The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 12, 8:04 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:


this excellent article pretty much vindicates me, and refutes you.

http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-b...?m-1247417728/

How Clear Channel destroyed its own radio market

By Paul Waldman

July 12, 2009

A year ago, Atlantic Monthly writer Virginia Postrel, in an article
entitled "In Praise of Chain Stores," argued that the homogenization
of our commercial landscapes is on balance a good thing. Mom & Pop's
Hardware may be charming, Postrel contended, but with the exception of
Mom and Pop themselves, most of us will be better off if there's a
Home Depot in town.**

But what about the homogenization of our cultural and informational
landscape? That, it turns out, is a different story, a part of which
Alec Foege attempts to tell in Right of the Dial: The Rise of Clear
Channel and the Fall of Commercial Radio. Though today Clear Channel
has fallen from the heights it reached just a few years ago, if you
have any opinion about the company at all it is probably not a good
one. As it ballooned in size to become the dominant player in the
radio industry, Clear Channel came to symbolize for many people
everything that's wrong with media today: a rapacious corporation,
unleashed by its Republican friends to pillage its way across the
American landscape, leaving in its wake hundreds of formerly unique
and public-minded outlets, which were suddenly sucked into the
corporate maw and spit back on a powerless public, delivering the same
soulless excuse for news and culture to every community unlucky enough
to suffer under its pitiless rule. Or so the story goes.

Clear Channel began in 1972 when its founder, L. Lowry Mays, cosigned
a loan for some associates who wanted to buy an FM radio station in
San Antonio. When they ran into financial difficulties, Mays found
himself the owner of the station. When Mays and a group of investors
bought an AM station three years later, Clear Channel Communications
was formed. They chose the name because the AM station had a "clear
channel," the term used to denote those stations that had exclusive
use of their frequencies during nighttime hours, enabling them to
broadcast to most or all of the nation (unlike FM signals, AM signals
can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles, depending on the
topography and weather conditions).

As it slowly expanded through the 1970s and into the '80s, Clear
Channel did something unusual: it ran radio stations like businesses.
At the time, the typical station was a poorly managed, family-owned
operation whose owners may have had little idea if they were making or
losing money. Though its penny-pinching earned it the nickname "Cheap
Channel," the company made excellent profits. In 1984, Clear Channel
went public, and by the end of the year it owned twelve radio stations—
close to the ownership limits of seven FM and seven AM stations the
FCC imposed at the time.

The corporation expanded its businesses, buying television stations
and, in 1997, a billboard company (or "outdoor advertising"), becoming
the dominant player in that sector as well. But what truly transformed
Clear Channel was a piece of legislation that passed in 1996. Mays
understood that in order to vertically integrate his business and
squeeze major savings from economies of scale, Clear Channel had to be
big—and the bigger, the better.

It was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled Clear Channel
to become a behemoth. Seldom in the annals of American history has a
piece of legislation with such wide-reaching consequences passed with
such little public notice, in no small part because the media
companies that might have reported on it critically had an interest in
not doing so. Newspapers, television, and radio (not to mention the
phone companies) all were affected dramatically by the legislation,
and all in ways that allowed the largest corporations to grow larger.
But none were affected as much as radio, where the ownership caps that
had prevented any one company from achieving a dominant position were
not just lifted but removed altogether. (There are still some limits
on how many stations a company can own in one market, but there is no
national limit, as there was before.) Instantly, Clear Channel began
buying up stations as fast as it could.

And they were not alone. Literally within hours of the act's passage,
the radio industry was overtaken by a feeding frenzy of acquisitions,
as upstart corporations moved to gobble up as many stations as they
could. According to a lengthy report published in 2006 by the Future
of Music Coalition, in 1995 Clear Channel owned thirty-nine radio
stations, more than any other corporation in America. Five years
later, they owned 1,100. They would eventually own more than 1,200
radio stations, around six times as many as their closest competitor.
Clear Channel gobbled up a series of other radio companies, a spree
that culminated in its purchase of AMFM, a company owning more than
four hundred stations. At $23.5 billion, it was the biggest deal in
the history of the radio industry.

Clear Channel's enormous size was enough to make people who care about
media diversity nervous. But it was two other factors—the particular
manner in which they cut costs and boosted profits, and their
conservative political leanings—that gained them a reputation for
corporate villainy.

