Robert Craig Savage. Your friend. Ithaca college alumnus. Doug Tracht. The Greaseman. Where might he be these days?
-
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
Grease had launched his own morning show via a live365 internet hookup and also had a small group of terrestrial affiliates, I think fewer than ten, on his eponymous network GreaseNet. His "flagship" was a 50kw on 1160 in suburban Washington, DC, IIRC the callsign was WMET. After the Greaseman morning show the station was brokered Asian and religious. But I believe that GreaseNet has been disbanded as of this writing.
The IC Class of 72 including Rick Sands of RV Swinamer Associates (the Binghamton agency,) my first year roomie, and other luminaries were together once again for our 35th IC Reunion just about a year ago in Ithaca, but Grease was a no-show. However we did a cellphone pass-around at the Boat Yard Restaurant and Grease sent cellpix of him and GreaseWoman.
He looks much the same as always in recent years, quite Schwartzeneggeresque. And the Grease character was very much in evidence.
The IC Class of 72 including Rick Sands of RV Swinamer Associates (the Binghamton agency,) my first year roomie, and other luminaries were together once again for our 35th IC Reunion just about a year ago in Ithaca, but Grease was a no-show. However we did a cellphone pass-around at the Boat Yard Restaurant and Grease sent cellpix of him and GreaseWoman.
He looks much the same as always in recent years, quite Schwartzeneggeresque. And the Grease character was very much in evidence.
Guys,
While Grease is no longer doing a regular radio show, he does have a series of videos, 30 at last count, available for the viewing at Get A Life TV. Here's the link to "The Deviant Report"...
http://www.getalife.tv/ONTHEAIR/TheDeviantReport/tabid/651/language/en-US/Default.aspx
Last time I was on the site, one report automatically followed the next.
While Grease is no longer doing a regular radio show, he does have a series of videos, 30 at last count, available for the viewing at Get A Life TV. Here's the link to "The Deviant Report"...
http://www.getalife.tv/ONTHEAIR/TheDeviantReport/tabid/651/language/en-US/Default.aspx
Last time I was on the site, one report automatically followed the next.
J
JustPastBuffalo
Guest
Greaseman is one of the great jocks and air personalities of our time and a character in his own right. But like a Greek tragedy, he was flawed, done in by a momentary lapse of self control and reason when he made blatantly disparaging remarks on the air about black men on two separate occasions.
I lack the intellectually acuity to understand how the minds of artistic, gifted and brilliant people like Greaseman and other performers work. We read that he was involved in various humanitarian causes, even a translator for indigent Hispanics in the court system. Then one day, he says something so extreme even for the character that he plays on the radio that you wonder what the hell he was thinking. It goes way beyond the "brain fart" theory.
One minute, the man has the world in the palm of his hand, the next minute, he says something so blatantly offensive that it's hard to imagine the words actually came out of his mouth, let alone that the thought entered his mind. Harder still to understand that he earned some degree of absolution after the first offense and yet, he repeated the offense.
Maybe creative, brilliant and gifted people such as actors, politicians and artists have a self-destruct mechanism that kicks in at the height of their success when things are going swimmingly well. It's as if the superego thinks "I don't deserve this..." or perhaps it's the ego saying, "I'm so good, I can say anything and get away with it."
Maybe some performers don't understand that creativity and humor, especially on the radio, is a razor thin highwire and we're working without a net. Or it could be that, as smart as we are, each of us can say and do things that incredibly moronic, hurtful and inexplainable.
Still, Greaseman is one of the great ones and it would be good to hear him back on a major market radio station in morning drive. Three strikes and you're out. By my count, he has only two.
Here's a story about him from the archives of the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112300491.html
I lack the intellectually acuity to understand how the minds of artistic, gifted and brilliant people like Greaseman and other performers work. We read that he was involved in various humanitarian causes, even a translator for indigent Hispanics in the court system. Then one day, he says something so extreme even for the character that he plays on the radio that you wonder what the hell he was thinking. It goes way beyond the "brain fart" theory.
