Varulven said:Howie's gig is only there because there is no competition in this market. He indeed has a great gig,
he has become stale. The market place that exists allows for stale talk show hosts to remain.
Clearly, when someone gets fired from these plum gigs it speaks volumes about their inability to tow the company line. John Depetro an excellent case in point. Jeff Katz as well.
Someone can be fired for not towing the company line?
Varulven said:Howard Stern and Charles Laquidara played to their own tune initially. Go back to my post and see the reference to time that I put in it.
And therein lies the problem with your assessment. Radio isn't what you think it is, or even what is was. It's a different world. One which you're unaware of. And therefore, you cannot possibly know what the business plan is.
Varulven said:If you study Charles' career you'd have a better understanding. He left WBCN to become an actor, they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. It was only when Oedipus took over to start working on getting the pay scale down that Charles had to watch his p's and q's. My business associate, the late Gene Sylvester, was working as a producer for Charles so I have more knowledge than most in regards to that. Gene noted how Oedipus said "Ken Shelton is irrelevant" as he tweaked the jocks to make them nervous about their contract negotiations. That's not taking care of talent and it doesn't foster good radio. You get robots like Todd Feinberg and Michael Graham instead of talents.
How long have Charles and Ken been gone? Again, I point to your lack of knowledge with regard to the current state of radio, and the parameters under which talk radio is done. You're comparing apples and oranges, with outdated apples and oranges. It's not an attack on you. it's a clear statement of the fact that you just don't know. Not your fault.
Varulven said:Again, Paul, I respectfully say that your working for Entercom does have to factor in, just like Dan Shaughnessy should always say "The Globe is owned by The NY Times which co-owns The Red Sox".
With the same respect, It's just not true. I've been taken to task by companies for my opinions before. This just isn't the case. You can disagree all you want. I speak only for myself. I could choose to hide under a screen name, but I believe if you're strong enough to opine, you should be strong enough to stand by those opinions. That's not a slag on anyone else in this forum. It's just how I was brought up. I never expect anyone to believe as I do. And my opinion on this subject is just that. One man's opinion. No more, or less valid than any other's.
Varulven said:Anyone putting their name here without working for the major stations has a ton of credibility - because they - as the listener - get to complain that the product is not worthy of airtime.
Complain yes. But they are nothing more than expressed opinions. Some would call them uninformed, and irrelevant due to lack of knowledge of the business as it is conducted in 2007
Varulven said:Remember, many of us have tuned Finneran and Graham out. We listen enough to critique but why waste time on bad radio? The verdict is in on those two and Fineberg, however ya spell his name.
A confusing concept.