On 31 Mar 2004 01:18:54 GMT, umarc ("umarc") writes:

umarc (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
On 30 Mar 2004 15:06:18 GMT, umarc ("umarc") writes:
umarc Here in Boston there is very little news of value on
umarc the radio any more except on WBUR.

Could you elaborate on that? Why do you say there is very
little news, and could you talk about when there was more?

umarc Well, we've got WBZ, which is mostly short and sensational
umarc stories; and then there are a bunch of stations that use Metro
umarc News, which means they all share the same source, and that
umarc source does a pretty poor job, sometimes not even getting
umarc basic facts right.

umarc If you want anything deeper than headlines,
umarc WBUR is pretty much your only choice.

Are you saying that WRKO and WTTK get all their news from
the same single place, and that it's often not right?

Could you give some examples of WBZ not getting their
basic facts right? Perhaps something they reported
wrong in the last two weeks would be funny.

But that WBUR does better? Cuz it seems to me like WBUR just
has the single source NPR feed (same as WGBH), runs the BBC
headline show, has far less local coverage than the others,
and mostly just runs NPR entertainment.

The part I was most curious about your claim that things
had changed in the market -- I am curious as to when it
used to be any different. Which stations had more news,
and how was their coverage different?

I've only been listening in this market for about 24 years,
and in that time it sounds all about the same to me, except
for the addition of WBUR's change a while back to run NPR
syndicated entertainment shows instead of I don't remember what.
I like news, and would like to hear about how it used to be
better, and how it might be driven that way again.