S
SeanMGilbow
Guest
The Ultimate Warrior said:But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
Appears somebody doesn't know how to spell inaccuracies.![]()
The Ultimate Warrior said:But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
Appears somebody doesn't know how to spell inaccuracies.![]()
Sean Gilbow said:The Ultimate Warrior said:But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
PatheticAppears somebody doesn't know how to spell inaccuracies.![]()
The Ultimate Warrior said:Sean Gilbow said:The Ultimate Warrior said:But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
PatheticAppears somebody doesn't know how to spell inaccuracies.![]()
You just confirmed my suspicions of who you REALLY are.
Clear Ch. has 900 stations, according to Wikipedia's references.The Ultimate Warrior said:Sure you corrected your statement, congrats.justareporter said:Okay...so I am going to have to amend my initial comment to clarify the patently obvious:
"Radio has always been a local medium. Clearly by the 1960's management reduced the role of the network and increased the role of the local talent."
Happy now?
Marconi is rolling in his grave like a lathe.
But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
It is astounding how many people miss the larger point. Radio has always been defined by localism. Taht means bodies sitting in local chairs with local talking heads. If not, then why didn't the FCC just license four or five networks and let a thousand repeaters license themselves around the US. The INTENT was to provide localism.
One guy has 600 stations\, one guy has 500. No one has thousands.
Music stations which are gaining being ignored are not being called on to play local music, what is the difference?
I got it, politics.
That wasn't the reference the poster was making.Don62 said:Clear Ch. has 900 stations, according to Wikipedia's references.The Ultimate Warrior said:Sure you corrected your statement, congrats.justareporter said:Okay...so I am going to have to amend my initial comment to clarify the patently obvious:
"Radio has always been a local medium. Clearly by the 1960's management reduced the role of the network and increased the role of the local talent."
Happy now?
Marconi is rolling in his grave like a lathe.
But I don't think you attempted to address the obvious innacracies in your posts.
It is astounding how many people miss the larger point. Radio has always been defined by localism. Taht means bodies sitting in local chairs with local talking heads. If not, then why didn't the FCC just license four or five networks and let a thousand repeaters license themselves around the US. The INTENT was to provide localism.
One guy has 600 stations\, one guy has 500. No one has thousands.
Music stations which are gaining being ignored are not being called on to play local music, what is the difference?
I got it, politics.
That's a lot closer to 1,000 than 600.
It is astounding how many people miss the larger point. Radio has always been defined by localism. Taht means bodies sitting in local chairs with local talking heads. If not, then why didn't the FCC just license four or five networks and let a thousand repeaters license themselves around the US. The INTENT was to provide localism.
Good points.justareporter said:I have no concern about the politics of the individual. I could give a rats you-know-where if he/she is liberal, conservative or whatever. I do care that radio, especially talkradio is nothing more than 10 guys voices over a thousand and chance stations. There is no diversity of thought, and most importantly....no discussion of local issues. What is the point of owning a broadcast outlet if all you are is a repeater?
As for music....I have a cd player. I rarely listen to the radio for music.