I perceive some double standards on the part of those who attack NPR. Whatever else you may complain about, you can't deny that NPR is MUCH more responsive to complaints than the commercial media. You and I partially own NPR and we have some leverage. The commercial folks need an earthquake before they give a rat's *** about complaints of this type, and even then you don't see executives' heads rolling.
-
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
Oops
- Thread starter Mark Giardina
- Start date
Well, listener, I can't disagree about the unresponsiveness of commercial radio management. Or, generally, the cluelessness. But if the aloofness and ennui get too bad, natural market forces will correct it. You saw that happen with Citadel. I assume many posters here are dissatisfied with how that happened and how long it took, but happen it did nonetheless. And I think a private-sector solution is always better than one involving government.
BigA, the history of NCE radio is interesting - and irrelevant to today's situation. And I disagree (once again) with several of your conclusions. In what sense does commercial radio not compete with noncommercial stations? We sell advertising. They sell advertising. I have lost business to the local NPR affiliate on several occasions. This isn't supposed to happen. I don't get your "pay them one way or pay them another" argument about supporting NCE. They should self-fund through corporate and listener contributions, and sales of special services as cited by Scott Fybush. In this manner they can dispense with the much-lamented $400,000 executives and live within their means.
You're putting words in my mouth when you claim I say, "they're liberal and I don't want to pay for them." I'm irked by public radio's politics, yes, but guess what? I don't want my tax dollars or yours or anyone else's - supporting Rush, Fox or other conservative radio either. Government should be as far from mass media content as possible. To do otherwise is to invite all kinds of mischief and cross-contamination.
BigA, the history of NCE radio is interesting - and irrelevant to today's situation. And I disagree (once again) with several of your conclusions. In what sense does commercial radio not compete with noncommercial stations? We sell advertising. They sell advertising. I have lost business to the local NPR affiliate on several occasions. This isn't supposed to happen. I don't get your "pay them one way or pay them another" argument about supporting NCE. They should self-fund through corporate and listener contributions, and sales of special services as cited by Scott Fybush. In this manner they can dispense with the much-lamented $400,000 executives and live within their means.
You're putting words in my mouth when you claim I say, "they're liberal and I don't want to pay for them." I'm irked by public radio's politics, yes, but guess what? I don't want my tax dollars or yours or anyone else's - supporting Rush, Fox or other conservative radio either. Government should be as far from mass media content as possible. To do otherwise is to invite all kinds of mischief and cross-contamination.
Savage said:
Who plays classical music and jazz in your market? Who does in-depth news reporting? Who offers full time news coverage, not talk, in drive time? They do lots of things not being done by commercial stations. Their approach to sales is very different from what you sell. You sell time. They sell sponsorships. But because of the federal cutbacks, it's opened them up to a lot of the hanky panky you read about with Schiller. He would not have had that conversation in the first place if NPR didn't need to augment the federal funding with other donations. Money is the root of all evil. At least with government funding, it's all done in the light of day.
Savage said:
They are. That's what CPB does. CPB handles all relations with Congress and the government. But NPR is closer to the corporate donors. That is a bigger issue than the government. As we saw in this video, the potential mischief from outside donors is far more ominous than anything from the government.
Savage said:
Here's what I know: No one was able to tell Farid Suleman he couldn't get a multi-million dollar payday after his company went bankrupt, right?
Executives will always make lots of money, regardless of the woes of their company. Executive pay has nothing to do with federal money. It happened with the Wall Street brokerage houses, it happened with GM, it happened with AIG, it happened with Citadel, and it will happen with public radio. Why the selective outrage?
Though it's not my opinion, I will concede that, like several people on this thread, one can legitimately object to public funding of broadcasting on principle. However, I don't think that's what the current campaign against public broadcasting is about.
The ideological right is never satisfied. No sooner have they slain one dragon than they go after another. Does anyone really believe that if NPR and PBS relied purely on private funding but kept the same general programming, that they would be left alone to do their thing? Of course not, because being even-handed (which they actually are) isn't enough to satisfy the ideologues. They would go after individual programs not to their liking until we had a conservative version of Radio Moscow. The remaining networks, not being particularly informative, could continue feeding pap to the masses.
The ideological right is never satisfied. No sooner have they slain one dragon than they go after another. Does anyone really believe that if NPR and PBS relied purely on private funding but kept the same general programming, that they would be left alone to do their thing? Of course not, because being even-handed (which they actually are) isn't enough to satisfy the ideologues. They would go after individual programs not to their liking until we had a conservative version of Radio Moscow. The remaining networks, not being particularly informative, could continue feeding pap to the masses.
TheBigA said:
This has been a great debate and invigorating to read, but A, this is just backwards to me. Corporations are large groups of individual people who put their money in the pot of their own free will, and get a direct vote (if they don't carelessly proxy it away or buy non-voting stock) in what happens. Corporate control IS control by the people.
Even when corporations are owned by other corporations, they are indirectly owned by individuals, who vote for board members, who decide on executive hires and compensation.
Bob is right, and the market sorts these things out. Sometimes it happens too slowly or too ugly for our preferences, and sometimes the black hats shrewdly get outa Dodge before the shooting starts, but justice eventually comes. And if a corporation goes down, the shareholders let it go there, executive excess and all.
It's not hard to understand the arguments of small market stations that may have to compete with NPR stations and those owners who are opposed to taxpayer funding of NPR. But in Buffalo, the programming I hear on the market's two NPR news stations, WBFO and WNED-AM, is better than anything that can be heard, liberal or conservative, on WBEN, WWKB, WECK or WGR. From where I listen, mostly in my car while working, I don't hear a liberal bias on NPR, I hear in-depth objectivity, like I'm getting a factual presentation and nobody's trying to "persuade or convince me" or tell me "this is the correct news and if you don't believe it, you're not a true American."
Of course, if you're a die hard Fox News listener, NPR may sound biased because you're coming from the extreme right. Yet, NPR must be doing something right because a friend of mine who can't get enough of Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller calls NPR conservative. Go figure. Some people on the left and right get pissed off when they're presented with factual reporting that documents and references sources, which is precisely what NPR does. NO Buffalo commercial radio station offers in depth feature reporting, whether from Egypt, Russia, Iraq or Afghanistan. Where else will you hear an in-depth interview with General David Petraeus in Afghanistan? Not on WBEN, WWKB or WECK. There you're likely to hear fluff and bite-size factoids with seven second sound bites, all nicely packaged as news. That's not news, it's a friggin' Snickers bar.
Those who oppose funding NPR seem to be driven mostly by politicians who are not so much responding to their constituents, but leading the charge. The politicians are upset because NPR has the resources, knowledgeable people and attentiveness to drill down into issues, ask penetrating questions and determine the facts. Radio news did this at one time, but since the "Big Three C's and An E" have taken over most of the stations in this country, news departments have been gutted and senior news personnel have been replaced with Jenny and Joey who wouldn't know their Congress person unless he appeared on the Internet without his shirt. And even then, it might be debatable.
NPR entertainment programs like "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," "Fresh Air" and feature programming from writers and humorists such as David Sedaris are unequaled.
NPR has maintained its foreign bureaus and reporters, having more than most radio networks, which along with their TV counterparts, have closed foreign bureaus. While most radio companies have downsized their news departments and bureaus and radio stations treat doing news as a necessary evil if not the plague, NPR and its affiliated stations rise to the occasion. I haven't even touched on the Blues shows on WBFO and BBC News Hour on WNED-AM.
Of course, if you're a die hard Fox News listener, NPR may sound biased because you're coming from the extreme right. Yet, NPR must be doing something right because a friend of mine who can't get enough of Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller calls NPR conservative. Go figure. Some people on the left and right get pissed off when they're presented with factual reporting that documents and references sources, which is precisely what NPR does. NO Buffalo commercial radio station offers in depth feature reporting, whether from Egypt, Russia, Iraq or Afghanistan. Where else will you hear an in-depth interview with General David Petraeus in Afghanistan? Not on WBEN, WWKB or WECK. There you're likely to hear fluff and bite-size factoids with seven second sound bites, all nicely packaged as news. That's not news, it's a friggin' Snickers bar.
Those who oppose funding NPR seem to be driven mostly by politicians who are not so much responding to their constituents, but leading the charge. The politicians are upset because NPR has the resources, knowledgeable people and attentiveness to drill down into issues, ask penetrating questions and determine the facts. Radio news did this at one time, but since the "Big Three C's and An E" have taken over most of the stations in this country, news departments have been gutted and senior news personnel have been replaced with Jenny and Joey who wouldn't know their Congress person unless he appeared on the Internet without his shirt. And even then, it might be debatable.
NPR entertainment programs like "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," "Fresh Air" and feature programming from writers and humorists such as David Sedaris are unequaled.
NPR has maintained its foreign bureaus and reporters, having more than most radio networks, which along with their TV counterparts, have closed foreign bureaus. While most radio companies have downsized their news departments and bureaus and radio stations treat doing news as a necessary evil if not the plague, NPR and its affiliated stations rise to the occasion. I haven't even touched on the Blues shows on WBFO and BBC News Hour on WNED-AM.
Paul_Warren said:
Control by some people. Those who buy stock. Public radio is control by ALL the people.
I own a lot of stock, and I can tell you that I don't have a whole lot of control. I go to board meetings, and I vote directly on issues, and I never get the chance to pick the CEO or vote on his compensation. That is reserved for Board members. The issues I typically vote on are approval of (not choice of) Board members, certain changes to company by-laws, and approval of (not choice of) accounting company. That's about it. So I got to vote on the Citadel merger with ABC Radio. I voted against it. Guess who won. Then I sold my stock (at a loss).
On the other hand, when I was running a public radio station, our front door was always open, and the people could come in and tell us directly about our programming, our hosts, and our music. Very different situation. This is democracy in action. We had listener volunteers, and we didn't have to do community ascertainment. We knew what the people were thinking, because they told us very directly. I doubt Farid has spent much time with any radio listeners.
This isn't a marketplace situation, it's a COMMUNITY situation. We had community leaders, like school board members, counselmen, the head of the local NAACP, on our Board of Directors. One of the continual comments I read here is about commercial radio stations not serving the community. My point is usually, "Why should they?" They're using the community as a market, not as people who live and work every day. The FCC doesn't care any more, so if a commercial station doesn't have a news department, no big deal. But the public station serves the public because they're the sponsors, not the advertisers. When it's done right, public radio is a whole lot more tied in with the community. For a lot of radio people, that is what real radio should be about.
Paul_Warren said:
If you really believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. I could make lots of arguments against what you wrote, but just one should suffice.
Did you ever pay attention to a company proxy statement where it refers to electing the board of directors? Did you notice those little boxes where it asks you to vote "for" or to "withhold" your vote? So you don't like some of the directors and you want to vote against them, therefore you withhold your vote. Too bad - all that withholding represents is an abstention. In other words, yes, you can indeed vote "for", but you are powerless to vote "against". Therefore, any director that receives just ONE vote is elected, even if there are thousands of "withholds". Some "control by the people", eh? Sounds like Soviet-style democracy to me.
On second thoughts, it's worse than Soviet-style democracy. Typically, the Soviets only gave you the option of their own hand-picked candidates, but at least you could theoretically vote against. In company proxies, you have hand-picked candidates that you can't vote against.
BigA asks, "who plays classical and jazz music in our market?" and unwittingly triggers one of my favorite subjects. It also relates to my points about the free market and radio programming by natural selection.
If there is a market where classical music should succeed on the radio Rochester, NY, is it: the home of Cab Calloway, Paul Warfield, Lou Gramm(atico) of Foreigner, Renee Fleming and Mitch Miller, and the home of world-famous Eastman School of Music (my mom had a masters in piano and organ.) There's been a vibrant arts community here for over 150 years. Yet to follow the history of classical music on the radio here is to track a trail of scattered and bleached bones.
Classics-on-the-radio started as soon as the medium was born, as the University of Rochester started WHAM in 1922 partly for broadcasts from Eastman. By the time the galena crystal and TRF sets had been supplanted by superhets, the classics had long since been supplanted by Major Bowes and Jack Benny. One of North America's most profitable top 40 AM stations was saddled with two hours of classical music from 8 to 10pm in its salad years and its struggle to rid itself of this nightly albatross was successful only when it launched a "subscriber-supported" all-classics FM in the 1960s. It took about six months for listeners to figure out they could listen for free, so that experiment ended when the company sold the FM in disgust to Malrite. Then they tried COMMERCIAL FM classics, and found out that nobody wanted to buy spots to reach twelve listeners. Eventually they got rid of the classics on THAT frequency: I was there and was intimately involved in the sale of classical format materials to then-nascent WXXI.
And what has WXXI discovered over the years since 1977? THEY can't make money with classics either, which is why classical music is now esconced on an HD sub there.
So, there you have it: 12 listeners in 1925. 12 listeners from 1948-1961 (WBBF 950.) 12 listeners 1961-65 (WBBF-FM 101.3.) 12 listeners 1965-1977 (WBFB 92.5.) And today: XX listeners on WXXI HD-2.
Now then: OTOH, we have an entrenpreneur-run fulltime COMMERCIAL jazz outlet on FM here, proudly owned by my colleague and frequent poster here, Lee Rust. It's a class operation and it bears witness that a specialty format can be successful, sound great and make a few bucks.
My point: if there is a market for these niche formats, they will exist. If there isn't, they won't. The marketplace will figure this all out. And we don't need the government's thumb on the marketplace butcher's scale by redistributing our money to subsidize what are frankly dubious ventures. After all, if "the public" (I got the midnight harassment phone calls at home and had to run a gauntlet of bearded protestors to get to work when I helped get rid of classical music in '77)had their way, 12 people would still be listening to classics on 92.5. Thankfully the free market prevailed, and instead that frequency is occupied by the market's consistent #1 or #2 station, the immensely popular and successful country WBEE 92.5.
If we don't interfere, things work out. And we all get to keep our money as part of the bargain.
If there is a market where classical music should succeed on the radio Rochester, NY, is it: the home of Cab Calloway, Paul Warfield, Lou Gramm(atico) of Foreigner, Renee Fleming and Mitch Miller, and the home of world-famous Eastman School of Music (my mom had a masters in piano and organ.) There's been a vibrant arts community here for over 150 years. Yet to follow the history of classical music on the radio here is to track a trail of scattered and bleached bones.
Classics-on-the-radio started as soon as the medium was born, as the University of Rochester started WHAM in 1922 partly for broadcasts from Eastman. By the time the galena crystal and TRF sets had been supplanted by superhets, the classics had long since been supplanted by Major Bowes and Jack Benny. One of North America's most profitable top 40 AM stations was saddled with two hours of classical music from 8 to 10pm in its salad years and its struggle to rid itself of this nightly albatross was successful only when it launched a "subscriber-supported" all-classics FM in the 1960s. It took about six months for listeners to figure out they could listen for free, so that experiment ended when the company sold the FM in disgust to Malrite. Then they tried COMMERCIAL FM classics, and found out that nobody wanted to buy spots to reach twelve listeners. Eventually they got rid of the classics on THAT frequency: I was there and was intimately involved in the sale of classical format materials to then-nascent WXXI.
And what has WXXI discovered over the years since 1977? THEY can't make money with classics either, which is why classical music is now esconced on an HD sub there.
So, there you have it: 12 listeners in 1925. 12 listeners from 1948-1961 (WBBF 950.) 12 listeners 1961-65 (WBBF-FM 101.3.) 12 listeners 1965-1977 (WBFB 92.5.) And today: XX listeners on WXXI HD-2.
Now then: OTOH, we have an entrenpreneur-run fulltime COMMERCIAL jazz outlet on FM here, proudly owned by my colleague and frequent poster here, Lee Rust. It's a class operation and it bears witness that a specialty format can be successful, sound great and make a few bucks.
My point: if there is a market for these niche formats, they will exist. If there isn't, they won't. The marketplace will figure this all out. And we don't need the government's thumb on the marketplace butcher's scale by redistributing our money to subsidize what are frankly dubious ventures. After all, if "the public" (I got the midnight harassment phone calls at home and had to run a gauntlet of bearded protestors to get to work when I helped get rid of classical music in '77)had their way, 12 people would still be listening to classics on 92.5. Thankfully the free market prevailed, and instead that frequency is occupied by the market's consistent #1 or #2 station, the immensely popular and successful country WBEE 92.5.
If we don't interfere, things work out. And we all get to keep our money as part of the bargain.
Bob, you're now starting to spread mis-information, and I will call you out on that. Perhaps I'm misreading your post. But I don't think so. I'm amazed that the operator of a radio station in the Rochester market doesn't realize classical music on WXXI airs on its main FM signal, not just HD-2. And according to the Arbitron survey, Fall 2010, WXXI-FM has a weekly *** of more than 66,000 listeners and a market share of 2.8. Compare that to WYSL's share of 0.8. These are facts, not my opinion.
Bob, it's not that I'm not tolerant of other views. If you don't want your federal dollars going to public broadcasting, I respect that. Fine. I won't criticize you for holding that opinion. What I find surprising is your complete dismissal of the value of public broadcasting. I'm too close to this. But I will point to Element Nine's eloquent post in this thread has being spot on when it comes to the importance of public radio in our society.
I will concede your point that classical music never thrived in a commercial format. But it has on public radio. If you don't want to pay for it, you have the right to your opinion. But for you to dismiss it so haphazardly, saying it has no more than 12 listeners, is clearly not supported by the facts, and quite frankly, is making you look silly to me and I'm sure to a few others on this board.
Bob, it's not that I'm not tolerant of other views. If you don't want your federal dollars going to public broadcasting, I respect that. Fine. I won't criticize you for holding that opinion. What I find surprising is your complete dismissal of the value of public broadcasting. I'm too close to this. But I will point to Element Nine's eloquent post in this thread has being spot on when it comes to the importance of public radio in our society.
I will concede your point that classical music never thrived in a commercial format. But it has on public radio. If you don't want to pay for it, you have the right to your opinion. But for you to dismiss it so haphazardly, saying it has no more than 12 listeners, is clearly not supported by the facts, and quite frankly, is making you look silly to me and I'm sure to a few others on this board.
No, you're misreading me. It's not that I don't want federal dollars going to public broadcasting. I don't want federal, state or local dollars going to broadcasting - public OR private. Or newspapers. Or billboards, direct mail, or any other media enterprise, and I ABSOLUTELY want them to stay out of the internet, which they are already eyeing greedily. Mass media are the only line of defense we have against government which inexorably moves in shark-like fashion to accumulate intrusive power and oppress the people. If we sell out with our only means of giving the public unfettered opinion and information, we'll live to regret it. And our children will never forgive us for it.
Never on this board or anywhere else have I "dismiss(ed) the value of public broadcasting." Nor did I say WXXI has 12 listeners. Yes: you ARE misreading my post - check it again, Phil.
Never on this board or anywhere else have I "dismiss(ed) the value of public broadcasting." Nor did I say WXXI has 12 listeners. Yes: you ARE misreading my post - check it again, Phil.
No, Bob, but you did make the claim that "classical music is now esconced on an HD sub there," which is factually incorrect.
Classical music is at the same place on the dial where it's been found since 1975 (and fulltime since 1984): on the main channel of 91.5, analog and HD-1, all 48,000 watts of it. I can't speak to whether it's "making money," since that's not the purpose of the operation, but the fact that it continues to survive and thrive 24/7 even as other public broadcasters relegate classical music to lesser signals or lesser dayparts should say something about the support the format has both from its listeners and from station management.
I believe the same is true for our friends at WNED-FM to our west and WCNY-FM to our east.
Classical music is at the same place on the dial where it's been found since 1975 (and fulltime since 1984): on the main channel of 91.5, analog and HD-1, all 48,000 watts of it. I can't speak to whether it's "making money," since that's not the purpose of the operation, but the fact that it continues to survive and thrive 24/7 even as other public broadcasters relegate classical music to lesser signals or lesser dayparts should say something about the support the format has both from its listeners and from station management.
I believe the same is true for our friends at WNED-FM to our west and WCNY-FM to our east.
I stand corrected. My information was that drive programming on WXXI included spoken-word programming from NPR and that SOME, not all, of the classical music had been moved to HD-2. In fact I could swear I heard ATC on 91.5 at some juncture, but obviously I don't recall correctly. I regret the error and retract my statement about classical music on WXXI. Since I bear some historical responsibility for the fact that the format is heard on 91.5, it's nice to hear it's still there.
I was going to refrain from this. But I've reconsidered.
Phillip, I know my arguments haven't made me your favorite person lately. But your last post contained what I interpret as a gratuitous swipe at WYSL, as you sneer that we have a 0.8 (as if 12+ numbers mean anything) compared with WXXI's 2.8. Given the disparity in resources - WXXI has a multimillion dollar annual operating budget while WYSL has 4 fulltime employees - and the fact that we match or exceed the fiscal and audience performance of all market AMs except WHAM, I'm proud of that 0.8, which beats or matches Clear Channel and Entercom.
We make money with our 0.8, have fun, and enjoy the appreciation and respect from listeners and advertisers every day - 92% of which we retain, year in and year out. And we've never asked you for a dime.....unlike NPR.
It's too bad we can't disagree about certain issues without your taking cheap shots which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
I was going to refrain from this. But I've reconsidered.
Phillip, I know my arguments haven't made me your favorite person lately. But your last post contained what I interpret as a gratuitous swipe at WYSL, as you sneer that we have a 0.8 (as if 12+ numbers mean anything) compared with WXXI's 2.8. Given the disparity in resources - WXXI has a multimillion dollar annual operating budget while WYSL has 4 fulltime employees - and the fact that we match or exceed the fiscal and audience performance of all market AMs except WHAM, I'm proud of that 0.8, which beats or matches Clear Channel and Entercom.
We make money with our 0.8, have fun, and enjoy the appreciation and respect from listeners and advertisers every day - 92% of which we retain, year in and year out. And we've never asked you for a dime.....unlike NPR.
It's too bad we can't disagree about certain issues without your taking cheap shots which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
The tone of this discussion reflects the degree to which our little radio world has been turned upside down by global economic conditions that none of us have ever encountered before. We are all 'upset' in the most literal sense of the word.
I agree with Bob Savage that the market will prevail, as it always has, but every bit of evidence I have studied indicates that the familiar marketplace of growth and expansion that we Americans have enjoyed for the past half-century will not be the one that governs us going forward. The new marketplace will be one of shrinkage and shortage, and we had better get started on adapting to it. Wishful thinking and stubborn denial will not keep it at bay. Life will go on, business will be conducted and history will proceed.
Our peak years of prosperity and economic surplus in the mid-1960's gave us public radio and TV, but the coming lean years may yet take them away from us unless fundamental operational changes are made. The recent NPR fundraising scandal exposes an organization that is struggling to maintain a high-dollar status-quo even to the extent that ethical standards may have been discarded in pursuit of large donations. Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but it's not a healthy long-term business plan or sensible political strategy.
At least in regards to broadcasting, the concept of what 'public' means may have to adjust along with everything else, moving on down the dial to a position somewhat further from 'national' and quite a bit closer to 'local'.
I agree with Bob Savage that the market will prevail, as it always has, but every bit of evidence I have studied indicates that the familiar marketplace of growth and expansion that we Americans have enjoyed for the past half-century will not be the one that governs us going forward. The new marketplace will be one of shrinkage and shortage, and we had better get started on adapting to it. Wishful thinking and stubborn denial will not keep it at bay. Life will go on, business will be conducted and history will proceed.
Our peak years of prosperity and economic surplus in the mid-1960's gave us public radio and TV, but the coming lean years may yet take them away from us unless fundamental operational changes are made. The recent NPR fundraising scandal exposes an organization that is struggling to maintain a high-dollar status-quo even to the extent that ethical standards may have been discarded in pursuit of large donations. Desperate times may call for desperate measures, but it's not a healthy long-term business plan or sensible political strategy.
At least in regards to broadcasting, the concept of what 'public' means may have to adjust along with everything else, moving on down the dial to a position somewhat further from 'national' and quite a bit closer to 'local'.
Lee Rust said:
I agree, but the defunding debate should not be a separate discussion from the business plan discussion, because those things relate to whatever is allowable by law. The reason you're seeing a lot of public radio people freak out about defunding is it's simply a pulling of a financial plug, without making any changes on the regulatory side. I think this should be done in a more logical way, with a full discussion on the practicality of federal funding, along with loosening on limits on fundraising, rather than simply saying tomorrow you will get no more money from the feds without any consideration for what that really means to the stations, to the government, and most of all to the public.
We'll return to Radio-Info's version of World War III between commercial and public radio combatants but first boys and girls here are our letters to learn for today.
W T F
W T F
- Status