-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tangled Webb (courtesy Seattle Weekly)
- Thread starter ronrob
- Start date
> It is not a pretty picture.
>
>
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0615/mike-webb.php
I really don't know what to make of the case against Mike Webb. I would hope for the best for him, but I'm also preparing for the worst.
I will say this, news breaks and spot sweeps are no time to be getting munchies. Most jocks/talk show hosts aren't even allowed to eat in the studio anyway at most stations.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Stoner New Year, Thursday 4/20 @ 4:20 PM.
[email protected]
</P>
>
>
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0615/mike-webb.php
I really don't know what to make of the case against Mike Webb. I would hope for the best for him, but I'm also preparing for the worst.
I will say this, news breaks and spot sweeps are no time to be getting munchies. Most jocks/talk show hosts aren't even allowed to eat in the studio anyway at most stations.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Stoner New Year, Thursday 4/20 @ 4:20 PM.
[email protected]
</P>
Maybe it wasn't munchies he was getting... maybe it was a different kind of convenience he was getting at that store, who knows, there probably is security cam video both at the store and at the entercom entrance... Both of which we will likely never hear about but the mgmt probably has.
N
NwzAir
Guest
Entercom
>>> there's probably a security cam at the Entercom enterance....
No, that's a nightlight....
>>> there's probably a security cam at the Entercom enterance....
No, that's a nightlight....
Tangled Webb a la Blatherwatch
Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading piece for the Weekly article.
Among Michael Hood's comments earlier today ....
"Parrish's piece must have been hard to do. Because the Seattle radio market is a small town, there's plenty of inter and intra-institutional incest. Radio professionals didn't want to go on the record about Mike Webb or KIRO. They figure that down the road, they just might end up wanting to work for Entercom or with or for someone tangled in the Webb. It's professionally prudent, to talk off the record.
Editor, publishers and their attorneys do not like unnamed sources, and the Webb piece must have been especially sticky because of the workplace environment and all the agenda-heavy people; and because of Webb's unfinished criminal case (He was charged with felony fraud, didja hear?).
Radio management is notoriously secretive and all media hates it when itself becomes the story.
Knowing the Weekly's journalistic standards, we're sure Parrish had to have at least 2 sources for every statement to get it by the gauntlet, and we'll bet there was plenty of juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor.
Make no mistake, if Parrish's sources were telling lies, Webb would sue him like spite on mice."
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ronrob on 04/14/06 05:01 PM.</FONT></P>
Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading piece for the Weekly article.
Among Michael Hood's comments earlier today ....
"Parrish's piece must have been hard to do. Because the Seattle radio market is a small town, there's plenty of inter and intra-institutional incest. Radio professionals didn't want to go on the record about Mike Webb or KIRO. They figure that down the road, they just might end up wanting to work for Entercom or with or for someone tangled in the Webb. It's professionally prudent, to talk off the record.
Editor, publishers and their attorneys do not like unnamed sources, and the Webb piece must have been especially sticky because of the workplace environment and all the agenda-heavy people; and because of Webb's unfinished criminal case (He was charged with felony fraud, didja hear?).
Radio management is notoriously secretive and all media hates it when itself becomes the story.
Knowing the Weekly's journalistic standards, we're sure Parrish had to have at least 2 sources for every statement to get it by the gauntlet, and we'll bet there was plenty of juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor.
Make no mistake, if Parrish's sources were telling lies, Webb would sue him like spite on mice."
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ronrob on 04/14/06 05:01 PM.</FONT></P>
Geov Parrish
> Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading
> piece for the Weekly article.
>
> Among Michael Hood's comments earlier today ....
>
> "Parrish's piece must have been hard to do. Because the
> Seattle radio market is a small town, there's plenty of
> inter and intra-institutional incest. Radio professionals
> didn't want to go on the record about Mike Webb or KIRO.
> They figure that down the road, they just might end up
> wanting to work for Entercom or with or for someone tangled
> in the Webb. It's professionally prudent, to talk off the
> record.
>
> Editor, publishers and their attorneys do not like unnamed
> sources, and the Webb piece must have been especially sticky
> because of the workplace environment and all the
> agenda-heavy people; and because of Webb's unfinished
> criminal case (He was charged with felony fraud, didja
> hear?).
>
> Radio management is notoriously secretive and all media
> hates it when itself becomes the story.
>
> Knowing the Weekly's journalistic standards, we're sure
> Parrish had to have at least 2 sources for every statement
> to get it by the gauntlet, and we'll bet there was plenty of
> juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor.
>
> Make no mistake, if Parrish's sources were telling lies,
> Webb would sue him like spite on mice."
Geov Parrish is a political writer and commentator. Mass media in itself wasn't his topic, but as one of the few local liberal radio talk show hosts in Seattle, the Mike Webb case-and it's circumstances and for Parrish himself as a former guest, are especially interesting.
Losing Webb-especially with virtually no LOCAL voice from the Left on LOCAL talk radio now and under Webb's particular circumstances-regardless of munchie runs, car accidents, insurance paperwork and off air antics - strange as they were, leaves a huge gap to be filled.
And it will be filled-soon. Liberals constantly outperform conservative radio hosts these days (even KTTH takes a back seat to KPTK). But most radio management is still under that outdated "Liberals Are Evil" mentality fostered by the Rush Limbaugh fad of the '90s.
That too is changing.....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Thursday 4/20 @ 4:20 PM......
[email protected]
</P>
> Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading
> piece for the Weekly article.
>
> Among Michael Hood's comments earlier today ....
>
> "Parrish's piece must have been hard to do. Because the
> Seattle radio market is a small town, there's plenty of
> inter and intra-institutional incest. Radio professionals
> didn't want to go on the record about Mike Webb or KIRO.
> They figure that down the road, they just might end up
> wanting to work for Entercom or with or for someone tangled
> in the Webb. It's professionally prudent, to talk off the
> record.
>
> Editor, publishers and their attorneys do not like unnamed
> sources, and the Webb piece must have been especially sticky
> because of the workplace environment and all the
> agenda-heavy people; and because of Webb's unfinished
> criminal case (He was charged with felony fraud, didja
> hear?).
>
> Radio management is notoriously secretive and all media
> hates it when itself becomes the story.
>
> Knowing the Weekly's journalistic standards, we're sure
> Parrish had to have at least 2 sources for every statement
> to get it by the gauntlet, and we'll bet there was plenty of
> juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor.
>
> Make no mistake, if Parrish's sources were telling lies,
> Webb would sue him like spite on mice."
Geov Parrish is a political writer and commentator. Mass media in itself wasn't his topic, but as one of the few local liberal radio talk show hosts in Seattle, the Mike Webb case-and it's circumstances and for Parrish himself as a former guest, are especially interesting.
Losing Webb-especially with virtually no LOCAL voice from the Left on LOCAL talk radio now and under Webb's particular circumstances-regardless of munchie runs, car accidents, insurance paperwork and off air antics - strange as they were, leaves a huge gap to be filled.
And it will be filled-soon. Liberals constantly outperform conservative radio hosts these days (even KTTH takes a back seat to KPTK). But most radio management is still under that outdated "Liberals Are Evil" mentality fostered by the Rush Limbaugh fad of the '90s.
That too is changing.....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Thursday 4/20 @ 4:20 PM......
[email protected]
</P>
Re: Geov Parrish
> > Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading
> > piece for the Weekly article.
Im not sure what you mean by "cheerleading"....if you are implying that Mr. Blatherwatch is somehow thrilled that Mike Webb is in trouble, I dont see anything on the blog from HIM that says so. Now some of his posters are another matter...
Mike Webb's demise is sad and confusing for those of us who used to listen to him on a regular basis.
And I see now I should have posted this one comment up...not referring to Larry's post here!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by sparkyinoly on 04/15/06 11:14 PM.</FONT></P>
> > Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a cheerleading
> > piece for the Weekly article.
Im not sure what you mean by "cheerleading"....if you are implying that Mr. Blatherwatch is somehow thrilled that Mike Webb is in trouble, I dont see anything on the blog from HIM that says so. Now some of his posters are another matter...
Mike Webb's demise is sad and confusing for those of us who used to listen to him on a regular basis.
And I see now I should have posted this one comment up...not referring to Larry's post here!<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by sparkyinoly on 04/15/06 11:14 PM.</FONT></P>
Re: Geov Parrish
> > > Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a
> cheerleading
> > > piece for the Weekly article.
>
>
> Im not sure what you mean by "cheerleading"....
I mean the blogger agrees enthusiastically with the critical-of-Webb tone of the piece.
He suggests the writer MUST have had at least two sources for everything .. although Parrish has not made that claim.
And the supposition about the juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor could be considered "piling on."
That does sound like cheerleading, doesn't it?<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ronrob on 04/16/06 07:36 PM.</FONT></P>
> > > Not surprisingly "Blatherwatch" has posted a
> cheerleading
> > > piece for the Weekly article.
>
>
> Im not sure what you mean by "cheerleading"....
I mean the blogger agrees enthusiastically with the critical-of-Webb tone of the piece.
He suggests the writer MUST have had at least two sources for everything .. although Parrish has not made that claim.
And the supposition about the juicy stuff left on the cutting room floor could be considered "piling on."
That does sound like cheerleading, doesn't it?<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ronrob on 04/16/06 07:36 PM.</FONT></P>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.