Clear Channel, Foege writes,

eradicated radio's localism, making it more formatted and formulaic,
less personalized and more national. The world's biggest radio company
deconstructed a medium that prided itself on its intimate connection
with its listeners and made it as uniformly bland and anonymous as
anyone could bear.
The way they did it was with a now-infamous system known as "voice
tracking." Instead of having deejays drawing salaries at individual
stations, radio companies realized they could take one deejay, have
him spin tunes and deliver patter from corporate headquarters, and
feed his signal to as many stations as they wanted. They could even
have him record brief bits with local references for each station and
integrate them into the program feed, and thereby give the illusion
that the program being aired in Minneapolis or Sacramento actually
involved a deejay sitting in Minneapolis or Sacramento. Clear Channel
didn't invent voice tracking, but they spread it farther and wider
than anyone had before.

This practice may make perfect economic sense, but it also reveals at
best an indifference, and at worst a contempt, toward the role of
radio as a cultural arbiter, the place where people can go to hear new
or locally produced music and find the touchstones of their
generation.

Foege begins his preface with a story of driving through New England
listening to a Clear Channel station, when "for the fourth time in
four states, I've unwittingly tuned in to 'Kashmir,'" by Led Zeppelin.
Foege may have grown tired of "Kashmir" long before the rise of Clear
Channel, but the company, as Foege relates, managed during that time
to whittle "a familiar play list of thirty- to forty-year-old rock
songs into what sometimes [felt] like the same hour-and-a-half mix
played over and over ad infinitum"—and "Kashmir" was in that mix.
Because Clear Channel was so dominant in the radio marketplace,
everyone was listening to the same music all the time.

Clear Channel's attitude is best summed up by what the head of their
television unit would tell the studios that owned syndicated programs.
"Programming," Foege quotes him as saying, "is the **** we run between
the commercials." The product that media companies like Clear Channel
sell isn't the programming; the product they sell is audiences, and
advertisers are their customers.

Despite its title (which may or may not, of course, have been Foege's
choice), Right of the Dial doesn't spend a great deal of time on the
political implications of Clear Channel's rise, or even fully answer
the question of just how political the company really is. Was the
company's Iraq War boosterism (with pro-war rallies organized by
multiple Clear Channel stations), or the fact that a list of banned
songs (including John Lennon's "Imagine") was circulated within the
company after September 11, 2001, a true expression of a corporate
ideology, or merely an attempt to capitalize on the sentiment of the
moment? What about the reports of deejays being fired for expressing
opposition to the Iraq War, and the company's refusal to place some
antiwar ads on its billboards?

These are important and interesting questions, but for the most part
the book leaves them unresolved. Foege is more straightforward when
relating the kind of hardball tactics—or, as more than a few claimed,
predatory and monopolistic behaviors—Clear Channel engaged in while
building its business in concert venues. Utilizing their expanding
venue holdings and their radio stations as double cudgels, they all
but forced bands to book concerts only at Clear Channel sites for fear
of being shut out of future concerts and airtime on influential
stations. It has used its other holdings in similar ways. For
instance, Clear Channel owns Premier Radio Networks, which syndicates
some of the country's biggest radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and
Dr. Laura. In 2001, Premier informed many of its clients that it was
pulling shows from their stations and transferring them to Clear
Channel-owned stations in the same market, leaving them holding the
bag for the efforts they had invested to promote those personalities.

Then there's the question of how Clear Channel treats its own. While
Foege interviewed many of the key upper-management players in the
company's relatively brief history, other reporters—notably Eric
Boehlert in a series of pieces for Salon in 2001—have gotten rank-and-
file Clear Channel employees (many anonymously) to talk candidly about
the company. The portrait they paint is of an absolutely sinister
organization awash in sexual harassment, threats, and intimidation of
both competitors and employees. The topic of the company's internal
culture could have used further exploration in this book.

In the epilogue, Foege describes Clear Channel as "Colonel Parker
without his Presley," good businessmen who built a behemoth on a base
of fiscal prudence combined with innovative tactics and extraordinary
aggressiveness when circumstances allowed. But they never cared about
the culture they were using to sell audiences to advertisers, and that
indifference ultimately played a large part in their undoing.
Commercial radio audiences have been steadily decreasing, a decline
abetted by the rise of satellite radio and, of course, the Internet,
which provides people ways to learn about and acquire (legally or
otherwise) the music they previously would have discovered on their
local radio stations. The Internet, for example, allows people to
download a podcast of the influential KCRW Santa Monica music show
Morning Becomes Eclectic anywhere in the world, which somewhat
obviates the need to have a version of Morning Becomes Eclectic
broadcast on your local radio station. This development made the
situation for local stations bad enough. But the way Clear Channel
treated its listeners—like simpletons who wouldn't mind hearing the
same ten songs over and over—made things worse.

There is little doubt that Clear Channel's model of content delivery
has contributed to the decline of commercial radio. At a time when—
usually, if not always, for the better—technology is diminishing the
power and authority of cultural gatekeepers, Clear Channel's
homogenized, narrowed slate of offerings becomes less and less
appealing. So it shouldn't come as too much of a shock to learn that
the terrifying corporate monster is less imposing than it was just a
few years ago.

In response to declining profits and listener disgust, the company
announced in 2004 that it was cutting back on the number of
commercials it broadcast. In 2006, it unveiled Format Lab, a sort of
radio think tank, to devise original formats with greater variety and
more room for local improvisation. Finally, this January, the FCC
approved the sale of Clear Channel to two private equity firms for $20
billion, which took the company private. Alongside the deal, Clear
Channel announced it would sell all of its television stations and
more than four hundred of its radio stations in smaller markets. Its
stock, which neared $100 per share in 2000, has dipped below $30 this
year. The company won't be going out of business anytime soon, but
with its own missteps—and the possibility of a regulatory environment
much less friendly to unlimited media consolidation in the near future—
Clear Channel's days of world domination may be over.

...................
Paul Waldman is writer and senior fellow at Media Matters. His most
recent book is Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, coauthored with
David Brock

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 13, 10:55*am, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 07/13/09 10:31, David Eduardo wrote:





"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/13/09 08:51, David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
news:Cf6dnXCFBcsJvcbXnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@earthlink .com...
David Eduardo wrote:
The reason there are no more is that
listeners as a group don't like any more songs, no matter how deep
the research goes.

People don't listen in groups. Your research is flawed.

Radio audience is a group. To form a group, you have to attract
listeners with common likes and dislikes, and satisfy each of them.

No, Radio listening is done by individuals. It's done by individuals,
mostly in separate locations, under separate conditions, with
individual intent, tastes and needs of the moment. Radio listening is
an individual experience. Not a group marketing construct.

No disagreement. But from the persective of a radio staiton, one can
only form an audience, which is a group, by finding common appeal among
many, many individuals. The process consists in finding the common
thread among large groups of listeners, and providing it. The listener
wo thinks, "I like this music" or "I like this show" must be joined by
thousands if not tens of thousands of other people all at once for a
station to be successful.

The first step has to be that identification of broad likes. Then, the
content is delivered as if it were directed at each listener
individually. That is where one on one comes in... in the delivery, not
the design.

In airchecking, I often suggest that jocks put a picture of a loved one
or family menber over the mike so they talk to a person, not a crowd.
But, again, this only works if the program content is selected to appeal
to a bunch of listeners, a group.

Reread my statement... "Radio Audience is a Group." Each listener is an
individual, but the audience is a group.

* *I read it the first time, David. Or I wouldn't have had a response..

* *The 'audience' doesn't exist. It's an artificial construct to
gather together the numbers into a manageable device. But it's an
artificial construct, nothing more.



A good resstaurant may have a few customers who like beets. But maybe
80% of the customers hate them. So they would never serve beets as a
standard side. That's because they know most of the clients would not
enjoy their dining experience as much as were they to serve potatoes and
mixed veggies. The restaurant knows the base offerings must have broad
appeal to a group of clients. Otherwise, they fail.

* *Every restaurant I frequent will serve an alternate, if I ask.
They understand that general offerings don't get it, even for
patrons who seek out their restaurant based on genre.

* *Interesting you should mention beets. I get beets frequently.



The rest of your post was clipped, as you are harping on the idea that
we as an industry don't get that listening happens person by person. We
get that, but a station has to appeal to each person who belongs to a
group with common music likes and dislikes and which is large enough to
make the station successful (by whatever metric that is measured). And
that is where the concept of a group, a collection, an assembly enters
in. The key part of "broadcasting" today is "broad."

* *I"m sure that you get that listening happens person by person.
The fact you clipped the rest and reduced it to 'harping'
underscores my point that Radio isn't about the listeners. It's
about Radio. And for the bigger groups, the stock price.

* *The listeners are only a tool to a commercial end. Your job is to
sell us on the idea that we want what you offer.

* *Radio does what's good for Radio.

* *The listeners serve that end.

yep, there is a chinese buffet in my area, that also serves enough
america type of food, enough of a choice, that they drag in a large
group of repeat customers.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Russian Leaders Refuse to Shake Dumbass Five Names, the USURPER'S Hand.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=269200

Good for them.
Dumbass Five names.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 7月14日, ��6:22, dave wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"Selling what we want you to offer..." is an old concept. It's, from the
radio point of view, about "us." It's the "50,000 watt voice of the
Great Southwest." Who cares? Good radio today is about "you," the
individual listener. It's the difference between "La Nueva, the concert
station, where you can win tickets to the Vicente Fernandez concert..."
and "Imagine yourself in the front row at the Vicente Fernandez
concert... it may not be a dream...."

If the programming is so good, why do you have to give away prizes?




,,, reason" to reveal " tell" ,,, up cloy or",,,?" clear" to mean
stand ,,, which is"
,,, this is ,,, point of view",,, an indemnity ,,, offer prize ,,,"

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Ahhhhh,,,,,,, White Heat is on the TCM channel.
When I get done with my old trailer, I am going to need a new project to
work on.I think a new fourteen feet by fourteen feet shed in my back
yard should do the trick.Then I can move my 1914 Ford T Model car off of
my trailer and into the shed, and also my 1948 Willys Jeep.Because I
wants to restore my Jeep, it has two burnt valves and is slap worn
out.It was like that when I bought it for $300.00 about seven sumpin
years ago.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 12:55 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

we had 2 top 40 stations back then, including the one where i got to
pick my own top 40. we listened to other stations because there was a
wide selection and variety available to people back then.

Top 40 stations played 40 songs, give or take. And WDGY was a Storz station,
and Todd Storz was very rigid about playing the list and nothing but the
list.

properly
interpreted, it means we had options. but even our top 40 stations
played a wide variety. today you get a selection some corporate toady
picks for you.

The music is picked the same way it was done 40 years ago.

And variety, as a perception, is not created by playing more songs, it is
created by playing songs the indivudual listener likes without the ones they
don't like. That means commonality and concordance on the biggest hits, and
nothing else.

Now, there are many more stations. For example, in the case of Northport,
they had two AMs giving day, but not night service, in 1960. Today, it has
over a dozen usable signals day and night. They have 8 or 9 distinct
formats
to chose from, and have no need to listen to static and fading on distant
AMs.


we know music went to f.m. that does not mean they are locked into a
playlist some corporate toady has chosen for us to hear.

And, of course, that is not the way it happens. In the best of cases, all
but the brand new songs are picked by the listeners themselves.

Yes, I am sure that not-so-subtle references to drugs amuse you... uh,
pardon me, befuddle you.

it was funny. just like itsibisty yellow polka dot bikini, monster
mash, or purple people eater, nether of those could make it with
today's corporate feverish grip on the media.

I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would likely fall
under being outside community standards and subject a station to a $325
thousand dollar per play fine. But I know of plenty of novelty songs like
Monster Mash and the like that have been played in the last decade...
nothing has changed.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 1:12 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:


then i must have gotten wdgys jockeys all fired.

It's more likely that either you picked a song they were going to play or
you are fibbing.


Untrue. If you go down in size to groups that own 50 stations or less,
which
excludes only about 10 or 11 companies, you will see that about 12,200
stations are not owned by big companies.


we have few independents here. but we do have clear channel, and more
than one of them.

Again, over 12000 stations are not owned by the big 10 groups.


there is a place for ridged playlists, but, that model si shrinking
fast

It's worked for about 50 years or so... since Storz and McLendon and the
other Top 40 pioneers proved that playing only the top hits got more
audience.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

you have insinuated that f.m. caused the demise of these stations,
but in my area, many moved to f.m. once they were bought out, then
came the ridged playlists. that is what we are really discussing.

