KRLD reporter roster getting very bare

[AliceTheCook]

Used to, the KRLD website had a long list of reporters, anchors, etc. Now only 3 or 4 names are on there. Has there been THAT many firings/layoffs, etc? Or are they just lazy? Or do PT/freelancers not get a place on the site anymore?
(POST-posting note--looks like they just re-added the names on there--my goof)

Anyone know what's REALLY going on over there? Seems like someone spent a whole lot of money to fix up new studios for them, just to have them waste 24 hrs a day playing syndie talk shows and doing little to no news. That kind of programming can be done with a computer, a board, and a little broom closet.

I saw an interesting wide contrail band tonight that headed straight towards the ground. Thinking that a plane might have crashed or something, I realized right then that there's really nowhere to tune for news on the radio anymore. Since a lot of us don't have TV or internet connections in our cars yet, the radio is STILL an invaluable resource for information. Too bad the corporate suits don't agree with that. Sure, KRLD and WBAP do periodic newscasts, but there's plenty of margin for error when that one-person newsroom happens to step out for a restroom or cigarette break and misses that fire/explosion/crash/attack/etc on the scanner or phone. At least with TV, there's several stations that, if one doesn't catch it, the other will.

Sure, there's the EAS, but how many times in your LIFE have you heard it used for anything other than severe weather? A "local emergency" can be anything, but who's making those decisions? Reaching WAY back, take the train explosion of February, 1977, in NE Dallas, that blew out windows for miles around, and tense moments ran for several more hours, with crews not knowing if another explosion would take place. No EAS tone was sounded (EBS then), just spotty coverage on the radio and TV.

Who's really protecting our right and necessity to know what's going on???<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by AliceTheCook on 09/19/05 08:22 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[grantchester]

Sure, KRLD does
> periodic newscasts, but there's plenty of margin for error
> when that one-person newsroom happens to step out for a
> restroom or cigarette break and misses that
> fire/explosion/crash/attack/etc on the scanner or phone. At
> least with TV, there's several stations that, if one doesn't
> catch it, the other will.
>
>
Pretty harsh, Alice. Why don't you look up the KRLD newsroom number, give it a call, and see how long it takes for someone to answer?

 

[AliceTheCook]

> Sure, KRLD does
> > periodic newscasts, but there's plenty of margin for error
>
> > when that one-person newsroom happens to step out for a
> > restroom or cigarette break and misses that
> > fire/explosion/crash/attack/etc on the scanner or phone.
> At
> > least with TV, there's several stations that, if one
> doesn't
> > catch it, the other will.
> >
> >
> Pretty harsh, Alice. Why don't you look up the KRLD newsroom
> number, give it a call, and see how long it takes for
> someone to answer?
>

OK, fair enough, but wasn't there a thread on here not long ago from someone who dialed in a couple of times and got either hung up on, or got utter confusion from the answer-er? I'll admit, after posting this, I looked over KRLD's schedule and they indeed do commit some blocks of time to news. I was shocked. I remain miffed, however, that they've slowly eased out the 'all news' format over the last few years (but didn't ease out the "all news" moniker) and formatted countless talk shows instead. Sure, 'all news' is expensive, it's hard to manage, it's tough to get a load of people to staff a newsroom and work for nothing, etc etc BUT that doesn't erase the need to have an all-news station on the air here.

And yes, like many others who've been in this town a few years, I use the late, great KEWS as a measuring stick. I'd bet that some of the KRLDers that went to KEWS then returned to KRLD don't feel like they're doing a real job nowadays. Sure, they're working within corporate's framework and budget limitations, but KEWS put those reporters out there in the community, sniffing out news instead of just reacting to it, no matter what hour of the day or night. I miss that commitment and the opportunity to hear news 'when it happens, as it happens', as the old phrase goes. Oh, well.

 

[grantchester]

> > S as the old phrase goes. Oh, well.
>
It was a joke. The KRLD news hotline is not listed. When you call the old direct line, it gives you the new main number. If you call that on a weekend or after hours, it tells you "Goodbye". If you have the correct direct line, and you call it while it's busy, you get a recording telling you the customer does not subscribe to a message service.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

> > > S as the old phrase goes. Oh, well.
> >
> It was a joke. The KRLD news hotline is not listed. When you
> call the old direct line, it gives you the new main number.
> If you call that on a weekend or after hours, it tells you
> "Goodbye". If you have the correct direct line, and you call
> it while it's busy, you get a recording telling you the
> customer does not subscribe to a message service.
>
You both pretty well have summed up what is wrong with radio news. Alice was right,until a safe device is installed in vehicles allowing internet or tv signals to obtain information, radio is all you got. I have heard the arguements of "costs" in setting up a news station. If owners ,etc. would get out of the mind set which is the intent on making the "fast buck: it could conceivably be done with the right talent and support personel. You could sell spots that in due time would make money for the operation. The only thing that is holding it back is the "cheapness" in spending money, "green talent", and the extreme lack of patience and persistence. That is where the "fast buck" virus sets in. I have stated several times KRLD needed to be blown up from Traffic reporters on up and rebuilt,but until Tom Bigby goes Bye bye expect mediocrity. I Feel WBAP needs to return to an Afternoon News Block,but corporate wants its News talk affiliates to keep Sean "Buy my book " Hannity on all its stations. The biggest loser is the listener getting information from Talk show hosts who have the prime ingredient of 5% fact, 95% their opinion, delivered as fact. KEWS was a great station under Pete Gardner and it was a well oiled machine.Too Bad CBS-WestingHouse-Infinity didn't see it that way and lacked the support plus patience in sustaining it. It could have easily been another WBBM, KPRC by now.
,

 

[Phantom]

No right to information

>
> Who's really protecting our right and necessity to know
> what's going on???


No one.

No right to information exists in the Constitution.

The stations are observing our right to privacy ... and ignoring us .

 

[Phantom]

A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> KEWS was a great station under Pete
> Gardner and it was a well oiled machine.Too Bad
> CBS-WestingHouse-Infinity didn't see it that way and lacked
> the support plus patience in sustaining it. It could have
> easily been another WBBM, KPRC by now.


Sorry, KEWS never was a great news station ... not even close.

It was all news, but it was average at best compared to what the rest of the nation has.

Most of its content, like that of other radio stations and even the networks, came from newspapers and wire services.

Hell, I have heard people read stories from the papers nearly verbatim.

It has always been that way, and probably always will.

Again, if you want news -- buy "The Dallas Morning News" or the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram".

Walter Cronkite said a person is ill informed if you depend on radio or television for your news.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> Sorry, KEWS never was a great news station ... not even
> close.
>
> It was all news, but it was average at best compared to what
> the rest of the nation has.
>
> Most of its content, like that of other radio stations and
> even the networks, came from newspapers and wire services.
>
> Hell, I have heard people read stories from the papers
> nearly verbatim.
>
> It has always been that way, and probably always will.
>
> Again, if you want news -- buy "The Dallas Morning News" or
> the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram".
>
> Walter Cronkite said a person is ill informed if you depend
> on radio or television for your news.
>
Yes and No.

Walter was right,but keep in mind Walter worked at the St.Louis-Post Dispatch,
The Daily Texanat UT, The Houston Chronicle and UPI. So h ewas a "newspaperman" and a little biased in his statement,but well meaning. In his statement he criticized the networks and local stations by only providing 30 minutes of news, and out of that only 22 minutes was news and to refine it further they were merely "headlines". He stated more time was needed to further tell a news story and when Cnn was born in 1980,he called it a much needed blessing in that
regard.

KEWS, yes did take some copy fron the newspaper, BUT Pete had his staff go beyond the re-write,he had them on the phones,and out in the field covering stories. I bear witness to this. KEWS was "average" compared to the rest of the nation,but the other full time news stations had been doing it for several years,hell decades, so of course they sounded better. In sufficent time KEWS could have too,but it was cut way too short and no time to grow.

I agree one should read a newspaper. I do everyday,but the majority only read ONE newspaper, and most cities only have ONE newspaper. That is sad. Yes there is the internet,but how many actually will read an out of town newspaper who are not in the media or government? 1% Maybe.

NewYork, Chicago,etc all have news stations. DFW should as well,but as I said patience is nil, the rush for a quick buck is rampant, thus it won't happen.

 

[Phantom]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> > Sorry, KEWS never was a great news station ... not even
> > close.
> >
> > It was all news, but it was average at best compared to
> what
> > the rest of the nation has.
> >
> > Most of its content, like that of other radio stations and
>
> > even the networks, came from newspapers and wire services.
>
> >
> > Hell, I have heard people read stories from the papers
> > nearly verbatim.
> >
> > It has always been that way, and probably always will.
> >
> > Again, if you want news -- buy "The Dallas Morning News"
> or
> > the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram".
> >
> > Walter Cronkite said a person is ill informed if you
> depend
> > on radio or television for your news.


> >
> Yes and No.
>
> Walter was right,but keep in mind Walter worked at the
> St.Louis-Post Dispatch,
> The Daily Texanat UT, The Houston Chronicle and UPI. So h
> ewas a "newspaperman" and a little biased in his
> statement,but well meaning.


Just because Walter was biased doesn't mean he was not right.

He worked for CBS longer than he worked for the other organizations.

UPI, before the Moonies got it, was a great place. Better writers than AP although understaffed. I learned more about journalism there than at any newspaper or broadcasting outlet.

Once, I asked what the deadlines were at UPI. The bureau chief smiled and said, "Now".

A 30-minute news broadcast typed out would not begin to cover the front page of "The New York Times".


In his statement he criticized
> the networks and local stations by only providing 30 minutes
> of news, and out of that only 22 minutes was news and to
> refine it further they were merely "headlines". He stated
> more time was needed to further tell a news story and when
> Cnn was born in 1980,he called it a much needed blessing in
> that
> regard.


And CNN and all the cable networks are still pitiful compared to newspapers and wire services. Watch what happens when an "O.J." story develops. All other news is forgotten -- for the sake of ratings.


>>KEWS, yes did take some copy fron the newspaper, BUT Pete
> had his staff go beyond the re-write,he had them on the
> phones,and out in the field covering stories.


Not SOME ... MOST of its copy originated from newspapers.

Radio stations and television, for the most part, follow up on stories that newspapers already have broken.

Fast-breaking stories once were the exception, but now with the Internet that is no longer the case.


>I bear witness to this. KEWS was "average" compared to the rest of the
> nation,


Compared to the top all-news stations in the United States, it was below average even at the time it left the air.


> but the other full time news stations had been doing
> it for several years,hell decades, so of course they sounded
> better.


A station can "sound" good immediately.

Content is another matter.



>>In sufficent time KEWS could have too,but it was cut
> way too short and no time to grow.


It was cut from the Infinity chain because it was seen as the weakest link. Radio is a business.


> I agree one should read a newspaper. I do everyday,but the
> majority only read ONE newspaper, and most cities only have
> ONE newspaper. That is sad. Yes there is the internet,but
> how many actually will read an out of town newspaper who are
> not in the media or government? 1% Maybe.


Actually, the majority do not read any newspapers. Younger readers are the worst. AP is developing a service in an attempt to attract readers 18+.

Other efforts by newspapers to lure younger demos have mostly been failures. Newspapers are read primarily by people 55+ ... oldies radio listeners.



> NewYork, Chicago,etc all have news stations. DFW should as
> well,but as I said patience is nil, the rush for a quick
> buck is rampant, thus it won't happen.


Patience was not the problem at KEWS. Wrong station at the wrong time -- businesswise.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

>
> Just because Walter was biased doesn't mean he was not
> right.
>
> He worked for CBS longer than he worked for the other
> organizations.

I concur. Walter was right. I believe I confirmed that.
>
> UPI, before the Moonies got it, was a great place. Better
> writers than AP although understaffed. I learned more about
> journalism there than at any newspaper or broadcasting
> outlet.
>
> Once, I asked what the deadlines were at UPI. The bureau
> chief smiled and said, "Now".

UPI was the mecca of journalism,no doubt. Then Rev Moon screwed it up just like his Lame Washington Times. Too bad UPI died the way it did.
>
> A 30-minute news broadcast typed out would not begin to
> cover the front page of "The New York Times".
Once again we agree.
>
>
> In his statement he criticized
> > the networks and local stations by only providing 30
> minutes
> > of news, and out of that only 22 minutes was news and to
> > refine it further they were merely "headlines". He stated
> > more time was needed to further tell a news story and when
>
> > Cnn was born in 1980,he called it a much needed blessing
> in
> > that
> > regard.
>
>
> And CNN and all the cable networks are still pitiful
> compared to newspapers and wire services. Watch what
> happens when an "O.J." story develops. All other news is
> forgotten -- for the sake of ratings.

Let's go back for a moment. From 1980-1984 CNN was a cauldron of journalism. Ted Turner spent bundles of cash on making it so, with great talent,reporters from the electronic and printed press. It was news, and they stayed with stories not just the headlines. That was reserved for CNN2, then renamed Cnn Headline news.

