• 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

State College Curiosity

Hey you. Hope all is well with you. Just an observation, but curious about this board. Out of all the boards I've visited, this one seems to be the most volatile and was wondering why?
Most boards stick to facts and intelligent conversation. Just a gentle suggestion, but may I suggest, (at the very least being civil) ? Seems to be a certain degree of bitterness here and it doesn't make for friendly dialogue.
 
Yeah, it gets nasty and personal pretty quickly around here. But if it bothers you, go elsewhere. Most of us have learned to walk on our hind legs, but we can't yet match your level of civility, grace, authority and knowledge, happy as we may be for having you around to instruct and to put us in our proper place.
 
Nice attempt at sarcasm. May I gently say that I was making an effort towards friendly dialogue? Seems ya can't even make a couple of suggestions to improve the banter here. To me, the personal attacks and bitterness here is telling of the person behind the cloak. Thanks for the response though.
 
Hi Boone,

You are right. The board can be harsh. Sometimes peoples egos get away and it seems that other posters that know more or feel the do try to make points. I will attempt to be more reserved with my posts. Its hard sometimes when a person that truly does not know much and has a very limited amount of "real world experience" preaches down to us common folk.
 
I think a lot of what is showing up in the posts is frustration and anger at the current situation in the State College area radio scene.
While just about everybody who posts seems to be up to date on all the latest automation techniques and programming-format lingo and buzz words, I have a suspicion that most are old enough to remember, if not to have worked in Radio when just about every station at least tried to be if not "full service", at least of some service to the community. I mean morning, mid-day, drive-time and maybe even overnight air people. Some news effort, i.e., a wire service at least, maybe even a token shot at sports coverage, maybe with a sales type doing reports or play-by-play.

People used to actually listen to what were primarily music stations to keep up with local accidents, crime incidents, local politics, etc.

It seems that with every new round of buying and selling, there are fewer air people, replaced by voice tracking, satellite programming, and syndicated shows.

I think the market has too many signals chasing too few listeners.

Just an observation.

One other note; everybody on here seems to truly love the business, whatever role they have or had.
 
I remember when each station or combo was owned and operated by different owners or groups. It sure has gone a long way in the wrong direction.
 
Spackler1 said:
I remember when each station or combo was owned and operated by different owners or groups. It sure has gone a long way in the wrong direction.
The government pursued Bill Gates for creating a monopoly in the PC industry because his software is the software of CHOICE. Its better marketed, better made in many respects and people just seem to prefer it, yet he was accused of being unfair in business because he had such a lion's share of the marketplace. Yet in radio, the Feds have allowed large companies to get larger while smaller ones are being crushed out of existance.

Seems strange we are talking about the exact same government here looking out for the public interest in one aspect and so blatently ignoring what may be good for the public in another.

I am curious, do radio stations even have to try and prove at renewal time that they still serve the public interest? How could they with most stations barely doing PSA's let alone getting involved in more important affairs within the community. The large stations cut back on staff to save money and the small ones cut back on staff to stay alive. Stations on the dial carry more canned or automated programming than they have employees in some cases.

I wonder 25-50 years down the line, will our kids children be looking through the closet and stumble across a radio and say "Dad...what is this thing" kinda like they do now with our old 45's? Hope not...but unless the Feds do something to drastically turn the tables, that could be a very sad reality.
 
The post about Bill Gates makes some interesting and valid points but also makes some fundamental assumptions that aren't true.

First, the case against Microsoft didn't address market domination. It centered on Microsoft's refusal to separate its application software from its operating system. Essentially, the antitrust action sought to force the company to allow equal desktop access for rival web browsers, Netscape, Opera and Firefox. In the legal action, Microsoft insisted that the browser and the operating system could not be split. Obviously that's untrue. And that's how the court ruled.

The Microsoft case was brought by the Department of Justice, a cabinet-level agency the includes the Attorney General of the United States and the FBI.

The Federal Communications Commission which supposedly oversees broadcast and other over-the-air communications, interstate telcoms and the like made the decisions about the expansion of owership, allowing multiple am & fm facilities, former competitors, to become part of the same corporate family.

Maybe a wrong decision. But it had nothing directly to do with the software case.

