Today I received an angry e-mail from Leslie Stimson, Washington bureau chief for Radio World, demanding that I correct my earlier post under "Savage In Radio World" on this board and to do so "today."
Leslie reminds me - correctly, as it turns out - that she and I had a conversation in early February about the pending IBOC-FM digital power increase for a future article. I had quite forgotten the conversation because we at WYSL were so preoccupied in intervening weeks with trying to fix the disastrous skywave interference from WBZ-HD by installing an FM translator. Without boring everyone with details, there were a lot of legalities and many engineering kinks in this project involving coordination with multiple co-located TVs and FMs on the site, and it is frankly understandable that yet another installment in the ongoing HD intrigues would have been forgotten.
So, as far as it goes, my suggestion that Radio World "never spoke to me" about HD Radio in preparation for the article is incorrect. I regret stating so here and publicly apologize to Leslie and to Paul McLane.
That being said....
My recollection of the early February conversation with Leslie over the pending digital HD hike was that we talked about the coverage and interference issues of -10 dBc and -14 dBc, the increases necessary in AC power input, legal and practical engineering implications of major digital power hikes, and the unlikelihood that many stations outside of Alliance members and pubcasters would avail themselves of the increase.
I was sufficiently irritated by the most recent coverage in RW that I have tossed my issue, but my recollection of the "Savage quotes" used in the HD issue was that comments covered in the February conversation were not cited, while WYSL was held up (once again) as an isolated and unusual IBOC interference case (which of course it is not.) RW was careful to note that WBZ-HD has denied causing interference and suggested that the matter was somehow resolved (it has not been.) But most of all, I am quoted - without any context being provided - as referring to myself as "a naysayer."
As I noted in the earlier thread, I do not consider myself an obstructionist, Luddite or naysayer. I am a professional and experienced operator who runs a quality operation...and I just happen to stick up for all broadcasters, and strongly object to any technical scheme which grants some broadcasters a purported advantage or preference at the expense of others. The technical and legal deck-stacking posed by HD Radio is unfair, disadvantageous to the industry and consumers, and IMO distinctly un-American - as we have all discussed here at length. So for RW to take this quote and use it to attempt to subtly marginalize yours truly and our station, is illustrative of the publication's ongoing and evident pro-HD stance.
That Radio World supports HD Radio is no secret. Publisher Paul McLane has made his belief public in many issues. This is as it should be. RW has the right to take any editorial stance they wish. It's just a shame that they choose to do so at the expense of some radio broadcasters whom they claim to champion.
Is RW unfair to WYSL? radio-info.com visitors and others can judge for themselves. But I am going to make the argument that, for all RW's pious declamations about "fair and balanced" HD Radio coverage, there is a sometimes subtle, sometimes outrageous and evident willingness to support HD at all costs - even if it comes at the expense of entrepreneurial broadcasters. Exhibit A is WYSL and the 2009 Guy Wire attack.
Yes: RW contacted us, alerted us to this vicious coverage and invited us to respond, which we did (albeit in heavily edited form.) But - as I said at the time - it is extraordinary for a publication which staunchly claims it represents all of the radio industry to have allowed an inflammatory and gratutitous broadside like Guy Wire's article to have appeared. I can't think of any other industry publication which is complicit in attacks on its own. We got our chance to shoot back, as I said. But in our society you don't get to avoid arrest for a mugging by giving the money back.
Leslie, Paul and I are just going to have to disagree when it comes to HD Radio - as many, many radio industry people disagree about HD Radio. Unfortunately Radio World seems bent on justifying this sad scheme's multiplying technical problems and faults by finding critics to editorially isolate and marginalize. Once again - radio industry cooperation, collegiality and mutual benefit are victimized by IBOC.
For my part - and for my station - I've got better things to do than help RW hold my livelihood up to derision. In a separate communication I will request that Radio World discontinue WYSL's subscription and that they find another IBOC victim station to publicly ridicule and bully.
