They were kicked out before the pentagon policy
So instead that money pays for a presidential ballroom because of merit??
-
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
WABC launches "Worldwide News Network"
- Thread starter Rollo-Smokes
- Start date
They were kicked out before the pentagon policy
So instead that money pays for a presidential ballroom because of merit??
There's no public funding for the ballroom. It didn't merit it.
They were not kicked out before the policy was implemented.
the presidenty and his people have a clear set of past behaviors that target, demean and attack the press they dont agree with. its clearly abou restricting free speech they dont agree with.
Insulting reporters, calling them names, trashing the organizations they work for... and im not even talking about NPR here
From Fox News:
Once touted as privately funded, Republicans sneak in taxpayer cash for Trump's ballroom project
Senate Republicans tuck $1 billion for Trump's White House ballroom security into their immigration-focused reconciliation package released Monday.
They were kicked out in February 2025. The new policy happened a few months later:
DOD dismisses NPR, other outlets from Pentagon office spaces
The outlets can reportedly continue to attend briefings.
current.org
Just like the prsident said thered be no public money spend for that ballroom........ and its not been admitted tax payers will fund some of it?
Restricting free speech? Give me a break! If he attacks the press, all they need to do is fire back. That's free speech!
He has secret service agents protecting him. They carry guns. Also the white house press people will ban you permanently if you talk back.
He doesn't care who he bans. He kicked out the AP. They had to sue to get back in.
hes attacked reporters verbally numerous times.. so many ive lost count
Oh please! "Fire back" was a metaphor. 😏
I wasn't reacting to that. You're on his turf, and he controls the situation.
But a lot of his most personal attacks are on his social media site, where you really can't fight back.
with this promotion:
radioinsight.com
how does Lee keep the owners fingers out of the pie and program a station thats hard ruight, but news allegedly isnt?
I have to imagine thatd be hard
Red Apple Media Promotes Lee Harris To SVP/News & Programming
After joining Red Apple Media as VP/News for 770 WABC New York and to launch The Worldwide News Network in
radioinsight.com
how does Lee keep the owners fingers out of the pie and program a station thats hard ruight, but news allegedly isnt?
I have to imagine thatd be hard
Typically it takes more than a month to get SVP stripes. He must have hit an audience target quicker than expected.
Or this owner does what this owner wants to do. Normally that kind of meteoric rise within an organization is reserved for the owner's kid(s) (e.g., David Ellison, Lachlan Murdoch).
Congress rejected the public funding. I think they made the right call.
The money is coming from taxpayers regardless of what congress says. According to Fox News:
Republicans question Trump's 'privately funded' ballroom after report points to taxpayer burden
Trump's ballroom cost estimates reportedly skyrocketed to $600 million, with about half potentially coming from taxpayer-funded sources overall.
If this president wants to do something, he just does it.
It has harmed several stations and communities, possibly irreperably (spelling?) despite the best efforts of the stations to cove tha loss themselves
I thought of this question as I followed the local NYC congressional elections taking place tonight. If the residents are souring on their mayor, it's not showing up in the election results. Most of the winners were endorsed by the mayor. Two-term incumbent Dan Goldman (an establishment democrat) was defeated by a Mandani candidate.
The media tends to represent the views of the people. That's what the FCC expects broadcasters to do. Ascertain the views of the public on core issues, and produce programming that addresses their views on those issues. So Cats is able to get a 4 share with WABC by addressing the views of one group. The other 96% disagree with the views being broadcast by the station.
I'm no fan of Cats, but again, could you stop making stuff up like this? This is a gross misrepresentation of what the numbers mean.
Most of the 96% are not listening to WABC because they are listening to non-political or non-English language formats like music, sports, or one of the multitude of Spanish language radio stations instead. Some may agree with WABC's political stance while others may not, but those that agree don't have to be listening to WABC all the time to prove it. Listening choices reflect entertainment and format preferences, not political alignment.
Obviously you know this, but you choose to deliberately misrepresent the data.
Last edited:
If you take them literally, sure. Because 6+ share is based on people using measured media, and not everyone is measured.
So yes, the president received 17% of the NYC vote in 2024. Apparently about a third of them listen to WABC. Better?
Explained that way, it really makes the 6+ Nielsen numbers almost useless in any practical way.
Broadcasters are supposed to survey the public on their concerns and produce programming that addresses those concerns, but that's not quite the same thing as addressing their views.