• 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

I just read an article n variety n is there any truth to the rumor amp goin sports

KLAA has a good night signal along the coast.

It is, though, limited to the area south of downtown LA and the OC. To the north of downtown, the signal is variable and subject to LA's high level of urban noise.
 
Shouldn't that disadvantage be shrinking with each succeeding generation of Angelenos? After all, baseball (or the bat-and-ball games like rounders and cricket from which it was derived) was not "native" in Europe outside the British Isles, yet immigrants from all over the continent came here, saw people already here for generations playing and watching the game, and became players and fans themselves. My father's parents came from Ukraine in the '20s. By the time he was 12, he was playing stickball in the streets of Brooklyn. His family then moved to the Boston area, where he'd go to Braves games. He would also play in pick-up football (not soccer; that was for his parents' generation) games. The children of Russian and Polish and Italian parents in his neighborhoods were doing the same thing, not ignoring or failing to understand the appeal of American games. These were first-generation children and baseball was just as foreign to their parents as our football was to theirs. So how do you explain current Hispanic resistance to American football in cities that have had multiple generations of Hispanics grow up and live in them? Is this just some sort of odd psychological hard-wiring, like the preference for rhythmic over melodic music?


Different times. Immigrants (primarily Europeans) in the early 20th century came to the U.S. to escape the oppression in their native countries. They adopted American sports to embrace the American way of life and culture and start new traditions. The current immigrants, on the other hand, come to live in the U.S. to seek a better life, but still want to maintain their culture and traditions. This difference partly explains some of the political divide currently in the country today.
 
Different times. Immigrants (primarily Europeans) in the early 20th century came to the U.S. to escape the oppression in their native countries. They adopted American sports to embrace the American way of life and culture and start new traditions. The current immigrants, on the other hand, come to live in the U.S. to seek a better life, but still want to maintain their culture and traditions. This difference partly explains some of the political divide currently in the country today.

That is a very good point.

Until the early 20's, with the strange and racist prohibition of "Chinese" (used as a term for all Asians) put into effect in the late 1800's, immigration was open. Unless you were obviously sick, you got in.

Then came the Great Depression and then WW II. It was not until the late 40's that immigration began. Many were from war-torn Europe, and then more came from the nations that became part of the Soviet Union in the next decade. This later group included a considerable educated middle class of skilled workers or educated persons.

As industry grew, the need for cheap labor took over in being the magnet for industry. And then agriculture, as the minimum wage crept over $1 an hour by 1960, started attracting the unskilled. By no coincidence, this was when minorities were being freed of discrimination and the national mood encouraged groups to identify by their differences in race and ethnicity rather than the past tendency to seek a common culture and identity.

There have been books and thousands of doctoral theses written about this, most filled with opinion and partisanship while being nearly devoid of actual surveys and statistical models supported by facts.

As far as radio goes, we find stations that encourage separate but equal cultures that do so to perpetuate their economic model.
 
David - To paraphrase Bobby Knight: "You've forgotten more about this f***en business than all of us people combined are ever gonna know".
 
Getting back to the subject of 97.1 possibly flipping to sports: I don't see how L.A. can support a fourth sports station (the others being KLAC, KSPN and KLAA), when the existing three have never set the ratings on fire.

Also (and I know this is a minor aside) 1090 AM from Rosarito Beach, Mexico aims its 50kw directly at L.A. -- and it plans a return to sports programming I believe this summer. I realize the signal is best along L.A.'s coast, but you can pick up 1090 on a car radio throughout most of the L.A. and O.C. metro. So... that would be four 1/2 sports stations.
 
The whole area of the San Gabriel Valley, Long Beach and other cities in Southern LA county are more aligned with the Angels than with the Central LA area. All the people I know in that area who are baseball fans are Angels fans.

Los Angeles = Dodgers
OC = Angels

Is there some spillover on both ends? Sure, but that is the distinction today. The geniuses should have just left it as the Anaheim Angels.

As a whole, it's the Los Angeles Dodgers as the predominate team for Southern California, with their rich, well-known history, stadium, former players and coaches and decades of success going back to the 1950's in Brooklyn. No wonder they sell out so many games every year and have the highest or nearly the highest in attendance every single year. They badly need another championship and in 2017, we were robbed. You know the story! Many people were devastated.
 
Los Angeles = Dodgers
OC = Angels

Is there some spillover on both ends? Sure, but that is the distinction today. The geniuses should have just left it as the Anaheim Angels.

As a whole, it's the Los Angeles Dodgers as the predominate team for Southern California, with their rich, well-known history, stadium, former players and coaches and decades of success going back to the 1950's in Brooklyn. No wonder they sell out so many games every year and have the highest or nearly the highest in attendance every single year. They need another championship and in 2017, we were robbed. You know the story!

It was only "Anaheim Angels" for the period required to get financing for the stadium overhaul.

As mentioned, the name "Angels" is the same as "Angeles". Add "Los" and you know where the team originated, with that title going back to 1898.

As mentioned, in Southern LA County, including Long Beach, as well as much of the San Gabriel Valley, there seems to be more interest in the Angels than the Dodgers.

As to the Dodgers, that "famous" stadium is infamous for displacing the Chavez Ravine Mexican American community that lived there, using the worst legal techniques known to man at the time.
 
Getting back to the subject of 97.1 possibly flipping to sports: I don't see how L.A. can support a fourth sports station (the others being KLAC, KSPN and KLAA), when the existing three have never set the ratings on fire.

Also (and I know this is a minor aside) 1090 AM from Rosarito Beach, Mexico aims its 50kw directly at L.A. -- and it plans a return to sports programming I believe this summer. I realize the signal is best along L.A.'s coast, but you can pick up 1090 on a car radio throughout most of the L.A. and O.C. metro. So... that would be four 1/2 sports stations.

1090 ceased to be viable in the LA metro back in the 90's as man-made noise on AM started growing. With today's electronics, other than right along the coast, most people would not receive, or enjoy if they could receive, such a signal.
 
As to the Dodgers, that "famous" stadium is infamous for displacing the Chavez Ravine Mexican American community that lived there, using the worst legal techniques known to man at the time.

It's a bad thing that happened at the time, but a stadium had to be built somewhere near downtown, which ultimately opened in 1962.

Where else could Dodger Stadium have been built back then, where there was open space?

I remember when the 5 freeway in Orange County was widened in the 1990's, from three lanes in each direction to five. It's unfortunate that officials in those years when the 5 was originally built, didn't realize Southern California was going to blossom to the moon, otherwise the land right-of-way would have been set aside eons ago and prevent so many homes from being put in areas, only to be razed decades later.

It's bad, but the freeway really needed widening. A three lane, bumpy freeway was going to buckle eventually.
 
Too bad about that trail of tears thing, but dang, they had to make room for I-40, I-75 and I-55 somewhere!

Uh, sorry, nobody was killed when LA gave the land to the Dodgers, it was voted on by a referendum of the City's voters (who had already voted in a mayor with a platform of no public housing anywhere in the city including Elysian Park/Chavez Ravine) and at least some of the residents were compensated to move.

Nothing about your comparison is apt.
 
Too bad about that trail of tears thing, but dang, they had to make room for I-40, I-75 and I-55 somewhere!

Uh, sorry, nobody was killed when LA gave the land to the Dodgers, it was voted on by a referendum of the City's voters (who had already voted in a mayor with a platform of no public housing anywhere in the city including Elysian Park/Chavez Ravine) and at least some of the residents were compensated to move.

Nothing about your comparison is apt.


Follow up: I realize your comment was specifically about the freeways, and not the Chavez Ravine situation, but regardless the specifics of my post still stand and, in spirit, are still applicable to your post. Nobody was killed to put a freeway in either.
 
Once the NFL season begins (should it go forward in 2020) I can easily see 97.1 being re-formatted as Rams Radio (last season's games aired on Entercom's JACK FM) KNX can go back to being an all news station again by moving Sunday/Monday Night Football, Playoffs and Super Bowl to 97.1 as well. And it's never been about the ratings with Sports Radio, all about the billing. I also have to disagree with an eariler post about CBS Sports Radio being 'small market garbage'. Jim Rome still attracts top sports talent and writers as guests and still has a sizeable following. Amy Lawrence has one of the better overnight shows in any format. The rest of the talent is just as listenable (yes, ever Ferrell On The Bench) - all this IMO of course.
 
Uh, sorry, nobody was killed when LA gave the land to the Dodgers, it was voted on by a referendum of the City's voters (who had already voted in a mayor with a platform of no public housing anywhere in the city including Elysian Park/Chavez Ravine) and at least some of the residents were compensated to move.

At the time, Hispanics in LA were disenfranchised, and the African-American community tended not to be active in today's fashion. So a bunch of white people, in an era where minority rights and cultures was dismissed or ignored, voted to kick a bunch of (insert contemporary Hispanic derogatory term here) off some land a bunch of poor people lived on.

Totally shameful.

When the neighborhood was seized, it was intended to build public housing. But a mayor who found such housing to be "socialist" began the initiative to use the location for a ball park. The tactics used to displace the residents would not be acceptable now, just as the displacement of an ethnic neighborhood would not.

In that era, there was plenty of land, but none of it was as close to downtown and in the 50's attractive as it was close to what was America's first freeway.

If someone had come up with that idea a decade or so later, it would not have been allowed due to the impact on a minority community.
 
If someone had come up with that idea a decade or so later, it would not have been allowed due to the impact on a minority community.

The Dodgers moved from Brooklyn in 1958 and their temporary home was the L.A. Coliseum til 1962 when Dodger Stadium opened. Construction began in September 1959.

I suppose if the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn through the 1967 season, then things may have been different. But then the Koufax legacy and the 59, 63 and 65 championships may never have occurred. We'll never know.

I feel for the people who lost their land and homes, but things tend to happen for a reason.

Dodger Stadium, along with Wrigley and Fenway are the oldest MLB stadiums and are beautiful iconic, historical landmarks.
 
At the time, Hispanics in LA were disenfranchised, and the African-American community tended not to be active in today's fashion. So a bunch of white people, in an era where minority rights and cultures was dismissed or ignored, voted to kick a bunch of (insert contemporary Hispanic derogatory term here) off some land a bunch of poor people lived on.

Totally shameful.

When the neighborhood was seized, it was intended to build public housing. But a mayor who found such housing to be "socialist" began the initiative to use the location for a ball park. The tactics used to displace the residents would not be acceptable now, just as the displacement of an ethnic neighborhood would not.

In that era, there was plenty of land, but none of it was as close to downtown and in the 50's attractive as it was close to what was America's first freeway.

If someone had come up with that idea a decade or so later, it would not have been allowed due to the impact on a minority community.

It is an unfortunate life spent viewing the entire world through the prism of race and victimization. I refer you back to my original statement - no one was killed (as the commenter alluded to), several if not many were compensated. Eminent domain is for the public good, and people of all colors have had their lives disrupted to make way for progress at one time or another.

And of course you fail to mention all of the good that has come out of it, especially the multiple generations of hispanics who love their "Doyers", take their families to the games for quality family time, and whose communities have benefited in many ways from the Dodgers being in town. The Dodgers may have been given a gift when they came, but they have given back much more, especially to the hispanic community.

By the way, public housing is socialist. Socialism is not racist, it destroys lives of people of all colors everywhere it goes. I know you are familiar with the Venezuela story.
 
I suppose if the Dodgers stayed in Brooklyn through the 1967 season, then things may have been different. But then the Koufax legacy and the 59, 63 and 65 championships may never have occurred. We'll never know

The only thing that really changed when they moved to LA was the location. If they stayed in Brooklyn, Ebbets Field would not have been demolished in 1960.
 
And of course you fail to mention all of the good that has come out of it, especially the multiple generations of hispanics who love their "Doyers", take their families to the games for quality family time, and whose communities have benefited in many ways from the Dodgers being in town. The Dodgers may have been given a gift when they came, but they have given back much more, especially to the hispanic community.

And this sums it up perfectly. I've been to Dodger games in recent years, last being in 2018 and Dodger Stadium is always filled with Hispanics in attendance. It greatly adds to the atmosphere and vibe of the stadium and they love the home team!

What happened in the past, in this case around 1958-59, seems long forgiven.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom