to yank you from the air, we're
also going to pull the license of this radio station. Have a
nice day".

> They do it to feed their egos. Even if there's no audience,
> they'll keep doing the show. Or, they might cancel after 13
> weeks, but there's always another sucker waiting to take
> their time slot, who simply doesn't know any better and
> thinks brokered is a good deal.

Oh yeah. There's certainly no egos being fed within the walls of
those high-cuming, high-TSL stations!

(LOL - again, so what?)

> Which brings me to another aspect about most of the brokered
> operators. They almost always overstate their audiences and
> often overstate their coverage areas, since they know
> they're dealing with suckers. Needless to say, once those
> who've been victimized figure out the truth, it sours them
> on all AM radio, and on radio advertising in general.

Without risking libel, can you cite any specific cases?

And I'm certain things like this have never happened at your high-
cuming, high-TSL stations either (please note more sarcasm).

And I've certainly never seen a sales person at the "high-cuming/
high TSL" stations I've worked for sell a schedule to a client
that had no possibility of working.

Yeah, I have.

Or have seen a delusional client at some of those same radio
stations come in with the wrong product for the demo - or
insisting on bad copy that won't give him the results he needs
- or - god forbid - want to voice the spot himself, despite
sounding like Pee-Wee Herman on downers.

That poor victim of a client!!

I've seen it all at those "high cuming/high TSL stations"...

> Basically the whole brokered radio racket depends on
> victimization: the owners sell a pig in the poke to brokers,
> who sell same pig in poke to advertisers, or who have a pig
> in a poke of their own (quack remedies) to sell to
> listeners.

Its a business. There's sellers and buyers. I guess in your
world, every buyer is a victim. I could go to a fast-food place and
fall for their "hamburger racket". Or to Outback Steakhouse and
fall for that "steak racket thing" they got going on. You and I
both know they're just selling those steaks to anyone who will buy one.

Actually, I'm a victim of the Outback "Bloomin' Onion" racket,
I must confess.

> Putting liberal talk on in Phoenix or many other markets
> would be a good business move,

I don't know about Phoenix specifically, but yes, in many
markets it would be a good business move. No argument.

> but you won't see Salem doing it anytime soon. Business
> sense does not always win out and therefore we can't depend
> on it to give listeners what they want.

What listeners are you talking about? You're correct about
the chances of Salem launching liberal talk.

In all fairness to them, I'll bet they didn't know it was their
responsibility to do so. So every broadcasting company in
America ought to be doing liberal talk?

While Salem's programming isn't my cup of tea, that company has
enjoyed rapid widespread growth for giving listeners what they
want.

> It made a profit after only nine months on the air -- and
> the trends in revenue and ratings were generally pointing
> upward. 2006 is an election year, and I think political talk
> of all stripes will improve on 2005 performance.

KXXT shared their financial books with you? How much of a
profit? Anything above operating costs (even a dollar) could be
considered a profit. If its so profitable, why are they selling?

Profitable radio stations usually drive up the sale price
of a property - and given that scenario, why would a buyer
pay a premium for a radio station to simply change the format?

> (Chicago AMs) Then LET THEM EXPIRE! They're just taking up
> space and very few people can even hear them.

> Some of these could be served by specialty shows on talk
> stations on a sponsored basis. Not all polka shows are
> brokered. Others might be better served on the Internet,
> leaving terrestrial radio to programming that can draw a
> significant slice of the community.

Hmmm...why would a talk station (the high-cume/high-TSL types
you think should still exist) put a polka show - or a german
language show on their air?

"and now, KFI/Los Angeles brings you Yosh and Stan Shmenge with
an hour of polka favorites. We'll be back with "More Stimulating
Talk Radio here on KFI in just sixty minutes. Stay tuned!"

So these minorities and specialty groups are not part of
your elitist world that deserves a radio station?

A lot of these minority groups are the very ones who don't own/
can't afford a computer and internet connection. But since
their not part of your perfect world, they don't deserve a
radio station, right?

I'm sure many progressive talk listeners in Phoenix can continue
to get their fix on satellite or the internet too...no?

Oh - how about this: "The Randi Rhodes Show is coming up in just
one hour here on Progressive Talk 760 here in Boulder. But first,
its time for the Big Joe Polka radio show - let's start off today
with some "Frankie Yankovic and the boys" with that all time
favorite "She's Too Fat For Me"....

Seriously dude, every voice has a right to be heard - be it
progressive talk or the guy who wants to broker time to do
the polka show on a suburban 1000 watt AM. Its called diversity.
Its called freedom. Deciding whats appropriate or not based on - of
all things Arbitron numbers or the financial workings of getting
something on the air is pretty shallow. Brokered radio stations give
these small guys the voice the big stations can't and won't give them.

And while there's always ones to spoil the party, you can't let the
poor choices of a few affect the freedoms of others.

 

[peppertree]

Re: Here's how your wrong

One exception to this: Politicians during a campaign.

> > Nobody has a first amendment right to make fraudulent
> claims
> > about a product.
> <P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>