We err when we consider "the government" as a monolith, even though it seems to act like one sometimes.

It's thousands and thousands of people, some of them good, some not - some elected, some appointed, some civil service lifers. It's your neighbors, and maybe even some of your friends. Your teachers, your kids' teachers. All part of government, but not "The" Government.

You do yourself no service when you lump everything together as you have.

If you think the multiple ownership decision is idiotic, destructive, un-American and wrong, you have a lot of company. But please don't buy into the propaganda that all government is one thing, a mighty dragon poised to obliterate the people who pay for it.
 
Could this be payback for over 40 years of union domination in broadcasting? Engineering union, talent union, musician’s union – paying the over-night guy more than the morning person because of him/her having the poor situation of doing overnights? It’s a lot more rewarding programming a station today than it was 10 or 30 years ago. It doesn’t take too much skill when you have 200k a year in music research, 500k in TV, a promotions staff of 3 or 4 with a 300k a book budget and you’re paying a consultant 50k +. You separate the men from the boys when the owner says – here’s your signal and your format…no jingles, no promotional dollars, no staff- make it a winner. TV is going through the same thing we are – you can either bitch about it or learn how to adapt to the new reality.
 
Doesn't have anything really to do with the unions, or the talent, or the record industry, or much of anything like that. Its all about the money and what the money can do for you when you have it. Remember all of this started with Newt Gingrich back in the early 90s saying that there were industries that were over regulated with great pent-up wealth that nobody could get at. He went further by saying that the government needed to get out of the way and allow that potential wealth to flow into the marketplace. He also saw the industry as a monolyth that took his side of many arguements lightly. He wanted the equation to change and felt that cutting the money loose would do that. He was partially right.

Problem is the money flowed into the wrong hands. People like Lowry Mays, Tom Hicks and Mel Karmazin managed to be first at the spigot and grabbed more than their share. They didn't share the vision that broadcasting was a public trust. It was a way to win friends, make money and beat down enemies---all of which they did rather efficiently. They took their increasing wealth to Capitol Hill where money buys influence, "friends" and the ears of regulators. So far they have won just about every battle fought with the notable exception of HDTV (and they haven't given up entirely on that one yet). Changing ownership limits and strangling satellite radio with more regulations is just another way of trying to "legally" eat someone else's piece of the pie.
 
gargoyles said:
We err when we consider "the government" as a monolith, even though it seems to act like one sometimes.

It's thousands and thousands of people, some of them good, some not - some elected, some appointed, some civil service lifers. It's your neighbors, and maybe even some of your friends. Your teachers, your kids' teachers. All part of government, but not "The" Government.

You do yourself no service when you lump everything together as you have.

If you think the multiple ownership decision is idiotic, destructive, un-American and wrong, you have a lot of company. But please don't buy into the propaganda that all government is one thing, a mighty dragon poised to obliterate the people who pay for it.
Well, I am not sure I totally agree with that assessment. Yes the government is comprised of many, many people but if you don't think that there is a small majority pulling the strings then you must be one of the few who does not find it totally coincidental that the price of gas has dropped almost a dollar with mid-term elections looming in the background. That is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing...its a joint effort to dupe the people of America into feeling a false sense of security over where our leaders are taking the country so we vote for the incumbents again. They are all vying to keep their jobs by winning us over at the gas pumps. Let's wait till 3-4 months after the elections to see if the price of gas suddenly rises again for some unknown reason.

Read the stories of the kindhearted "people minded souls" who win elections and head off to Washington. Either they never get any of their agenda accomplished, or they eventually convert to play ball with "the rest of legislature".

Government is indeed many people...many people with many ideas that more often than not, get stiffled for whatever the common cause happens to be at that given moment. Once upon a time big business rallied to have ownership limits dropped and they succeeded in a big way. The FCC may have made the decision, but you can best bet that donations to influential politicians lent a hand in that decision someplace.

It is indeed one government and if that is not apparent, you are not reading the right papers or listening to the right talk shows, etc. They have their agenda and that is all that matters in this world
 
You make some good points, but I stand on my statement. Can you (or anyone) name names and cite actions by this small minority of string pullers (I assume you meant small minority, even though you said "small majority.") What strings are they pulling? Who are they? How do they get jobs like that (we should apply!)

Yeah, that gasoline price plunge and the accompanying decrease in natural gas prices sure does smell funny. Figure mid November for the next significant gasoline increases and January for the same in natural gas. The only thing that saves me from completely agreeing with you is the gross ineptitude and glacial pace of the various components of government.

When I see things like that, I am reminded of two of my favorite quotations. I'll paraphrase.

"Nothing this evil is accidental." -- Ayn Rand, novelist

"When you see a great Machiavellian plot unfold in American corporations or the federal government, chances are it's an accident." Frank Stanton, former president of CBS.
 
"The Hookies have Genny cream ale for 25 cent drafts"

- "Hollywood" John Harlow


I figured I would add a cool qoute too.
 
revbabe said:
"The Hookies have Genny cream ale for 25 cent drafts"

- "Hollywood" John Harlow


I figured I would add a cool qoute too.

Do they still make Genny Cream Ale? I think a State College bar needs a Genny Cream Ale Night. Think one of the sales guru's can make that happen sometime soon? Now THATS a drink special
 
It strikes me as funny that anybody would actually believe that the government or the administration has some sort of magical control over gas prices, and can lower them at will when it is politically beneficial.
 
We've gotten way WAY off topic here. But since you brought up this aspect of the ongoing discussion of "government" as opposed to "The Government," here's one answer:

It's not magical at all. It happens almost all the time.

First, it takes about ten bucks to bring a barrel of oil out of the ground. But oil isn't sold like groceries or other retail items. It's sold by contract and the contract bidding process is often if not always in flux. So the oil that comes out of the ground today was sold well before it was excavated. Events cause upward and downward bidding, and so do emotional reactions to those events.

Katrina influenced oil price bidding because buyers and sellers feared scarcity because of damage to the rigs in the Gulf. It also went up when the Iran nuke story broke (although we nominally don't buy oil from Iran, Iranian prices affect world prices and therefore, OUR prices.)

When you get stories about refining capacity shortages, the price goes up... again, not the price you pay today, but the price you pay in 30 or 60 or 90 days.

When stories about surpluses emerge, the prices fall.

Those are the mechanics, and I've gone on at length to show you how direct factors can influence prices. But there are other factors, too and they are more subtle.

If insiders, oil executives, buy a lot of their own stock or sell it, Wall Street notices. That can influence the price of oil. Why would they trade in their own stock? Maybe they want to raise cash, so they sell. Maybe they see a rosy future, so they buy. But these guys supposedly can see what's happening before the rest of us.

Now. say, for argument's sake, that you're the head of the Federal Petroleum Reserve and you report that your inventory is up considerably from, oh, six months ago. Once that's out, the price of oil will change.

If you're an influential member of the House or Senate or a White House functionary with the President's or Vice President's ear, and you mention the advantages to business and the administration of an increase or a decrease, you can bet those oil futures contracts will be bid in the direction you want.

No quid pro quo, of course. But the next time Godzilla Oil wants an EPA exemption for a new refinery, or to drill beyond its lease or some other favor, that favor will be granted.

Is there a conscious conspiracy to bring oil prices down in advance of an election? Probably not per se. But, then, high ranking officials don't need to be too specific, because they're talking to dogs of their own breed when the deal with the oil business.

And it's not just oil. But that's for another thread at another time.
 
If it could be controlled that easily, they would have done it a long time ago. Thanks for your explanation, but I do have knowledge of how the market works. Your version is incredibly simplistic. There are so many other factors at work that are totally beyond the control of any one entity that it just doesn't hold water.

New York commodities traders have far more to do with gas prices than any politician, anywhere.
 
Spakler: if you mean "simplistic" I'll have to say your response was naive. If you meant oversimplified, I'll say you're merely under-informed. I'm not suggesting (and I guess I wasn't clear about this) that one single entity controls the prices. But traders, suppliers, explorers, members of Congress, the White House, distributors and the whole complex chain moves in one direction at the time, and it's always the same direction. The free market in petroleum is a myth and has always been a myth.

But as I DID make clear, this thread has been off course for too long. So let's you and I agree to disagree and move back to the topic at hand, which is the nastiness of some of the posters (myself included) on this board.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom