-
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 Loathe the fact Clear Channel ended up owning so many news/talk stations.
- Thread starter dustintv
- Start date
J
Julius Leonard Marx
Guest
I'll give the devil it's due: There was a time in early 90s when you couldn't sell an AM station, including good signals in major markets, for chalk or marbles. No buyers. The banks wouldn't loan money to buy AM stations. Stations were going begging. Clear Channel got a bunch of them, many were former NBC and GE blow torches. Salem got many of them, too.
The way things look now, AM is still terminal. And Jack Welch (head of GE at the time) was right to get the company out of the radio business. WGY, of course, was GE's original radio property. Now Disney has unloaded radio and Viacom keeps trying ways to keep radio from dragging down the company's stock. Clear Channel wants to downsize and many of its clusters are chronic money-losers.
Salem, of course, is a couple of guys from Bob Jones University who are saving souls for Jesus and Bush (not necessarily in that order) and think the Lord will reward them financially. Clear Channel wants us all to think they are only interested in money but somehow they keep concluding that the way to money is also preaching the right-wing gospel.
The Democrats did away with ownership caps. There's not a snow ball's chance they will bring them back in any meaningful way. Unlike these radio operators, for politicians it is all about money.
The way things look now, AM is still terminal. And Jack Welch (head of GE at the time) was right to get the company out of the radio business. WGY, of course, was GE's original radio property. Now Disney has unloaded radio and Viacom keeps trying ways to keep radio from dragging down the company's stock. Clear Channel wants to downsize and many of its clusters are chronic money-losers.
Salem, of course, is a couple of guys from Bob Jones University who are saving souls for Jesus and Bush (not necessarily in that order) and think the Lord will reward them financially. Clear Channel wants us all to think they are only interested in money but somehow they keep concluding that the way to money is also preaching the right-wing gospel.
The Democrats did away with ownership caps. There's not a snow ball's chance they will bring them back in any meaningful way. Unlike these radio operators, for politicians it is all about money.
D
Don62
Guest
I've never run into an organizatio as skin-flints or tight-fisted with their money than these cheapos at Cheap Ch.
Unless your last name happens to be a Mays, or are married to one, no one's job there is safe.
I read online somewhere else that CC, in trying save even more pennies, has eliminated local traffic people for its Orlando NT station. All traffic is done miles away in Tampa, where readers view traffic cameras set up along I-4. Will the laid off employees be allowed to move too? NO WAY IN HADES.
Gee. How informative and helpful that will be to the many motorists, as traffic snarls aren't limited to I-4.
And look how CC has ruined most of the legacy stations it bought. Many are all-syndicated, with little if any local daily content.
Listening to paint dry might be more interesting.
Unless your last name happens to be a Mays, or are married to one, no one's job there is safe.
I read online somewhere else that CC, in trying save even more pennies, has eliminated local traffic people for its Orlando NT station. All traffic is done miles away in Tampa, where readers view traffic cameras set up along I-4. Will the laid off employees be allowed to move too? NO WAY IN HADES.
Gee. How informative and helpful that will be to the many motorists, as traffic snarls aren't limited to I-4.
And look how CC has ruined most of the legacy stations it bought. Many are all-syndicated, with little if any local daily content.
Listening to paint dry might be more interesting.
I may agree that some of CC's cost cutting moves are a bit sad. However, that's how Wall Street works, and since the radio business isn't exactly a growth industry, you have to find other ways to consistently deliver better and better shareholder value. If I ever owned a bunch of stations, I wouldn't go public for that reason. But you would own much without capital the market provides.
I disagree with the post in that CC does operate some of the better talk stations as far as the end product is concerned. Next to Bonneville, who does a better job on a national or even regional scale? Cumulus is probably the worst, with everyone else in between.
I disagree with the post in that CC does operate some of the better talk stations as far as the end product is concerned. Next to Bonneville, who does a better job on a national or even regional scale? Cumulus is probably the worst, with everyone else in between.
D
Don62
Guest
I'm sure glad I'm not nor never have been on Cheap Ch's payroll.
Have you guys read about their annual "Christmas bonus?"
It's all over these boards: cut staff, eliminate PDs, promotions directors, news directors, traffic in major cities, VT everything, pipe-in programming. Employees mean nothing. It's only and only about money. And only their money, not their workers'.
A lot good their money will do when they're dead.
Have you guys read about their annual "Christmas bonus?"
It's all over these boards: cut staff, eliminate PDs, promotions directors, news directors, traffic in major cities, VT everything, pipe-in programming. Employees mean nothing. It's only and only about money. And only their money, not their workers'.
A lot good their money will do when they're dead.
Well, they're going private so that everyone involved can make money. Of course, now they'll have to care what their PE partners think. But, I suppose the PE partners, seeing their interest, are more understanding of radio's unsexy business model than Wall Street has been.
J
Julius Leonard Marx
Guest
KJCB said:
Everyone except the suckers, I mean "individual investors," who bought their stock.
G
Gnarlodious
Guest
I don't think you have to loathe for much longer, AM talk radio has one foot in the grave. I have been out shopping for a new in-dash unit and realized this great truth. Terrestrial broadcast is obsolete. Manufacturers are offering consumers subscription services that maximize profit for media providers, and if the corporate media doesn't see this coming they are dumb.
MP3, WMA, AAC, iPod, and satellite is where we are going. There are not even any in-dash units that decode HD radio. I think they are planning to ignore it. Force us to pay for our entertainment
MP3, WMA, AAC, iPod, and satellite is where we are going. There are not even any in-dash units that decode HD radio. I think they are planning to ignore it. Force us to pay for our entertainment
G
Gnarlodious
Guest
Model numbers?
Julius Leonard Marx said:
JLM--
Sorry it took me so long to reply to your comment, but let's not rewrite history. The Telecom Bill of 1996 was the work of Newt Gingrich's "Contract On America" Congress, swept into office in November, 1994. President Bill Clinton signed it into law, and was/is a nominal Democrat. But it was the Republican Congress that passed the legislation. They get the credit, not the Democrats.
The brains behind the '96 law--and Clear Channel--Tom Hicks & Lowry Mays, are Major League Republicans. Bush's Rangers. Remember, the first LMA went to little ol' Hicks Broadcasting that shortly thereafter morphed into Capstar that morphed into...
It's the Republicrats' fault...
No...it's the Demopublicans...
And this matters because...?
No...it's the Demopublicans...
And this matters because...?
G
Gnarlodious
Guest
Telecommunication deregulation; not as bad as it could have been
In January 1993, a few weeks after Clinton was inagurated, Alan Greenspan told the Clinton administration that the Federal deficit was 300 billion dollars. It was going to be impossible for Clinton to borrow more money unless he was willing to risk crashing the American economy. Horrified, Clinton decided to not enact the "tax cuts" he had promised the middle class who voted him into office. Those voters were angry. As a result, the 2004 congressional elections were won soundly by Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America", which promised Americans the exact same tax cuts Clinton considered irresponsible.
This was a sea change in American politics. For the first time, voters were acting like consumers, not citizens. Getting what they personally wanted was their reason for voting, the overall well-being of the nation was barely addressed in the 1994 election. This was the Republican winning strategy, pandering people's personal desires, not building a strong nation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 came at a time when the Republican congress was undoing as much of Clinton's budgetary constraints as possible. getting anything done in such an obstructionist Washington is nearly impossible. ironically, George Bush is getting a lot more done today than Clinton was getting done in his second term with a Republican congress.
If it's any consolation, the version of the Telecommunications Act that was signed by Clinton was much less damaging than "Contract with America" version. Stipulations were negotiated by Clinton that cable and telephone companies would be mostly excluded from deregulation, and that new internet technologies would be open to new businesses rather than established monopolies. Also, cheap and guaranteed internet for schools and colleges were written into the legislation. Communacation technology for the disabled were also guaranteed as a national policy.
Politics is all about negotiating and in a hostile congressional climate Clinton successfully negotiated some improvements. The price was high, as the corporate sponsors of the bill pretty much got what the wanted. I believe, however, that the unregulated internet we have today is a result of Clinton's foresight. It is fortunate that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 happened whan it did. If it had happened just a few years later the internet would be a very different thing today.
So what we essentially did was use the radio stations as wampum in return for a free internet. In my opinion, we are much better off letting the corporations have the broadcast, since that is nearly obsolete technology anyway.
In January 1993, a few weeks after Clinton was inagurated, Alan Greenspan told the Clinton administration that the Federal deficit was 300 billion dollars. It was going to be impossible for Clinton to borrow more money unless he was willing to risk crashing the American economy. Horrified, Clinton decided to not enact the "tax cuts" he had promised the middle class who voted him into office. Those voters were angry. As a result, the 2004 congressional elections were won soundly by Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich's "Contract on America", which promised Americans the exact same tax cuts Clinton considered irresponsible.
This was a sea change in American politics. For the first time, voters were acting like consumers, not citizens. Getting what they personally wanted was their reason for voting, the overall well-being of the nation was barely addressed in the 1994 election. This was the Republican winning strategy, pandering people's personal desires, not building a strong nation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 came at a time when the Republican congress was undoing as much of Clinton's budgetary constraints as possible. getting anything done in such an obstructionist Washington is nearly impossible. ironically, George Bush is getting a lot more done today than Clinton was getting done in his second term with a Republican congress.
If it's any consolation, the version of the Telecommunications Act that was signed by Clinton was much less damaging than "Contract with America" version. Stipulations were negotiated by Clinton that cable and telephone companies would be mostly excluded from deregulation, and that new internet technologies would be open to new businesses rather than established monopolies. Also, cheap and guaranteed internet for schools and colleges were written into the legislation. Communacation technology for the disabled were also guaranteed as a national policy.
Politics is all about negotiating and in a hostile congressional climate Clinton successfully negotiated some improvements. The price was high, as the corporate sponsors of the bill pretty much got what the wanted. I believe, however, that the unregulated internet we have today is a result of Clinton's foresight. It is fortunate that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 happened whan it did. If it had happened just a few years later the internet would be a very different thing today.
So what we essentially did was use the radio stations as wampum in return for a free internet. In my opinion, we are much better off letting the corporations have the broadcast, since that is nearly obsolete technology anyway.
jimwalsh2001 said:It's the Republicrats' fault...
No...it's the Demopublicans...
And this matters because...?
It only matters if radio matters. If it does--and it's worth resurrecting--it helps to know who killed it and how it was done... and maybe even why it was done. Otherwise, one can spend years tilting at windmills...
Are we planning radio war crimes trials? If so, who would be the defendants, who would prosecute, and who would judge? ... and what would the penalties be?
G
Gnarlodious
Guest
He just needs to put a positive spin on it.
All kidding aside, I have more respect for an imperfect leader than one who can't admit his mistakes.
All kidding aside, I have more respect for an imperfect leader than one who can't admit his mistakes.
- Status