• 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

Opie and Anthony Out at WYSP?

simonbarrsinister said:
FMQB has recently reported on satellite listenerships....O & A's numbers are less than 25% of Stern cume and that's with the "Full Blown-

no censorship" show.

The only "DOOZY" :p O&A could drop on Philly is maybe buying their way onto a brokered station. I can't think of anyone who would

take on that mess and pay top dollar.


Of course, I'm repeating what I heard on O&A today, but if it's legit, the satellite ratings sample which was taken featured O&A on vacation for two weeks, and completely OFF THE AIR - not even mentioned on XM - for 30 days. (their suspension for the Homeless Charlie mess.)


Personally, I want O&A off terrestrial. I've been a "faithful listener", but the show is watered down. they can't do the show they did back in 2000.
 
WIOQ Ownership, Substandard Morning Show

I'm unaware of Entercom's ever having owned anything in Philadelphia. I seem to recall WIOQ's ownership going something like: Outlet, EZ, American Radio Systems, Evergreen, Chancellor, AM/FM, Clear Channel...

I agree that it seemingly makes little sense for WYSP to have fired members of the Kidd Chris staff (possibly) knowing they'd be needed for a move to morning drive. That being said, shedding a strangleholding deal to maintain an XM simulcast of portions of an also-ran morning show that had absolutely zero street talk makes perfect sense.

Maybe if the "Mush-Mouthed Idiots" were able to perform well in the market this would be an issue. But the sad truth many of the Cumia & Hughes fans refuse to acknowledge is that nobody around here has given a damn about the show in question since the duo was heard in afternoon drive on Infinity stations several years ago. You know, before that whole "church thing"...
 
P.S. -- Before anybody says anything, I'm well-aware "AM/FM" was really Chancellor under a new name (Chancellor's stock symbol in 1999)...
 
Re: WIOQ Ownership, Substandard Morning Show

George Brusstar said:
... the sad truth many of the Cumia & Hughes fans refuse to acknowledge is that nobody around here has given a damn about the show in question since the duo was heard in afternoon drive on Infinity stations several years ago. You know, before that whole "church thing"...

Right around the time WYSP retained the full-time rock format, O&A were scheduled to be in town for the "Travelling Virus" comedy tour. I guess they were hoping for many around that time to keep sampling the morning show over time.
 
carnyfeet said:
LBoogie said:
The Catholic League backlash was due to the FACT that during Sex For Sam a couple actually had sex on the air (where/church is irrellevant). It is against the law to physically/actually have sex on the radio. Not to mention, O&A KNEW that having a couple go into, not just a church, but one of the most (if not most) famous churches in NYC was way over the line..."shocking"...the whole reason they did it. They, and only they, let their own listeners down by doing something they fully knew would run the risk of getting fined/suspended/fired.

Excuse me? The sound of two people having sex is an FCC violation? News to me.

Archie's right. CBS fired O&A because the content was obscene by company standards, not by government standards. There's a big difference.

edit: my bad: there was a fine imposed, but it was not paid. To boot, it was an insignificant fine based on a less-than-concrete charge compared to that of ones previously levied against Howard Stern-- it was hardly the reason why O&A were dismissed.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA337613.html?display=Washington

edit2: to clarify, the Catholic League threatened WNEW with actions that would include revocation of the station license. O&A were fired to pacify the CL, not the FCC.

They were suspended and fired as a preemptive strike. CBS presumed a fine from the Feds was on its way. They were correct, and that fine was covered by a consent decree signed between CBS and the Feds to reconcile not only O&A, but a Howard Stern and Superbowl breast-out NAL. the Consent Decree is partly responsible for Stern going to SSR.

O&A were fired for a number of reasons. They were an uncooperative lot for one.
 
raydofan said:
They were suspended and fired as a preemptive strike. CBS presumed a fine from the Feds was on its way. They were correct, and that fine was covered by a consent decree signed between CBS and the Feds to reconcile not only O&A, but a Howard Stern and Superbowl breast-out NAL. the Consent Decree is partly responsible for Stern going to SSR.

O&A were fired for a number of reasons. They were an uncooperative lot for one.

The Janet Jackson thing was not covered by the consent decree. It was specifically excluded, and I think CBS is still litigating that particular NAL. This is the latest I could find on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/b...eference/Times Topics/People/J/Jackson, Janet
 
aindik said:
raydofan said:
They were suspended and fired as a preemptive strike. CBS presumed a fine from the Feds was on its way. They were correct, and that fine was covered by a consent decree signed between CBS and the Feds to reconcile not only O&A, but a Howard Stern and Superbowl breast-out NAL. the Consent Decree is partly responsible for Stern going to SSR.

O&A were fired for a number of reasons. They were an uncooperative lot for one.

The Janet Jackson thing was not covered by the consent decree. It was specifically excluded, and I think CBS is still litigating that particular NAL. This is the latest I could find on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/b...eference/Times Topics/People/J/Jackson, Janet

Ah, yes, that is correct...I ran into some erroneous info on the web. But from this paragraph, it looks like the
fine was paid already:

The uproar over that incident landed in a hushed federal courtroom Tuesday, where a CBS lawyer, Robert Corn-Revere, asked a three-judge panel to reverse the finding by the Federal Communications Commission that CBS was liable for broadcast indecency and to refund to CBS a $550,000 fine.


Also here:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6478766.html
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom