To answer your question Gordon, several stations. I know you know this, because you think about it (when more of us should) - but for years stations have relegated public affairs programs to the margins, airing them late on Sunday nights or somesuch merely to satisfy the folder come renewal time. They're missing the point. Done well, every break serves the public - whether it's civic or current issues (even if broached with humor), the arts and theater, sports and entertainment, weather, even local time and temperature. The object is to become a station people listen to in order to find out what's going on, format notwithstanding. Done poorly, every break merely serves the station. I scarcely think any station that runs syndicated programming in mornings and liner jocks the rest of the clock can be considered as one that is serving the public good. The shareholders, maybe.
It might be better to ask which station in the market serves the public discourse best. For starters, that would limit the list to stations that are flexible, imaginative, creative, agile, and well-staffed, with available resources and a willingness to use them - which narrows things down a great deal right there. Just looking at the current Top 25, I'm surprised by the station among those that I find best satisfies the aforementioned criteria. Then again, maybe I'm not so surprised. And it's a good standard to aim at, even if I don't like everything they do.
Jody
> > If you were the person at the FCC who was in charge of
> > license renewals, which stations wouldn't get their
> license
> > renewed? I've seen the applications before both on the
> side
> > of the stations and the public. It's supposed to be the
> > station's mission to serve the public. Too bad they don't
> > add a no suck polocy to the requirements. I guess that if
> > they did that Dallas airwaves would be dead. I'm asking
> this
> > question because I just landed on 102.1/the edge. I'm
> > surprised that Clear Channel would even waste their money
> > paying the electric bill to power the transmitter with
> such
> > poor audio. I assume that Lex and Terry aren't doing their
>
> > show locally, but can't they do something about the audio?
>
> > Granted, no one probably listens anyway, but someone has
> to
> > pay to power that signal.
> > So who isn't fulfilling their requirements as a licensee
> to
> > serve the public?
> >
> Too bad their isnt a "suck factor" clause in these license
> renewals. Then perhaps, CC would be banned from broadcasting
>
>