Radio World, please note that you have received your correction and apology. Good day to you.
Leslie reminds me - correctly, as it turns out - that she and I had a conversation in early February about the pending IBOC-FM digital power increase for a future article. I had quite forgotten the conversation because we at WYSL were so preoccupied in intervening weeks with trying to fix the disastrous skywave interference from WBZ-HD by installing an FM translator. Without boring everyone with details, there were a lot of legalities and many engineering kinks in this project involving coordination with multiple co-located TVs and FMs on the site, and it is frankly understandable that yet another installment in the ongoing HD intrigues would have been forgotten.
So, as far as it goes, my suggestion that Radio World "never spoke to me" about HD Radio in preparation for the article is incorrect. I regret stating so here and publicly apologize to Leslie and to Paul McLane.
That being said....
My recollection of the early February conversation with Leslie over the pending digital HD hike was that we talked about the coverage and interference issues of -10 dBc and -14 dBc, the increases necessary in AC power input, legal and practical engineering implications of major digital power hikes, and the unlikelihood that many stations outside of Alliance members and pubcasters would avail themselves of the increase.
I was sufficiently irritated by the most recent coverage in RW that I have tossed my issue, but my recollection of the "Savage quotes" used in the HD issue was that comments covered in the February conversation were not cited, while WYSL was held up (once again) as an isolated and unusual IBOC interference case (which of course it is not.) RW was careful to note that WBZ-HD has denied causing interference and suggested that the matter was somehow resolved (it has not been.) But most of all, I am quoted - without any context being provided - as referring to myself as "a naysayer."
As I noted in the earlier thread, I do not consider myself an obstructionist, Luddite or naysayer. I am a professional and experienced operator who runs a quality operation...and I just happen to stick up for all broadcasters, and strongly object to any technical scheme which grants some broadcasters a purported advantage or preference at the expense of others. The technical and legal deck-stacking posed by HD Radio is unfair, disadvantageous to the industry and consumers, and IMO distinctly un-American - as we have all discussed here at length. So for RW to take this quote and use it to attempt to subtly marginalize yours truly and our station, is illustrative of the publication's ongoing and evident pro-HD stance.
That Radio World supports HD Radio is no secret. Publisher Paul McLane has made his belief public in many issues. This is as it should be. RW has the right to take any editorial stance they wish. It's just a shame that they choose to do so at the expense of some radio broadcasters whom they claim to champion.
Is RW unfair to WYSL? radio-info.com visitors and others can judge for themselves. But I am going to make the argument that, for all RW's pious declamations about "fair and balanced" HD Radio coverage, there is a sometimes subtle, sometimes outrageous and evident willingness to support HD at all costs - even if it comes at the expense of entrepreneurial broadcasters. Exhibit A is WYSL and the 2009 Guy Wire attack.
Yes: RW contacted us, alerted us to this vicious coverage and invited us to respond, which we did (albeit in heavily edited form.) But - as I said at the time - it is extraordinary for a publication which staunchly claims it represents all of the radio industry to have allowed an inflammatory and gratutitous broadside like Guy Wire's article to have appeared. I can't think of any other industry publication which is complicit in attacks on its own. We got our chance to shoot back, as I said. But in our society you don't get to avoid arrest for a mugging by giving the money back.
Leslie, Paul and I are just going to have to disagree when it comes to HD Radio - as many, many radio industry people disagree about HD Radio. Unfortunately Radio World seems bent on justifying this sad scheme's multiplying technical problems and faults by finding critics to editorially isolate and marginalize. Once again - radio industry cooperation, collegiality and mutual benefit are victimized by IBOC.
For my part - and for my station - I've got better things to do than help RW hold my livelihood up to derision. In a separate communication I will request that Radio World discontinue WYSL's subscription and that they find another IBOC victim station to publicly ridicule and bully.
Radio World, please note that you have received your correction and apology. Good day to you.