• 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

Rich Carberry out at WRKO/BIG Changes Coming

N

NO_SPIN

Rich Carberry's <font color="red">[departure]</font> is the first of many changes coming to WRKO this fall.
The suits at Entercom are not too happy with the present lineup. Only 2 shows are safe Carr & Savage the others are all subject to change. Ironically Carberry did not like Howie even though Howie is the bread & butter show at RKO.
By November the morning show will be changed and other Big changes will follow.

There are some huge changes that I cannot disclose at this time but will happen in the next couple months. Entercom seems determined to make RKO the success it once was. In the past money for marketing was not available that is now changing.

Those of us that make a living in radio know that these changes are part of the business process.

The new talent RKO is planning to hire will attract new listeners and keep the current audience in place. Entercom will make this happen. Continue to listen!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 06/28/05 06:38 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Who or what finally awakened Entercom ?


> Rich Carberry's <font color="red">[departure]</font> is the first of many
> changes coming
> to WRKO this fall.
> The suits at Entercom are not too happy with the present
> lineup. Only 2 shows are safe Carr & Savage the others are
> all subject to change. Ironically Carberry did not like
> Howie even though Howie is the bread & butter show at RKO.
> By November the morning show will be changed and other Big
> changes will follow.
>
> There are some huge changes that I cannot disclose at this
> time but will happen in the next couple months. Entercom
> seems determined to make RKO the success it once was. In the
> past money for marketing was not available that is now
> changing.
>
> Those of us that make a living in radio know that these
> changes are part of the business process.
>
> The new talent RKO is planning to hire will attract new
> listeners and keep the current audience in place. Entercom
> will make this happen. Continue to listen!
>
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 06/28/05 06:41 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> Rich Carberry's <font color="red">[departure]</font> is the first of many > changes coming
> to WRKO this fall.
> The suits at Entercom are not too happy with the present
> lineup. Only 2 shows are safe Carr & Savage the others are
> all subject to change. Ironically Carberry did not like
> Howie even though Howie is the bread & butter show at RKO.
> By November the morning show will be changed and other Big
> changes will follow.
>
> There are some huge changes that I cannot disclose at this
> time but will happen in the next couple months. Entercom
> seems determined to make RKO the success it once was. In the
> past money for marketing was not available that is now
> changing.
>
> Those of us that make a living in radio know that these
> changes are part of the business process.
>
> The new talent RKO is planning to hire will attract new
> listeners and keep the current audience in place. Entercom
> will make this happen. Continue to listen!
>


How you know this poster is full of crap and isn't "making a living in radio" at WRKO:

His last name is CARBERY. An RKO insider would know that, no?

And if by "change the morning show" you mean "get rid of crappy Peter Blute" then bring on the changes!!
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 06/28/05 06:40 PM.</FONT></P>
 
There will be one big change this Fall at WRKO: The station will start broadcasting Celtics' games.

As for other changes: I can't see Rush Limbaugh's syndicated show leaving WRKO unless Clear Channel (parent of Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Networks) buys WTKK-96.9. Were CC to buy WTKK, then Limbaugh and the other Premiere shows currently on WRKO (George Noory, Matt Drudge on weekends, and maybe one or two others that 'RKO currently airs) will move to 96.9 once CC takes over.

But if Greater Media remains the owner of WTKK, then I suspect Rush's show will stay at WRKO for quite some time to come.
 
First of all be aware that any libelous comments [i.e. "false", "untrue", "lies"] open you up to a lawsuit. You can't post things that are personal in nature which you can't back up as fact. So I have editted your post, because I have been informed otherwise. Consider it a blessing that you aren't being served.

Next..."huge changes that I cannot disclose at this time" is quite ambiguous, and the regulars here know B.S. when they read it. You don't even reveal who you are, so how can anyone take what you say seriously. You are an anonymous poster looking for attention.

If a Radio Group is making "big" changes, we wouldn't be hearing about it through a board troll. The changes would just happen.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> First of all be aware that any libelous comments [i.e.
> "false", "untrue", "lies"] open you up to a lawsuit. You
> can't post things that are personal in nature which you
> can't back up as fact. So I have editted your post, because
> I have been informed otherwise. Consider it a blessing that
> you aren't being served.
>
Not exactly. Depends on if subject is "public person". A talk show host is one. You can slander/libel the daylights out of radio, tv personalities, politicians. It's protected speech (U.S. Supreme Court, Sullivan v. New York Times, 1964, reaffirmed in subsequent rulings). Burden is on "public person" to prove actual malice, almost impossible in court.

>
 
Your opinions here are laughable. First of all the truth is the truth. Second the 1'st amendment protects free speech and public people are NOT protected speech.

Was Watergate whistleblower W. Mark Felt (deep throat) wrong about his inside information. Felt like me are insiders who know the real deal.

I have been working at the same radio station for many years now and intend to stay here that is why I do not reveal my real name. Probably some of you know who I am now.

But one thing for sure RKO will have Big changes very very soon!









> First of all be aware that any libelous comments [i.e.
> "false", "untrue", "lies"] open you up to a lawsuit. You
> can't post things that are personal in nature which you
> can't back up as fact. So I have editted your post, because
> I have been informed otherwise. Consider it a blessing that
> you aren't being served.
>
> Next..."huge changes that I cannot disclose at this time" is
> quite ambiguous, and the regulars here know B.S. when they
> read it. You don't even reveal who you are, so how can
> anyone take what you say seriously. You are an anonymous
> poster looking for attention.
>
> If a Radio Group is making "big" changes, we wouldn't be
> hearing about it through a board troll. The changes would
> just happen.
>
 
If someone came on here and said I was "fired" when in fact I wasn't, you can believe I would hold them accountable in a court of law. It's like posting that someone uses drugs when they don't or is having an affair when they aren't. Public or not, you can't lie about a person's personal affairs, whether they are a public figure or not. Saying something like "he must be on drugs" may not be libelous, but "he uses drugs" is, if in fact it is NOT true, and is damaging to his reputation. The same can be said about someone being fired. To say, "The way it went down, he must have been fired", may not be libelous, but to say "He was fired", is libelous and IS damaging to one's reputation.

But thanks for playing anyway. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Your opinions here are laughable.

Feel free to laugh. I'm laughing at you too. But I have no reason to hide.

> First of all the truth is
> the truth. Second the 1'st amendment protects free speech
> and public people are NOT protected speech.

"public people are NOT protected speech" ... okay...no need to get so flustered you leave out words.

The First Ammendment does NOT give you, or anyone the right to lie about someone else, public or not. Let's give another scenerio for those of you who don't understand the law...

If a reporter writes a story making claims that are not only unsubstantiated, but not true, you can bet that the person who was written about has a lawsuit. Why don't celebrities sue Tabloids then?....uh, if you can't figure that one out there's little to no hope for you. It's called FREE PUBLICITY.

Maybe we should bring it closer to home: Let's say there is an upstanding individual in your community. This person is a public person, very well respected...and YOU start to spread lies, by saying, oh, that he raped you, are you telling me that this upstanding individual, who is a public person could not sue you for slander/libel just because he is in the public eye? HAHAHAHA...now maybe you see why I am laughing at you.

Do you get it yet?

> Was Watergate whistleblower W. Mark Felt (deep throat) wrong about his inside > information.
> Felt like me are insiders who know the real deal

Are you really comparing yourself to Deep Throat? HAHAHA This isn't a National Security issue. Maybe in your world it is that big of a deal though, in which case...well...people will know who to believe.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> If someone came on here and said I was "fired" when in fact
> I wasn't, you can believe I would hold them accountable in a
> court of law. It's like posting that someone uses drugs when
> they don't or is having an affair when they aren't. Public
> or not, you can't lie about a person's personal affairs,
> whether they are a public figure or not. Saying something
> like "he must be on drugs" may not be libelous, but "he uses
> drugs" is, if in fact it is NOT true, and is damaging to his
> reputation. The same can be said about someone being fired.
> To say, "The way it went down, he must have been fired", may
> not be libelous, but to say "He was fired", is libelous and
> IS damaging to one's reputation.
>
> But thanks for playing anyway.
>
If you're a public person, you must prove they knowingly lied "with malicious intent" in order to win in court. Burden so high it's almost impossible to win. Designed to protect public discourse by giving public wide latitude to criticize public officials and persons.
 
> If you're a public person, you must prove they knowingly
> lied "with malicious intent" in order to win in court.
> Burden so high it's almost impossible to win. Designed to
> protect public discourse by giving public wide latitude to
> criticize public officials and persons.


Or reckless regard for the truth....so when someone just blatently says something that can be damaging to a career like has been said here, it isn't hard to prove, especially when the guidelines are CLEAR as they are here.

The general public doesn't get to demonize a person who has a Public life, for any reason in this forum. If you are going to make comments you better damn well be able to prove it. This is a PRIVATE website. You are not standing on your City Hall Steps. The "general public" can and will be held accountable...and in this forum, we scrutinize comments that are made so as to protect those who may be defamed by an ignorant imbicile who just wants to cause controversy.

So if what you have to say is defamatory but TRUE...have your facts and present them. Otherwise shut up. How ignorant can you be?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Second the 1'st amendment protects free speech
> and public people are NOT protected speech.

That may be so, but this isn't in the public. This is a privately owned and operated message board. The first amendmen has NO BEARING what happens on here. By being a member of this board, you abide by the rules set by the OWNER (You know, the one shelling out big bucks so you and everyone else can post here...) and you are not protected under the free speech amendment on this private message board.

Sorry but that's the real truth.

There is no law that says you cant go out and start your own message board. Depending on who the host is, that CAN be your window for freedom of speech.
 
>
> The First Ammendment does NOT give you, or anyone the right
> to lie about someone else, public or not. Let's give another
> scenerio for those of you who don't understand the law...

Unfortunately, people lie every day. They use lies to try to blunt
real evidence. It's reprehensible, it's disgusting, but they lack ethics.


>
> If a reporter writes a story making claims that are not only
> unsubstantiated, but not true, you can bet that the person
> who was written about has a lawsuit. Why don't celebrities
> sue Tabloids then?....uh, if you can't figure that one out
> there's little to no hope for you. It's called FREE
> PUBLICITY.
>
Tom Cruise has sued, I believe successfully, regarding the gay issues - but his recent nuttiness surrounding Madame Holmes looks like a man protesting too much.
Ben Affleck was far more humorous about his plethora of rumors - when asked about J Lo he said something about getting permission from Matt Damon. My
personal opinion is that Tom and Ben could be, but one is handling it much better than the other.



> Maybe we should bring it closer to home: Let's say there is
> an upstanding individual in your community. This person is a
> public person, very well respected...and YOU start to spread
> lies, by saying, oh, that he raped you, are you telling me
> that this upstanding individual, who is a public person
> could not sue you for slander/libel just because he is in
> the public eye? HAHAHAHA...now maybe you see why I am
> laughing at you.
>
a charge of Rape is an extreme charge and worthy of legal action to protect one's good name. Unfortunately people in small towns do the smear campaign
quietly - making up things that aren't as explosive as "rape", just enough to make the mud kind-of stick, like slippery snakes, and it is more difficult to sue them. God has a special place in hell waiting for them.

Radio is extremely notorious for the nasty backbiting. One major jock allegedly had to threaten a GM (by saying he would "out" him) in order to get a letter of recommendation as the station already initiated the smear campaign. I also have first-hand knowledge of another jock getting hired at another 50,000 watt station, and the P.D. (not THAT P.D., one with NO SPINE as opposed to little spine) took orders from the same alleged GM referenced above and did the whammy job AFTER the hire. Luckily the station in question ignored their competitor's nasty smear job - and by the way - I knew both jocks - you hear about this stuff all the time. Radio - rather than be supportive - likes to crush the competition and NOT let them get ahold of previous talent and whatever audience they might take with them. Yet very VERY few in our industry SUE like they should because they don't want to make waves.

Roma Maffia in the film DISCLOSURE: Sue and you won't get hired again, don't
sue and they ship you off to .... (paraphrased)

Yet ANOTHER jock at ANOTHER 50,000 watt station had a GREAT CASE but took "the
high road" and didn't file a discrimination suit like he should have. Perhaps he wishes he did now, but hindsight is 20/20.

So all this back and forth is sometimes a moot point. Radio executives (not all, but a good lot of them) are the WORST at saying things very quietly -
NOT putting them in writing (no integrity), and attempting to destroy careers. They know they have the power and the radio executives wield it like an out-of-control priest at Neverland, drunk with power - "Oh he/she will never sue - they'll never work in this town again."

And don't think a certain former Program Director didn't have a long reach when it came to people not getting hired well out of the boundaries of the Boston city limits. Jocks had to genuflect and kiss the proverbial ring, or else!

(insert "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" here..., all the munchkins chime in)

The radio industry needs a few good class action suits - but no one has the guts to do it (except yours truly). If people keep caving in, the GMs, PDs and MDs are going to continue their corrupt practice of smearing talented on-air personalities who they put off-air for no other reason, sometimes, than the fact that they can.


Slander, libel, words ya never heard in the Bible
Paul Simon

p.s. I have, of course, not named names, so this post should remain. But if anyone investigates all the major stations in town, they may find that the above allegations/examples are 100% true - too much power in the hands of too few. We are all getting screwed - the audience, the on-air talent, the people who purchase advertising. It ain't fair.

> Do you get it yet?
>
> > Was Watergate whistleblower W. Mark Felt (deep throat)
> wrong about his inside > information.
> > Felt like me are insiders who know the real deal
>
> Are you really comparing yourself to Deep Throat? HAHAHA
> This isn't a National Security issue. Maybe in your world it
> is that big of a deal though, in which case...well...people
> will know who to believe.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom