• 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

Thanks, iHeart for this brilliant programming decision

they're not hiring him to be co-operative and a kiss-up.

That's true, up to a point, and that point is the ultimate boundary radio people must never cross if they want to stay employed. It's when obnoxious and offensive starts pissing off the advertisers - the people who pay the bills. Innes has shown no sign of caring who he pisses off. I predict it's just a matter of time till he crosses that boundary and gets the axe.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
He won't be the first. That's no reason not to hire someone who is controversial. Controversy attracts audience, as proven by this thread.
Click to expand...

No - controversy makes owners scared of lawyers. The whole world including broadcasting is scary to death of lawsuits and lawyers. So - nothing - absolutely nothing interesting - ever happens. Radio is as bland and uncontroversial as possible, and anyone that dares to be edgy is out - but quick! Somebody might be offended and start a lawsuit, because we live in a world of crybabies with thin skins who will cry "victim" or "racism" if anything challenges them in their "safe space". It is becoming "Sliders" - lawyer world - for REAL. I'd love for somebody to boot them out of their safe space, take away their blankie and their pacifier, and help them live in a real world where somebody's opinion might actually be different from theirs.
 
rbruce - It is true the owners are scared of lawyers and lawsuits, but that fear is nothing compared to their fear of deep pocket advertisers who get so PO'd by what they hear on the air they threaten to take their ad dollars somewhere else. I had a personal experience with that back in the 80s. Not as an owner, but as a hapless small market newsman who caught a local politician doing something illegal.

I wanted to report it, but this guy also owned several car dealerships and he spent a lot of money at my station. Thousands of dollars a month at a small market station is A LOT. He told my owner/boss he could forget about getting any more of HIS ad dollars if that story got on the air. My owner/boss told me in no uncertain terms to deep-six the story. I wanted to keep my job so I obeyed and it never got on the air. To hell with him.

My point is that it doesn't take a lawyer to make an owner mess his pants and grovel. All it takes is the threat of losing ad dollars. Sooner or later, Josh Innes will stir up that kind of trouble for himself and learn who really has the power in these situations.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom