• 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

Today's WCVB... and the old WHDH... The same?

G

Garrett

This is all academic I supposed but has anyone noticed that WCVB is kinda sorta owned by the same family that signed it on orignally as WHDH (Hearst)?

I was looking at Wikipedia, and saw that WHDH 5 was started by the Herald-Traveler, which was owned by Randolf Hearst. Ironic, isn't it? And yet, WHDH-TV is channel 7, and the current Channel 5 look nothing like the old WHDH.

Weird, huh?
 
You are a bit confused......the old WHDH-TV was owned by the Herald Traveler Corp, which actually competed with the Hearst paper in Boston, which was the Record American. After WHDH-TV's license was yanked in 1972, it soon became clear that profits from the TV station were keeping the Boston Herald afloat; it had been losing money for years. The Herald had no choice but to merge with the Hearst Record American and become the Herald American. The Hearsts had their eye on the Boston Herald plant which was much more modern than the Record's antiquated facilities. It's ironic that part of the reason that the Herald lost the license to Channel 5 was due to what the FCC saw as an undesirable consolidation of media in the city. What actually happened was the loss of a major voice--the original Boston Herald.
 
Oh, yes... Now I see!
I re-read what I looked at, and the Herald wasn't associated with Hearst until AFTER they lost Channel 5.
Thanks for setting me straight.

It is close circle though, eh?
 
Garrett said:
Oh, yes... Now I see!
I re-read what I looked at, and the Herald wasn't associated with Hearst until AFTER they lost Channel 5.
Thanks for setting me straight.

It is close circle though, eh?
Click to expand...

The Boston Herald-Traveler only lasted another 60 days (or so) after the loss of the WHDH-TV (Channel 5) license on March 19, 1972. It was a well known fact that the TV station AND the AM and FM stations (WHDH and WHDH-FM) were paying the bills for the Herald-Traveler. The loss of the TV station pretty much sealed the fate of the Herald. When the Record American bought the Herald, they merged the two papers together and (for a while) had one of the longest names in the business, The Boston Record-American and Herald-Traveler and Sunday Advertiser. Eventually they became The Boston Herald American and eventually the current Boston Herald. The Herald floundered for many, many years. It wasn't until Murdock bought the paper that the fortunes of the paper turned around. Many times, Boston came THIS CLOSE to becoming a one newspaper town. Today, both papers are doing fairly well. In 1982, the Herald changed from the long time broadsheet format to the tabloid format it now is. More pictures and a little more "spice" in the writing style are the hallmarks of a tabloid.
 
Guess it did make it appropriate for Howie Carr to be on WHDH 850 a decade and a half ago.

Peter Q. George (K1XRB) said:
In 1982, the Herald changed from the long time broadsheet format to the tabloid format it now is. More pictures and a little more "spice" in the writing style are the hallmarks of a tabloid.
Click to expand...

You're mixing the tabloid layout with the tabloid writing style, yet you're not incorrect.

Wikipedia has a great article on the Herald's history going back to Nathan Hale in the early 1800s.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom