• 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

Work in Columbus radio? The talent you pass on your drive to work.

Late last night the original Ted Williams YouTube posting  was up to about 10 million hits.  Today an attempt to watch it brings up a screen that says, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Dispatch.  Sorry about that."

I thought that kind of message is supposed to indicate that it was an unauthorized posting.  But wasn't it the Dispatch videogropher who uploaded it to YouTube in the first place?  While mentioning the YouTube upload in a (purposely?) fuzzy way, this article from the Dispatch (NOT the latest) does explicitly acknowledge YouTube's contribution to the Williams story going viral:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...2011/01/05/05-homeless-dj-update.html?sid=101
 
One of the local stations (I think WEWS/5) interviewed the current PD of WJMO/1490 in the Cleveland market, and confirmed he worked there in the mid-1980s (1987, I believe).

Ed Powell told the station that listeners remembered Ted being on the station...
 
In regards to his rap sheet, IMO the stuff he's been busted for are things a person can come back from and become a productive member of society. Theft and robbery are typically crimes born out of desperation, and while they're not condonable by any means, they are understandable, especially when drugs are in the picture. Now if the rap sheet included rape, murder, or child abuse I'd say lock him up and throw away the key, those are things I can't and won't forgive.
 
Nu_Roo_2 said:
Late last night the original Ted Williams YouTube posting was up to about 10 million hits. Today an attempt to watch it brings up a screen that says, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Dispatch. Sorry about that." ... wasn't it the Dispatch videogropher who uploaded it to YouTube in the first place? While mentioning the YouTube upload in a (purposely?) fuzzy way, this article from the Dispatch does explicitly acknowledge YouTube's contribution to the Williams story going viral...
Click to expand...

Way to go, CD, for crying sour grapes!
http://www.lostremote.com/2011/01/06/newspaper-removes-homeless-voice-youtube-clip/#
 
Madmansam said:
If he gets a job with Clear Channel, They may have him voice track from inside a cardboard box. (his home).
Click to expand...

TheStoker said:
I think I saw Clear Channel hired him. I guess he'll be looking for another job in about 6 months! ;D
Click to expand...

Gotta love the jabs at CC even at the cusp of such a sentimental story...
 
This story is a heart-warming story of someone turning their life around and getting a second chance.
Columbus has received more press about this than just about any media story, don't you think?
It also goes to show that radio as a credible promotional medium is done
Let's remember the guy was discovered on You Tube, not a radio station, or its website, or otherwise.
What if Ted Williams was a homeless tv broadcaster...He probably would have still received the exposure.
Because of Ted's love of radio and his great voice, radio got the exposure..
We are not smart enough in radio to have pulled this off...with the nation wide buzz it created.

I for one wish him all the best that is ahead of him.
If he blows it, it's on him.

Remember the truck driver in Memphis who dropped by a recording studio to record a song for his Mother?
I think it is the same sort of thing, minus the criminal record.
 
OhioMediaWatch said:
One of the local stations (I think WEWS/5) interviewed the current PD of WJMO/1490 in the Cleveland market, and confirmed he worked there in the mid-1980s (1987, I believe).

Ed Powell told the station that listeners remembered Ted being on the station...
Click to expand...

WJMO is 1300, 1490 is WERE. Ed Powell is not the PD of WERE 1490.
 
Dave Sarnoff said:
WJMO is 1300, 1490 is WERE. Ed Powell is not the PD of WERE 1490.
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry about that...I am well aware of that, and even covered it on the blog when the stations swapped frequencies. I had "WJMO/1490" in my head because that's what it was when Mr. Williams worked there in the 1980s.
 
DToTheJ said:
Nu_Roo_2 said:
Late last night the original Ted Williams YouTube posting was up to about 10 million hits. Today an attempt to watch it brings up a screen that says, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by the Dispatch. Sorry about that." ... wasn't it the Dispatch videogropher who uploaded it to YouTube in the first place? While mentioning the YouTube upload in a (purposely?) fuzzy way, this article from the Dispatch does explicitly acknowledge YouTube's contribution to the Williams story going viral...
Click to expand...

Way to go, CD, for crying sour grapes!
http://www.lostremote.com/2011/01/06/newspaper-removes-homeless-voice-youtube-clip/#
Click to expand...

When I checked at 3:00 PM yesterday, before it was pulled by the Dispatch, it had 12,400,000 hits. Also, checked again at 4:30 PM and the youtube video had this message: "Video removed due to a claim by Zeiger and Tigges. A quick Google search revealed this is a downtown Columbus Law firm. Later last night, that message was changed to: "Video removed due to a clam by the Dispatch"

Asked the WBNS-TV news room last night why it was removed and they said: "The Dispatch pulled it."

Here is another post on that video being removed:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/01/ted-williams-video-removed-due-to.html
 
Can the Dispatch do that? Sure. The copyright claim is clear, they own the rights to the video.

Should they have done that? Of course not. "Nose/spite/face" are three words that come to mind.

Heck, they could have put it up on a YouTube account on their own and sold pre-roll ads and made some bucks off of this. But the cat was out of the bag a few days ago, and this just seems like a stupid move.

The fact is...this thing doesn't "go viral" as it did if the video was only on their site.
 
Looks like the Dispatch hurriedly (as in, today) set up a brand new YouTube account just to repost the video under its own name.

Join date for "TheColumbusDispatch" on YouTube? 1/7/11.

They say "at no time" were they trying to prevent people from seeing the video, but that - on YouTube - was the case between the removal of the original (non-authorized) version and the creation of this account today. If the video had only been on Dispatch.com, a large chunk of the viral part of this video never would have happened, and the newspaper is just trying to save face now.

They claim they asked YouTube to redirect the video to their link, but I don't know if that's even possible, aside from maybe rewriting the description.
 
xmusicmatt said:
gabigley1 said:
The Columbus Dispatch has issued a official statement on the Ted Williams youtube video they pulled:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...tras/2011/goldenvoice/dispatch-statement.html
Click to expand...

Their just trying to "save face" now .. They had it yanked in hopes that any future traffic would go though their website, pushing their hits to their own advertisers in hopes to net them a few bucks off the man. At least that's the impression I get.
Click to expand...

Yanking the original YouTube upload, which -- along with the outpouring of viewer reaction -- was the compelling and living record of this viral phenomenon -- was even crazier given that the guy who uploaded it gave explicit credit to the Dispatch...not to mention that the Dispatch name and logo were prominently visible at the end of the video. It was their right to yank it, but an unspeakably stupid, shortsighted move from a marketing and goodwill perspective.

In 8 hours since the Dispatch made its own "authorized" YouTube upload of the original video, it has amassed (drum roll, please) a whopping 301 views. THUD!
 
OhioMediaWatch said:
Looks like the Dispatch hurriedly (as in, today) set up a brand new YouTube account just to repost the video under its own name.

Join date for "TheColumbusDispatch" on YouTube?  1/7/11.

They say "at no time" were they trying to prevent people from seeing the video, but that - on YouTube - was the case between the removal of the original (non-authorized) version and the creation of this account today.  If the video had only been on Dispatch.com, a large chunk of the viral part of this video never would have happened, and the newspaper is just trying to save face now.

They claim they asked YouTube to redirect the video to their link, but I don't know if that's even possible, aside from maybe rewriting the description.
Click to expand...

I had to do a double-take where they say, "on January 6, YouTube removed one of the unauthorized videos [at Dispatch request]."  "ONE" of the unauthorized videos?  The "ONE" that just happened to get 99.97% of the 13 million+ views?   Why accentuate the badwill by acting as if readers are too stupid to know that "ONE"="THE"?

Is their next stupid move tracking down "Ritchey," uploader of the viral video, and hauling him into court?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom