I heard Melissa yesterday . . . . she did ok. She seemed relaxed, even when she blew the lead-out from that stupid 5th/3rd Bank commercial spot. ;Dgj567 said:Melissa Carter was on yesterday and again today.....as well as Mark Woolsey's apprentice, Linda Bond- who is on as I speak.
Traffic is now billed as being from the "Carriage Automotive Traffic Center".
Most of the spot load has been filled due to the PPM numbers, I think.
ExNuYawker said:I was listening Sunday afternoon 7/15 at 5:30pm to hear ABC news. She said (didnt get the on air talent name) "and now ABC NEWS" and then there was a commercial and then she came back and just did the rest of the local news. No apology about their mess up.
ExNuYawker said:I was listening Sunday afternoon 7/15 at 5:30pm to hear ABC news. She said (didnt get the on air talent name) "and now ABC NEWS" and then there was a commercial and then she came back and just did the rest of the local news. No apology about their mess up.
RadioFreak69 said:Melissa Carter is replacing Cheryl Castro during the 3-7pm weekday shift starting tomorrow.
secondchoice said:RadioFreak69 said:Melissa Carter is replacing Cheryl Castro during the 3-7pm weekday shift starting tomorrow.
What will happen to Cheryl Castro?
BarryATL said:Melissa will bring a unique personality to the afternoon show.
amos said:To be fair, however, I don't think you really meant that in the same sense I took it.
BarryATL said:amos said:To be fair, however, I don't think you really meant that in the same sense I took it.
amos, you are right in that I did not mean morning show type of personality. There is a bit personality in how the anchor delivers the news and how they interact with the co-anchor. It can be stiff and just a reader, or it can be someone that you really want to hear the news from. I can tell you that David Hull and Mark Woosley are people that I enjoy listening to as they deliver the news. They have lots of personality and it shows. The read the same stories as every other anchor, but somehow I feel a connection.
Is that a better explanation of what I meant?Seriously, I think I could have chosen better descriptors in my original comment.