One minute, the man has the world in the palm of his hand, the next minute, he says something so blatantly offensive that it's hard to imagine the words actually came out of his mouth, let alone that the thought entered his mind. Harder still to understand that he earned some degree of absolution after the first offense and yet, he repeated the offense.
Maybe creative, brilliant and gifted people such as actors, politicians and artists have a self-destruct mechanism that kicks in at the height of their success when things are going swimmingly well. It's as if the superego thinks "I don't deserve this..." or perhaps it's the ego saying, "I'm so good, I can say anything and get away with it."
Maybe some performers don't understand that creativity and humor, especially on the radio, is a razor thin highwire and we're working without a net. Or it could be that, as smart as we are, each of us can say and do things that incredibly moronic, hurtful and inexplainable.
Still, Greaseman is one of the great ones and it would be good to hear him back on a major market radio station in morning drive. Three strikes and you're out. By my count, he has only two.
Here's a story about him from the archives of the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112300491.html
First Imus...
Farid's into reclamation of jocks who have stumbled. 95X in Syracuse is looking for a morning guy. The Greaseman sounds like a perfect fit. Of course, he'd be working for a lot less money than he used to...
Farid's into reclamation of jocks who have stumbled. 95X in Syracuse is looking for a morning guy. The Greaseman sounds like a perfect fit. Of course, he'd be working for a lot less money than he used to...
I first met Doug Tracht almost 40 years ago and brought him down to WENE in the first semester of our freshman year at IC to see a real Top 40 operation; I recall carting him around with a stack of open-reel audition tapes to various Western New York and Southern Tier coffeepots in search of his first "real radio gig."
We worked together at WAXC and remained more-or-less in touch for decades. I think I know him pretty well.
It's tempting to observe the trajectory of another person's career and comment on this aspect or that aspect of it, and human nature ratchets this temptation up as the subject's profile becomes more prominent.
Obviously I don't know the specifics of the DC101 incidents. But I can tell you that Doug is a genuine, sincere and caring individual who would never deliberately hurt others. Neither do I believe he represents a case of "I'm so good I can say anything and get away with it."
Doug was likely a victim of a programming culture which is, and has been, prevalent in radio for decades. It goes something like this: we need "controversy," water-cooler talk fodder, to keep the ratings up. Do what you've gotta do, Dougie T, we've got your back here in the management offices.
Then when that inevitable day comes when one toe strays decidedly over the line, you're instantly thrown under the bus: "We're shocked! SHOCKED!! To learn that CONTROVERISAL COMMENTS are being made on your show!!!" Ask Bob Lonsberry in Rochester about this. Or Don Imus. In other words: rather than ruminating about which "character flaw" brought down this legendary career or that, it might be more instructive to consider the management style and leadership that leads to this phenomenon, over and over, on station after station in this market or the next. My bet is that Doug just thought he was doing his job, and that his bosses would take the heat for any judgement wobble. But the truth was: Doug had no room for error. One misstep and he was screwed. There's always some dork waiting in the wings who will do your job for less, or who has some other political appeal for management besides talent.
I also think that Doug shared a notion I have cherished for most of my adult life, which is: this is America, the one country on the face of this planet where WE DON'T PUNISH PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY.
It's sad and scary to see this basic truth about our society under attack. Make no mistake. It is. And Dougie T, Imus, and Bill Mahar are but a few recent examples.
We worked together at WAXC and remained more-or-less in touch for decades. I think I know him pretty well.
It's tempting to observe the trajectory of another person's career and comment on this aspect or that aspect of it, and human nature ratchets this temptation up as the subject's profile becomes more prominent.
Obviously I don't know the specifics of the DC101 incidents. But I can tell you that Doug is a genuine, sincere and caring individual who would never deliberately hurt others. Neither do I believe he represents a case of "I'm so good I can say anything and get away with it."
Doug was likely a victim of a programming culture which is, and has been, prevalent in radio for decades. It goes something like this: we need "controversy," water-cooler talk fodder, to keep the ratings up. Do what you've gotta do, Dougie T, we've got your back here in the management offices.
Then when that inevitable day comes when one toe strays decidedly over the line, you're instantly thrown under the bus: "We're shocked! SHOCKED!! To learn that CONTROVERISAL COMMENTS are being made on your show!!!" Ask Bob Lonsberry in Rochester about this. Or Don Imus. In other words: rather than ruminating about which "character flaw" brought down this legendary career or that, it might be more instructive to consider the management style and leadership that leads to this phenomenon, over and over, on station after station in this market or the next. My bet is that Doug just thought he was doing his job, and that his bosses would take the heat for any judgement wobble. But the truth was: Doug had no room for error. One misstep and he was screwed. There's always some dork waiting in the wings who will do your job for less, or who has some other political appeal for management besides talent.
I also think that Doug shared a notion I have cherished for most of my adult life, which is: this is America, the one country on the face of this planet where WE DON'T PUNISH PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY.
It's sad and scary to see this basic truth about our society under attack. Make no mistake. It is. And Dougie T, Imus, and Bill Mahar are but a few recent examples.
J
JustPastBuffalo
Guest
Good background on Greaseman and an especially good analysis of where corporate radio failed him. Thanks Bob.
I hope you noticed that I'd stated that I would like to hear him again... hmmm, he'd sound good on a certain suburban Rochester news-talk station, don't you think?
Oh but we do punish people for what they say. Every day on talk radio. Limbaugh hammers Hillary and Obama. It happens with other known personalities on your very radio station. To be fair, it works the other way too with Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes pouncing on the words of the Republicans. We do indeed punish people for what they say, especially in political season. Where would talk radio be without those who punish. Make sure you wear an American flag in your lapel, make sure you march in lock-step, because if you don't, your patriotism is likely to be called into question. But that's not the sort of punishment you were refering to and I understand the context is which you expressed you opinion.
Words are powerful. When somebody on the radio says "nappy headed ho's (Bernard McGurk)," calls people of color "savages" (Bob Grant) or airs a parody song that uses the words "knuckle-draggers" (Kidd Chris) or implies that an African-American mayor of a large Upstate city is a gorilla escaped from the zoo (Lonsberry) or says "kill four more and we'd have a whole week off" (Grease) or "now I know why they drag 'em behind trucks" (Grease)... should those words be taken lightly? Construed as humor or parody? Should not those who said the words in some way be held to account?
It's fitting to note that the words quoted were spoken on the public airwaves, on powerful radio stations that had significant listenership in medium to major markets. That they were spoken by white men makes them even more powerful.
Words are tools that skilled and trained craftsmen and women use to great effect. When we choose the wrong words, we run the risk of muddling the message or sending the wrong message. Words, especially when spoken on the radio, are difficult to withdraw, much as a bell cannot be un-rung.
Short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, an individual has a right to say stupid things and prove him/herself to be a total fool. As a seasoned attorney, you know more than most of us that "freedom of speech" allows us to think, say and post (within reason) what we believe, but surely, we are held to be accountable by way of the laws pertaining to slander and libel, to say nothing of being held accountable in the court of public opinion. Yup. It's a free country. God bless the Consititution (as it's still intact), our Courts, with or without revisionist judges, the Executive and the Legislative branches. It is certainly a great Republic.
Doug Tracht is a smart man. He's a brilliant entertainer, a superb air talent and master story teller. I think he deserves another chance.
If I were a GM in need of good, solid, entertaining morning guy, I'd seriously consider hiring him. If Imus can be on the radio, signed to a $5 million per year contract, if Lonsberry can be welcomed back to his former station, if Bob Grant got a third chance in New York, then why not Doug Tracht, especially given his penitence and rehabilitation? Believing in redemption, I'd say he's done his time in radio purgatory. But before closing a deal with him, I'd make sure he and I had a thorough understanding of the boundaries and what was expected of him and I'd also make sure we spoke daily to maintain the understanding of the boundaries. I'd look forward to a long mutually beneficial relationship. I hope for his sake, somebody who actually is a GM gives Greaseman a chance.
I hope you noticed that I'd stated that I would like to hear him again... hmmm, he'd sound good on a certain suburban Rochester news-talk station, don't you think?
Savage said:
Oh but we do punish people for what they say. Every day on talk radio. Limbaugh hammers Hillary and Obama. It happens with other known personalities on your very radio station. To be fair, it works the other way too with Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes pouncing on the words of the Republicans. We do indeed punish people for what they say, especially in political season. Where would talk radio be without those who punish. Make sure you wear an American flag in your lapel, make sure you march in lock-step, because if you don't, your patriotism is likely to be called into question. But that's not the sort of punishment you were refering to and I understand the context is which you expressed you opinion.
Words are powerful. When somebody on the radio says "nappy headed ho's (Bernard McGurk)," calls people of color "savages" (Bob Grant) or airs a parody song that uses the words "knuckle-draggers" (Kidd Chris) or implies that an African-American mayor of a large Upstate city is a gorilla escaped from the zoo (Lonsberry) or says "kill four more and we'd have a whole week off" (Grease) or "now I know why they drag 'em behind trucks" (Grease)... should those words be taken lightly? Construed as humor or parody? Should not those who said the words in some way be held to account?
It's fitting to note that the words quoted were spoken on the public airwaves, on powerful radio stations that had significant listenership in medium to major markets. That they were spoken by white men makes them even more powerful.
Savage said:
Words are tools that skilled and trained craftsmen and women use to great effect. When we choose the wrong words, we run the risk of muddling the message or sending the wrong message. Words, especially when spoken on the radio, are difficult to withdraw, much as a bell cannot be un-rung.
Short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, an individual has a right to say stupid things and prove him/herself to be a total fool. As a seasoned attorney, you know more than most of us that "freedom of speech" allows us to think, say and post (within reason) what we believe, but surely, we are held to be accountable by way of the laws pertaining to slander and libel, to say nothing of being held accountable in the court of public opinion. Yup. It's a free country. God bless the Consititution (as it's still intact), our Courts, with or without revisionist judges, the Executive and the Legislative branches. It is certainly a great Republic.
Doug Tracht is a smart man. He's a brilliant entertainer, a superb air talent and master story teller. I think he deserves another chance.
If I were a GM in need of good, solid, entertaining morning guy, I'd seriously consider hiring him. If Imus can be on the radio, signed to a $5 million per year contract, if Lonsberry can be welcomed back to his former station, if Bob Grant got a third chance in New York, then why not Doug Tracht, especially given his penitence and rehabilitation? Believing in redemption, I'd say he's done his time in radio purgatory. But before closing a deal with him, I'd make sure he and I had a thorough understanding of the boundaries and what was expected of him and I'd also make sure we spoke daily to maintain the understanding of the boundaries. I'd look forward to a long mutually beneficial relationship. I hope for his sake, somebody who actually is a GM gives Greaseman a chance.
Well, I didn't mean to spark a political debate, just theorize publicly on what happened to Greaseman.
I appreciate your sentiments on talk radio and the national political stage. Those are your opinions and I, for one, value them highly. I also think that the examples of repugnant speech you enumerated are precisely that - repugnant speech, which are likely repellent to a large number of hearers. These comments might spark a defensive reaction like turning off the radio, but none are likely to bring down American society.
There is a slippery slope here. If individuals, groups or politicians can silence somebody because what they say is subjectively "repellent" to one, fifty or a hundred people - on the radio or in the town square or on the opinion page of the local paper - where do we stop?
It's my conviction that people should have the access to the opinions and comments of everyone (with, as you quote, the notable exception of "yelling fire in a crowded theater," a paraphrase of a famous Supreme Court decision.) Absent speech which incites riots or advocates open violence, our society depends on the open exchange of ideas, whether or not they're pleasant to hear.
Greaseman, Lonsberry, Imus, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, and yes, David Duke. Better we react with indignance, shout "what a jerk!!" at the radio, and hit the station button - instead of having Louise Slaughter or Karl Rove decide for us which opinions we should be exposed to. What happened to these personalities is a subset of speech control, one sparked by economic factors rather than political. But the effect is the same. When Greaseman and his colleagues get fired or otherwise silenced, we all lose a tiny fraction of our individual freedoms.
I appreciate your sentiments on talk radio and the national political stage. Those are your opinions and I, for one, value them highly. I also think that the examples of repugnant speech you enumerated are precisely that - repugnant speech, which are likely repellent to a large number of hearers. These comments might spark a defensive reaction like turning off the radio, but none are likely to bring down American society.
There is a slippery slope here. If individuals, groups or politicians can silence somebody because what they say is subjectively "repellent" to one, fifty or a hundred people - on the radio or in the town square or on the opinion page of the local paper - where do we stop?
It's my conviction that people should have the access to the opinions and comments of everyone (with, as you quote, the notable exception of "yelling fire in a crowded theater," a paraphrase of a famous Supreme Court decision.) Absent speech which incites riots or advocates open violence, our society depends on the open exchange of ideas, whether or not they're pleasant to hear.
Greaseman, Lonsberry, Imus, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, and yes, David Duke. Better we react with indignance, shout "what a jerk!!" at the radio, and hit the station button - instead of having Louise Slaughter or Karl Rove decide for us which opinions we should be exposed to. What happened to these personalities is a subset of speech control, one sparked by economic factors rather than political. But the effect is the same. When Greaseman and his colleagues get fired or otherwise silenced, we all lose a tiny fraction of our individual freedoms.
J
JustPastBuffalo
Guest
Not surprisingly, a well-crafted outline of your thoughts. A pleasure to read writing of such clarity. I concur with many of your points. It's likely we're on the same highway, traveling in the same direction, at the same speed, but perhaps in different lanes. There is concensus of thought. Best regards, JPB
B
Bob1370
Guest
A peripheral thought on the direction this thread has taken...
All the people whose names were mentioned in the last few posts, were under strong competitive pressure from bosses who kept telling them to push the envelope, go to the edge (and over it)...and then bailed out, disowned them when they pushed too far for the audience's tastes. That tells me it's not just the performer who should be accountable but the people in the front office who goad him to it in the name of staying ahead of the competition.
The thing about Greaseman that should get him another chance at stardom (and the thing that got Don Imus a second chance) was and is, that these guys are not only talented, they have shown the capacity to learn from their mistakes and grow. They are better men, and will be better broadcasters, because they've matured in their outlook. At their best, they were always funniest when directing their satiric fire at big-shots, people their own size or bigger--and hopefully they've learned that.
About some of the other people whose names have come up, I'm not so sure they show that same capacity for growth.
All the people whose names were mentioned in the last few posts, were under strong competitive pressure from bosses who kept telling them to push the envelope, go to the edge (and over it)...and then bailed out, disowned them when they pushed too far for the audience's tastes. That tells me it's not just the performer who should be accountable but the people in the front office who goad him to it in the name of staying ahead of the competition.
The thing about Greaseman that should get him another chance at stardom (and the thing that got Don Imus a second chance) was and is, that these guys are not only talented, they have shown the capacity to learn from their mistakes and grow. They are better men, and will be better broadcasters, because they've matured in their outlook. At their best, they were always funniest when directing their satiric fire at big-shots, people their own size or bigger--and hopefully they've learned that.
About some of the other people whose names have come up, I'm not so sure they show that same capacity for growth.
What happened to these personalities is a subset of speech control, one sparked by economic factors rather than political. But the effect is the same. When Greaseman and his colleagues get fired or otherwise silenced, we all lose a tiny fraction of our individual freedoms.
With all due respect, I disagree. The "freedom of speech" argument is misapplied here. None of these guys had their freedom of speech violated. They were all just as free to speak their minds the day after they were fired, as they were the day before they were fired.
The First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak openly without retribution from the government. It does not protect us from the public backlash that may occur. It does not guarantee us the right to have someone else pay us a salary to speak, or the right to do it on a radio station. Those are priviledges we earn, and keep as long as we don't abuse them.
This reminds me of the Dixie Chicks boycott debate. President Bush commented that Natalie had the freedom to say what she said, just as the American people also had the freedom to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks records. Natalie complained that the President was not standing up for freedom of speech, but Bush was right.
I believe Imus got a bum deal. His comments could have been defended by his employer, and might even have resulted in a promotional bonanza. Doug's comments....well, they crossed a whole different line.
With all due respect, I disagree. The "freedom of speech" argument is misapplied here. None of these guys had their freedom of speech violated. They were all just as free to speak their minds the day after they were fired, as they were the day before they were fired.
The First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak openly without retribution from the government. It does not protect us from the public backlash that may occur. It does not guarantee us the right to have someone else pay us a salary to speak, or the right to do it on a radio station. Those are priviledges we earn, and keep as long as we don't abuse them.
This reminds me of the Dixie Chicks boycott debate. President Bush commented that Natalie had the freedom to say what she said, just as the American people also had the freedom to decide not to buy Dixie Chicks records. Natalie complained that the President was not standing up for freedom of speech, but Bush was right.
I believe Imus got a bum deal. His comments could have been defended by his employer, and might even have resulted in a promotional bonanza. Doug's comments....well, they crossed a whole different line.
It's a complex issue, Paul. I would agree with you but for the fact that part of the rubric behind the firings was fear of FCC retribution, in the form of "forfeitures" (Commission-speak for confiscatory fines.) Whether or not they were actually levied isn't the point.
The FCC has well-established case law to govern them when it comes to First Amendment issues. The rules proscribe only "indecent" and "obscene" broadcasts, with those terms defined by local tastes and values, taking into account the time of day of the broadcast and the likely audience which might be exposed. That's why Carson Daly can apparently display a Halloween jack o'lantern carved in a way purporting to resemble Paris Hilton's vagina, on NETWORK BROADCAST TV mind you, because the show airs at a time when only doped-up drywall installers are likely to see it.
Of course preventing the "prior restraint" of Free Speech is a prickly issue for the Commission. If First Amendment guarantees were being, well, guaranteed, the FCC would have to litigate these cases locally before levying fines. That's expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous in that undesired precedents could be set (in other words, the FCC might lose.) So they use back-channel tricks and techniques to apply pressure. Management "gets" this signal loud and clear.
Thus we have the phenomenon of controversial commentary being shown the door, with benign results at the Commission level.
I completely agree that some of the comments referred to here were morally repugnant and certainly offensive to a civilized society. I further agree that "free speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences." I plead guilty to reaching a bit to make the point that the First Amendment on the radio is under attack. Check how the Fairness Doctrine is actually seriously being considered for reactivation.
The FCC has well-established case law to govern them when it comes to First Amendment issues. The rules proscribe only "indecent" and "obscene" broadcasts, with those terms defined by local tastes and values, taking into account the time of day of the broadcast and the likely audience which might be exposed. That's why Carson Daly can apparently display a Halloween jack o'lantern carved in a way purporting to resemble Paris Hilton's vagina, on NETWORK BROADCAST TV mind you, because the show airs at a time when only doped-up drywall installers are likely to see it.
Of course preventing the "prior restraint" of Free Speech is a prickly issue for the Commission. If First Amendment guarantees were being, well, guaranteed, the FCC would have to litigate these cases locally before levying fines. That's expensive, time-consuming, and dangerous in that undesired precedents could be set (in other words, the FCC might lose.) So they use back-channel tricks and techniques to apply pressure. Management "gets" this signal loud and clear.
Thus we have the phenomenon of controversial commentary being shown the door, with benign results at the Commission level.
I completely agree that some of the comments referred to here were morally repugnant and certainly offensive to a civilized society. I further agree that "free speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences." I plead guilty to reaching a bit to make the point that the First Amendment on the radio is under attack. Check how the Fairness Doctrine is actually seriously being considered for reactivation.
J
JustPastBuffalo
Guest
The direction of this thread has taken quite an impressive turn, bringing to the fore a collegial yet spirited discussion of critical issues facing broadcasters and air talent in all formats, especially talk radio.
As a radio professional who has worked in a number of formats, including news-talk, the ideas, facts, historical references and (legal) opinions expressed here have been of great value.
Many years ago Mr. Savage (while he was in Knoxville, I believe) published a weekly or monthly advice sheet dealing with Broadcast Law as it applied to broadcasters. At the time, I worked for a company that subscribed and found it to have considerable value, especially with regard to election law, equal time, commercial rates and maintaining the public file and applied its advice to my responsibilities as an OM.
Over the years, I've had the "pleasure" of facing two FCC Public File inspections and have come through both with flying colors. I've had my stations' Public Files scrutinized by various public interest groups and have never had a complaint.
On the lighter side, rarely do we on this board have the opportunity to discuss legal issues with an attorney (who's also an owner-operator) without having to watching the clock every six minutes. Or so I hope. If you don't get the reference, Bob can explain.
As a radio professional who has worked in a number of formats, including news-talk, the ideas, facts, historical references and (legal) opinions expressed here have been of great value.
Many years ago Mr. Savage (while he was in Knoxville, I believe) published a weekly or monthly advice sheet dealing with Broadcast Law as it applied to broadcasters. At the time, I worked for a company that subscribed and found it to have considerable value, especially with regard to election law, equal time, commercial rates and maintaining the public file and applied its advice to my responsibilities as an OM.
Over the years, I've had the "pleasure" of facing two FCC Public File inspections and have come through both with flying colors. I've had my stations' Public Files scrutinized by various public interest groups and have never had a complaint.
On the lighter side, rarely do we on this board have the opportunity to discuss legal issues with an attorney (who's also an owner-operator) without having to watching the clock every six minutes. Or so I hope. If you don't get the reference, Bob can explain.
The aforementioned Doug "Greaseman" Tracht has been doing Saturdays 8 AM-noon on DC101 in Washington for a month or two now:
http://www.dc101.com/pages/greaseman.html
CC owns the station now...
http://www.dc101.com/pages/greaseman.html
CC owns the station now...
Savage said:
Was it necessary to bring former members of our crew into this discussion? To the best of my knowledge, Lenny The Spackler only sparked-up off the job.
Oh to hear the tales of "Doctor Grease Manelli... hands... touched by Godddddd!" or to "strap on a gun, pin on a badge and be a lawwwwwww mannnnnn!"
Now wait a minute here. I said "drywall installers," not "painters."
Hey Ohio: wonder if the Grease Weekend Show is streamed? I'm jonesin' like Radknowski for a fresh "hit of Grease" (as any experienced drywall installer might say.)
My minimum billing increment is actually 10 minutes. But since I'm in radio I only get $8 an hour.
BTW: You're referring to "Perry's Broadcasting And The Law." Larry Perry was a wonderful, colorful character, and a Knoxville legend on the magnitude of the fabled Revered Basil Mull of K-Town and Mexican border radio fame. You guys think RADIO has tragicomic stories filled with sleaze and laughs? You ought to see what goes on in law firms....the network TV dramas don't do it justice. So to speak.
Hey Ohio: wonder if the Grease Weekend Show is streamed? I'm jonesin' like Radknowski for a fresh "hit of Grease" (as any experienced drywall installer might say.)
My minimum billing increment is actually 10 minutes. But since I'm in radio I only get $8 an hour.
BTW: You're referring to "Perry's Broadcasting And The Law." Larry Perry was a wonderful, colorful character, and a Knoxville legend on the magnitude of the fabled Revered Basil Mull of K-Town and Mexican border radio fame. You guys think RADIO has tragicomic stories filled with sleaze and laughs? You ought to see what goes on in law firms....the network TV dramas don't do it justice. So to speak.
I'd like to return to a brief discussion that was a part of this thread earlier about silencing voices we don't agree with. I support those who say talk show hosts should reserve the right to say what they think, as long as they don't libel, slander or use obscenities. And I, as a listener, reserve the right to hit the button on my car radio when that host says something stupid. This morning, I did just that. Bauerle called Hillary Clinton, a "commie harpie." So, I changed the station. WBEN lost a listener. Unfortunately, Entercom didn't because I went to WGR. Oh well! The bottom line is that Bauerle shouldn't be punished or taken off the air for making stupid statements. If he makes enough of them, and his show loses audience, then the marketplace will have spoken and only then should he be fired. But in a city like Buffalo, that will never happen. I tend to think there were more 'BEN listeners who were cheering Bauerle on for his statement than were cursing him.
Let me echo the others here who are praising the turn of this thread into such an intelligent discussion. It proves we can disagree and have a spirited debate without flame throwing and insults. Let's keep it up!
Let me echo the others here who are praising the turn of this thread into such an intelligent discussion. It proves we can disagree and have a spirited debate without flame throwing and insults. Let's keep it up!
Of course any sane, rational thinking person knows that's crazy talk. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but she's no more a communist than John McCain is a nazi(aligning mainstream politicians to the extreme ends of the political spectrum is one of the oldest gimmicks in the poli-talk playbook..and you can make lots of money at it). Her and Bill are actually pretty moderate if you take the time to examine their take most major issues. How many millions did Hillary make in the very capitalistic american stock market. I'm getting off topic a little, but if Baurele wants to be an on-air blowhard and talk crazy, yes, it's a free country. I'm sure he's financially well off(so is Larry Flynt).
Yesterday, Micheal Savage was making fun of Ted Kennedy. It's hard to believe people listen to this crap, but again, it's a free country.
Savage said:
I'd presume so...the link to his page on DC 101 has a "Listen Live" link above his head.
Is this the Larry White who back in the 60's worked in Elmira Heights/Horseheads, New York? I get mixed up, but believe you worked at WEHH. That is where I met you. At the time, I also worked part-time at WGVA, Geneva, New York. At that time, Jerry Sherwin, who was PD at WGVA, worked weekends at WBBF, Rochester. He asked me if I knew of any good jocks. I mentioned you, and guess the rest is history. Can't believe after all these years, I discovered this site. My radio career took me to Jamestown, New York, working for Bud Paxton, then to his Waterbury, Connecticut station. After he sold WTBY, I went over to WATR working more behind the scenes doing copy/traffic. From Connecticut to New York City. WMCA, at the time when it was Talk/News, but still owned by the Strauss family.then WABC also doing copy/traffic work. Then onto Cable TV. In 2000, I went back to radio working for CBS Radio, first for WCBS-AM, then WFAN-AM. In 2006, when I turned 62, retired. If this is the Larry White I knew, sure would like to hear from you. You talk about "where are they now". A lot of guys from WGVA went on to much bigger jobs including Phil Tucker, Mike Ludlum. I have great memories of
WGVA, which at one time was owned by the Strauss family. Larry, if you, or anyone else has air-checks of WGVA from the late 50's into the 60's, I would love to have copies, especially right after they dumbed the old ABC shows like Don McNeils Breakfast Club. Alex Lamutis was news director at the time, moving on to WBBF. I can also hear him voicing some of those old promos, news intros like "The WGVA Weather Scope....". Then came the "Live, Laugh, and Be Merry with Jack, Mike, and Jerry" years. Would love to get my hands on some of those old, very long jingles as well as "The Bright, Exciting Sounds of Tomorrow" ones. Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated.
WGVA, which at one time was owned by the Strauss family. Larry, if you, or anyone else has air-checks of WGVA from the late 50's into the 60's, I would love to have copies, especially right after they dumbed the old ABC shows like Don McNeils Breakfast Club. Alex Lamutis was news director at the time, moving on to WBBF. I can also hear him voicing some of those old promos, news intros like "The WGVA Weather Scope....". Then came the "Live, Laugh, and Be Merry with Jack, Mike, and Jerry" years. Would love to get my hands on some of those old, very long jingles as well as "The Bright, Exciting Sounds of Tomorrow" ones. Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated.
- Status