Ted made a mistake and decided to sell his interest to Time Warner. Even he admits that. They in turn wanted a magazine type of format that looked like "People", and the journalism started to drown then.
>
>
> >>KEWS, yes did take some copy fron the newspaper, BUT Pete
> > had his staff go beyond the re-write,he had them on the
> > phones,and out in the field covering stories.
>
>
> Not SOME ... MOST of its copy originated from newspapers.

Nope sorry I was there. They used SOME,they got tips, they listened to the scanners ,got press releases, they worked the phones, etc. They worked on stories,not just "rewrite" SOME.
>
>
> >I bear witness to this. KEWS was "average" compared to the
> rest of the
> > nation,
>
>
> Compared to the top all-news stations in the United States,
> it was below average even at the time it left the air.
We agree and it could have been better over time,if given that chance.

>
> A station can "sound" good immediately.
>
> Content is another matter.

True. The content was developing at KEWS, and times have changed since WBBM,WGN first started doing news as well,but they excelled over time.
>
>
>
> It was cut from the Infinity chain because it was seen as
> the weakest link. Radio is a business.
A Business ran by real estate agents not broadcasters.

>
>
> Actually, the majority do not read any newspapers. Younger
> readers are the worst. AP is developing a service in an
> attempt to attract readers 18+.
>
> Other efforts by newspapers to lure younger demos have
> mostly been failures. Newspapers are read primarily by
> people 55+ ... oldies radio listeners.

Yes regretably. "entertainment tonight" and MTV News is their journalism" Watch Jay Leno sometimes when he has a segment called "Jay Walking" . He often will ask those in their 20's and early 30's questions that most people would know the answer to, and these interviewees always strike out.

> Patience was not the problem at KEWS. Wrong station at the
> wrong time -- businesswise.
Impatience was. If an investor /owner in radio wants to make quick money, stay out of broadcasting.
We agree and disagree Batman,cestla vie'.
>

 

[Phantom]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> >
> > Just because Walter was biased doesn't mean he was not
> > right.
> >
> > He worked for CBS longer than he worked for the other
> > organizations.
>
> I concur. Walter was right. I believe I confirmed that.
> >
> > UPI, before the Moonies got it, was a great place. Better
> > writers than AP although understaffed. I learned more
> about
> > journalism there than at any newspaper or broadcasting
> > outlet.
> >
> > Once, I asked what the deadlines were at UPI. The bureau
> > chief smiled and said, "Now".
>
> UPI was the mecca of journalism,no doubt. Then Rev Moon
> screwed it up just like his Lame Washington Times. Too bad
> UPI died the way it did.


After the Kennedy assassination, Merriman Smith, who was the UPI reporter in the reporters' follow-up car, won the Pulizer Prize for spot reporting.

Unfortunately, many broadcast outlets relied on AP, which transmitted on the wire, among other things, that machine guns had been fired in Dealey Plaza.

Of course, UPI announced the end of World War I, one day early.

So it evens up, I guess.

UPI's demise occurred before Moon, but the cult leader buried the wired service for good ... or bad.



> > A 30-minute news broadcast typed out would not begin to
> > cover the front page of "The New York Times".


> Once again we agree.
> >
> >
> > In his statement he criticized
> > > the networks and local stations by only providing 30
> > minutes
> > > of news, and out of that only 22 minutes was news and to
>
> > > refine it further they were merely "headlines". He
> stated
> > > more time was needed to further tell a news story and
> when
> >
> > > Cnn was born in 1980,he called it a much needed blessing
>
> > in
> > > that
> > > regard.
> >
> >


> > And CNN and all the cable networks are still pitiful
> > compared to newspapers and wire services. Watch what
> > happens when an "O.J." story develops. All other news is
> > forgotten -- for the sake of ratings.
>



> Let's go back for a moment. From 1980-1984 CNN was a
> cauldron of journalism. Ted Turner spent bundles of cash on
> making it so, with great talent,reporters from the
> electronic and printed press. It was news, and they stayed
> with stories not just the headlines. That was reserved for
> CNN2, then renamed Cnn Headline news.


Yeah, and Ted has severely criticized the modern CNN today and continues to do so.



> Ted made a mistake and decided to sell his interest to Time
> Warner. Even he admits that. They in turn wanted a magazine
> type of format that looked like "People", and the journalism
> started to drown then.




> >
> > >>KEWS, yes did take some copy fron the newspaper, BUT
> Pete
> > > had his staff go beyond the re-write,he had them on the
> > > phones,and out in the field covering stories.
> >
> >
> > Not SOME ... MOST of its copy originated from newspapers.
>
> Nope sorry I was there. They used SOME,they got tips, they
> listened to the scanners ,got press releases, they worked
> the phones, etc. They worked on stories,not just "rewrite"
> SOME.


If you look at all the stories that are reported on ANY all-news station, other than breaking news just as accidents, plane crashes, car wrecks, etc. which newspapers could not possibly report first, the majority are reported first by newspapers. The Columbia Journalism Review has studied this at depth.

In addition, scanner listening, reading press releases and "working the phones", is not investigative reporting. KEWS had virtually none. "The Dallas Morning News" has many as does "The New York Times" as well as other metropolitan papers.

Newspapers reporters are better trained, more intuitive, better and faster writers in general than broadcast reporters. They are more aggressive by far in digging up stories.

And, they are after Pulitzer Prizes as an incentive.

And newspapers, because of the resources available, give reporters time to develop stories of all kinds.


>
> >
> > >I bear witness to this. KEWS was "average" compared to
> the
> > rest of the
> > > nation,
> >
> >
> > Compared to the top all-news stations in the United
> States,
> > it was below average even at the time it left the air.
> We agree and it could have been better over time,if given
> that chance.



> > A station can "sound" good immediately.
> >
> > Content is another matter.
>


> True. The content was developing at KEWS, and times have
> changed since WBBM,WGN first started doing news as well,but
> they excelled over time.


KEWS compared to KFWB, WBBM, WCBS -- all Infinity -- was average overall. But really no way to compare fairly because KEWS did not have time to grow.

KFWB, for example, switched to all news in Los Angeles in March 1968 after its top-40 listeners to the then-new KHJ.

Compared to KRLD, KEWS was superior especially toward the end.

But I seriously doubt that Infinity would have committed the resources to KEWS that it does to the stations above.

It is all bottom line.


> > It was cut from the Infinity chain because it was seen as
> > the weakest link. Radio is a business.



> A Business ran by real estate agents not broadcasters.


Infinity is a broadcasting company, but a broadcasting company is also a business.

The company's choice was KEWS or another station.

It cannot bleed red and hope to survive anymore than any other business could.



> > Actually, the majority do not read any newspapers.
> Younger
> > readers are the worst. AP is developing a service in an
> > attempt to attract readers 18+.
> >
> > Other efforts by newspapers to lure younger demos have
> > mostly been failures. Newspapers are read primarily by
> > people 55+ ... oldies radio listeners.


> Yes regretably. "entertainment tonight" and MTV News is
> their journalism" Watch Jay Leno sometimes when he has a
> segment called "Jay Walking" . He often will ask those in
> their 20's and early 30's questions that most people would
> know the answer to, and these interviewees always strike
> out.



> > Patience was not the problem at KEWS. Wrong station at
> the wrong time -- businesswise.


> Impatience was. If an investor /owner in radio wants to make
> quick money, stay out of broadcasting.
> We agree and disagree Batman,cestla vie'.


A broadcaster can make quicker money -- with the right music formats.

News radio is labor intensive, it is expensive, and takes time to develop.

It will not and cannot do so overnight.

On that, we agree.

 

[grantchester]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> > >

>
> A broadcaster can make quicker money -- with the right music
> formats.
>
> News radio is labor intensive, it is expensive, and takes
> time to develop.
>
> It will not and cannot do so overnight.
>
> On that, we agree.
>
It all comes down to what you expect from radio news. Some still hold the idea that broadcast licenseholders have an obligation to their listeners, to give them the information they need to make informed decisions. Others believe city hall/legislative/schoolboard news is boring. They see news as entertainment. Radio has the advantage of immediacy. Television has pictures. Newspapers have reflection and perspective. There's good in each
For all the brick-bats in this thread, someone needs to point out people like Jim Ryan, B J Austin, Ellie Hogue, Lance Liguez. Chuck Schechner, Therese Arena and even some of the Metro-Networks folks, who enterprise stories, know their communities, work hard consistently, and bring something of value to their listeners.
Sure, it would be nice to have dozens or reporters covering beats. It would be great to have a visionary in charge of an all-news station. At 50% free cash
flow, that's not going to happen. But each of the network TV stations has a relationship with a radio station news organization, so it's not like there are no resources available. Once all the music goes to satellite and i-pods, maybe the local content provided by a dynamic news organization will be seen as an asset, rather than a bottom line expense. Stay tuned, and maybe you'll hear those EAS 'TONES OF DOOM', alerting you to that tornado, chemical spill, or God forbid, terror attack.

 

[edwardrmurrow]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> > > >
>>
> It all comes down to what you expect from radio news. Some
> still hold the idea that broadcast licenseholders have an
> obligation to their listeners, to give them the information
> they need to make informed decisions. Others believe city
> hall/legislative/schoolboard news is boring. They see news
> as entertainment. Radio has the advantage of immediacy.
> Television has pictures. Newspapers have reflection and
> perspective. There's good in each
> For all the brick-bats in this thread, someone needs to
> point out people like Jim Ryan, B J Austin, Ellie Hogue,
> Lance Liguez. Chuck Schechner, Therese Arena and even some
> of the Metro-Networks folks, who enterprise stories, know
> their communities, work hard consistently, and bring
> something of value to their listeners.
> Sure, it would be nice to have dozens or reporters covering
> beats. It would be great to have a visionary in charge of an
> all-news station. At 50% free cash
> flow, that's not going to happen. But each of the network
> TV stations has a relationship with a radio station news
> organization, so it's not like there are no resources
> available. Once all the music goes to satellite and i-pods,
> maybe the local content provided by a dynamic news
> organization will be seen as an asset, rather than a bottom
> line expense. Stay tuned, and maybe you'll hear those EAS
> 'TONES OF DOOM', alerting you to that tornado, chemical
> spill, or God forbid, terror attack.
>
Very well put! Ellie is damn good ,Lance is excellent, Jim is superb and BJ Austin is a true reporter.Bob Crowley is also a great reporter. Besides you can't read a newspaperin car,unless you are a passenger.

 

[Phantom]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> > > >
>
> >
> > A broadcaster can make quicker money -- with the right
> music
> > formats.
> >
> > News radio is labor intensive, it is expensive, and takes
> > time to develop.
> >
> > It will not and cannot do so overnight.
> >
> > On that, we agree.



> >
> It all comes down to what you expect from radio news. Some
> still hold the idea that broadcast licenseholders have an
> obligation to their listeners, to give them the information
> they need to make informed decisions.


A few ...


>Others believe city hall/legislative/schoolboard news is boring.


Most ...


> They see news as entertainment.



Becky Oliver -- the female Geraldo.


> Radio has the advantage of immediacy.
> Television has pictures. Newspapers have reflection and
> perspective. There's good in each
> For all the brick-bats in this thread, someone needs to
> point out people like Jim Ryan, B J Austin, Ellie Hogue,
> Lance Liguez. Chuck Schechner, Therese Arena and even some
> of the Metro-Networks folks, who enterprise stories, know
> their communities, work hard consistently, and bring
> something of value to their listeners.


Except for Ryan, most other radio reporters follow the leader -- the newspaper reporter.

Radio reporters rarely break stories.


>Sure, it would be nice to have dozens or reporters covering
> beats. It would be great to have a visionary in charge of an
> all-news station. At 50% free cash
> flow, that's not going to happen. But each of the network
> TV stations has a relationship with a radio station news
> organization, so it's not like there are no resources
> available. Once all the music goes to satellite and i-pods,
> maybe the local content provided by a dynamic news
> organization will be seen as an asset, rather than a bottom
> line expense.


Don't hold your breath.


>Stay tuned, and maybe you'll hear those EAS
> 'TONES OF DOOM', alerting you to that tornado, chemical
> spill, or God forbid, terror attack.


If FEMA is broken, how do you expect EAS would work in a national emergency?

But, of course, we'll figure that out when it happens.

 

[Phantom]

Re: A radio station is no substitute for a local newspaper.

> Very well put! Ellie is damn good ,Lance is excellent, Jim
> is superb and BJ Austin is a true reporter.Bob Crowley is
> also a great reporter. Besides you can't read a newspaperin
> car,unless you are a passenger.
>


Again, they are good, maybe great, radio reporters.

Ryan is by far the best.

It's like comparing Batman to Superman.

Oops, bad analogy

Radio, rarely, if ever, breaks stories the newspapers don't already have.

Once spotted a guy in a Jag on the Greenville entrance ramp to westbound LBJ with his newspaper spread over the steering wheel.

And probably on his cell phone too