In her area, there was no local Fm, but the ones nearby took all the
audience of the AM, which was power-challenged, and the AM turned in its
license.

Relatively few AMs moved their programming to FM. When the simulcast ban in
metro markets went into effect in 1967, stations that had an FM put
different programming on the FM. Later, many realized the FM was going to
make more money than the AM... so they kept the formats.

I went through a list of major markets... just a sample of the top 25, and I
can't think of more than a couple of cases in the 10 years after the
simulcast ruling where an AM format moved to a co-owned FM. The Top 40
stations that were big on AM got beaten by challengers on FM... like WMYQ
(FM)and WHYI (FM)in Miami, and AMs WQAM and WFUN, owned by others,
eventually both changed formats. That happened in markets from Birmingham to
Phonnix. In a couple of cases, staitons that got waivers, like KUPD Tempe,
AZ, fired up a bigger transmitter on the FM and the FM became the dominant
part... but there was no mass migration anywhere to FM by existing
formats... because the AM owners were too late in reacting and someone had
already claim jumped the format on FM.


FMs have essentially all the music audience, so there is no issue between
AM
and FM here. It is just a radio issue, with no band distinction.

nope, its a corporate mentality that limits choice.

No, it is reality. In the 70's, one by one the Am music staitons died
against the challenge of FMs doing the same typé of format.... WABC, KHJ,
WIXY, WQXI, WQAM, WCAO, WLS, KLIF, KQEO, KTSA, KILT, KXOK, WHB, KIMN, KFRC,
KCBQ, KCPX, KENO, KTKT, KLEO, KOMA, KAKC, WRBC, WHBQ, KELP, KERN, KRIG,
WMAK, WKGN, WKIX, WISE, WILS, WSNX, KQV, WHHY, WBSR, WAPE, WABB, WLCY, WLOF,
WLEE, WPOP, WKBW, WDAK, WCOL, WROV, WGH and many other Top 40s that
dominated their markets in the 60's were almost gone by the end of the 70's,
beaten and crused by FMs. Listeners did not want the limited signals, the
night directional nulls and the low-fi quality combined with man made noise,
so music went to FM. Those big AMs did not give up easily... they simply
lost as more and more audience went to FM as the formats people wanted
appeared there.

I was in a top 15 market when the most attractive format suddenly appeared
for the first time on FM. The total share of about 15 FMs had been around 15
share points before that. In 6 months, the total FM share was over 50, and
that one station reached levels of 33.5 share in one book. People
immediately moved to FM when the format they wanted appeared there.

Radio uses techniques to determine the appeal of each individual song in a
specific genre (or "format") and they play, as a rule, all the songs that
have wide appeal and don't play the ones that a significant numbers of
listeners don't want to hear. In each format, there are different numbers
of
songs that tend to define these formats, in every market, often even in
different countries.

that's why people are loading up ipods with music they cannot hear on
the radio, plugging them into their radio jacks, and ignoring
corporate owned bland radio.

Actually, most of what is on iPods, per several studies, is exactly the kind
of music that is on the radio, or has been on the radio. The interest in
offbeat songs is restricted to a small group of people, and the main reason
to have an ipod is to play only the songs you like, which is often less than
the playlists of the three or four radio stations the average person listens
to weekly.

Country stations average in the 600 to 700 songs, Tallahassee or Spokane.
Soft ACs go from 300 to 350 songs. CHR's (today's term for Top 40) around
120. And so on. The reason there are no more is that listeners as a group
don't like any more songs, no matter how deep the research goes.


corporate research is so good. or, is it that corporate research only
chooses what the corporation makes money on.

Research like that is not corporate. It is simply finding a group of people
who like the general kind of music your staiton plays, and asking them to
score each song that has been played or is being played.


And every so often there is a station that plays 1500 songs in a 700 song
format, and dies, proving the rule. The reason playlists are the size they
are is that the listeners who selected the songs indicated that that was
all
they liked enough to play.

you ignore what is going on, on the internet.

What has been going on on the internet in the last few weeks is the
downloading of millions of Michael Jackson songs that were hits on the
radio.

And I suppose you have never had the experience of going to see a favorite
singer or group, only to have them play a bunch of new songs from the new
CD, and then performing a perfunctory medley of your favorite hits by that
performer. Didn't the audience complain, moan or boo? They came to hear
hits, not unknown songs. A lot of people don't get that.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 2:00 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:


No PD in the 60's would have postponed adding a new Beatles or Stones or
Supremes cut to play the Castaways chanting "Liar, Liar, you're pants are
on
fire..." But enough of the new songs get played that we have a nice crop
of
newcomers in country, CHR, Urban, and every other format that plays an
amount of current music.

its not that the castaways pushed off the beatles and stones music
off the air,

Nobody said that. I said that the Beatles song would likely be considered
first for play, and then if there was room for another add that week, the
Castaways might get played. Same then as now, just different artists.

its that we had a choice, and that choice enriched the
music listening, and also the health of the music industry. the music
industry uses your research, and we see how well they are doing.

Oh, how little you know. How truly, truly little. The music industry hates
radio research, because it gives fast feedback and often causes a new song
the label is pushing to be pulled in 2 or 3 weeks because it stiffed.... the
record business does not "use" radio's research because the research is
proprietary and confidential and part of each station's competitive edge. It
is certainly not shared with the record ducks.

Again, the music industry hates radio's research, and some record executives
even blame radio research for all of the music industry's problems. They are
as clueless as you are.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:

"Selling what we want you to offer..." is an old concept. It's, from the
radio point of view, about "us." It's the "50,000 watt voice of the Great
Southwest." Who cares? Good radio today is about "you," the individual
listener. It's the difference between "La Nueva, the concert station,
where you can win tickets to the Vicente Fernandez concert..." and
"Imagine yourself in the front row at the Vicente Fernandez concert... it
may not be a dream...."

If the programming is so good, why do you have to give away prizes?

Because there are lots of good stations in each market, and the average
listener uses 4 or 5 of them regularly. We use prizing as an incentive to
those interested in such things to keep them tuned to us and not another
station they like.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 13, 10:29*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

...
On Jul 12, 12:55 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

we had 2 top 40 stations back then, including the one where i got to
pick my own top 40. we listened to other stations because there was a
wide selection and variety available to people back then.

Top 40 stations played 40 songs, give or take. And WDGY was a Storz station,
and Todd Storz was very rigid about playing the list and nothing but the
list.

properly
interpreted, it means we had options. but even our top 40 stations
played a wide variety. today you get a selection some corporate toady
picks for you.

The music is picked the same way it was done 40 years ago.

And variety, as a perception, is not created by playing more songs, it is
created by playing songs the indivudual listener likes without the ones they
don't like. That means commonality and concordance on the biggest hits, and
nothing else.

Now, there are many more stations. For example, in the case of Northport,
they had two AMs giving day, but not night service, in 1960. Today, it has
over a dozen usable signals day and night. They have 8 or 9 distinct
formats
to chose from, and have no need to listen to static and fading on distant
AMs.

we know music went to f.m. that does not mean they are locked into a
playlist some corporate toady has chosen for us to hear.

And, of course, that is not the way it happens. In the best of cases, all
but the brand new songs are picked by the listeners themselves.

Yes, I am sure that not-so-subtle references to drugs amuse you... uh,
pardon me, befuddle you.

it was funny. just like itsibisty yellow polka dot bikini, monster
mash, or purple people eater, nether of those could make it with
today's corporate feverish grip on the media.

I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would likely fall
under being outside community standards and subject a station to a $325
thousand dollar per play fine. But I know of plenty of novelty songs like
Monster Mash and the like that have been played in the last decade...
nothing has changed.

only you believe this market crap, the rest of us know better.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 13, 10:33*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

...
On Jul 12, 1:12 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

then i must have gotten wdgys jockeys all fired.

It's more likely that either you picked a song they were going to play or
you are fibbing.



Untrue. If you go down in size to groups that own 50 stations or less,
which
excludes only about 10 or 11 companies, you will see that about 12,200
stations are not owned by big companies.

we have few independents here. but we do have clear channel, and more
than one of them.

Again, over 12000 stations are not owned by the big 10 groups.

*there is a place for ridged playlists, but, that model si shrinking
fast

It's worked for about 50 years or so... since Storz and McLendon and the
other Top 40 pioneers proved that playing only the top hits got more
audience.

but you said they were no top 40 rock stations. obtw, no one got
fired.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On Jul 13, 11:07*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dave" wrote in message

. ..

David Eduardo wrote:

"Selling what we want you to offer..." is an old concept. It's, from the
radio point of view, about "us." It's the "50,000 watt voice of the Great
Southwest." Who cares? Good radio today is about "you," the individual
listener. It's the difference between "La Nueva, the concert station,
where you can win tickets to the Vicente Fernandez concert..." and
"Imagine yourself in the front row at the Vicente Fernandez concert... it
may not be a dream...."

If the programming is so good, why do you have to give away prizes?

Because there are lots of good stations in each market, and the average
listener uses 4 or 5 of them regularly. We use prizing as an incentive to
those interested in such things to keep them tuned to us and not another
station they like.

yet, they are losing market share to the net, where you can find what
you want. this is tiring, of course a conservative toon will try to
wear you down no matter what is reality.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 10:33 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

there is a place for ridged playlists, but, that model si shrinking
fast

It's worked for about 50 years or so... since Storz and McLendon and the
other Top 40 pioneers proved that playing only the top hits got more
audience.

but you said they were no top 40 rock stations. obtw, no one got
fired.

Oh, you missed the part where I mentioned that "rock" is a different format
(actually a collection of formats") from Top 40.

Top 40 (or CHR, it's name since the 70's) is rock, pop, ballads, r&b,
rhythmic, hip hop, etc. Rock, in varieties like AAA, Classic Rock,
Alternative, AOR, etc., is just rock of one kind or another.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 11:07 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dave" wrote in message

Because there are lots of good stations in each market, and the average
listener uses 4 or 5 of them regularly. We use prizing as an incentive to
those interested in such things to keep them tuned to us and not another
station they like.

yet, they are losing market share to the net, where you can find what
you want. this is tiring, of course a conservative toon will try to
wear you down no matter what is reality.

No, actual facts will wear down false impressions that can not be
documented.

Actually, those of us who actually talk to lots of listeners know that the
erosion of radio Time Spent Listening started in the late 80's, well before
the Internet was an issue.

And there has been no erosion of the number of people who use radio... it
is constant in the 94% to 95% range as it has been since the 60's when
Arbitron began.

Why is total listening time down somewhat? There are lots more leisure time
"competitors" starting in the 80's with additional channels on cable, then
going into video games, increases in the average American's work hours, etc.

There are about 120 million active game consoles in the US, per the consumer
electronics association, and gamers are not listening to radio.

Then there are DVDs, video on demand, internet browsing, the emphasis on
fitness, and there are all kinds of things that ding total time spent
listening to radio. It is not streaming alone and it is not iPods... in
fact, several of the other options are much more impactful.

Try doing a 600 person perceptual study of the audience of one station or
format, and ask about leisure time activities and time allocations, and you
will see that the internet is only a fraction of the issue. Hell, calling
plans with free night minutes and free long distance at any time take as
much time away from radio in younger demos as streaming.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:


I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would likely
fall under being outside community standards and subject a station to a
$325 thousand dollar per play fine.

Bull****. You can talk about drugs all you want. Get a grip.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:


I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would likely
fall under being outside community standards and subject a station to a
$325 thousand dollar per play fine.

Bull****. You can talk about drugs all you want. Get a grip.

There are some real practical limits... and they come to community
standards. A discussion of drug legalization is OK, while a person giving
instruction on how to best set up a bong might not.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Is the Estrogen I bought at the GNC store a drug? I doubt very much it
will turn me into a drug addict though.I think I will check out Evansce
and that Femi whatever it is called stuff.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

Yoink! some of y'all are Funny!

Ex-FBI (Fumblin Bumblin Idjits) Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11
Investigation.
http://rawstory.com

I have said it several times before,,, 9/11 was an inside job.So was
that fed building in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

I can't use my old Remington electric chainsaw to cut ''it'' off because
that democrap B HO Butt Kisser Dumbass who lives catty corner across
the street from me, he broke my chainsaw.HUMP! he once told me he is an
old country boy (from Bolton,Mississippi.You know where Bolton is, don't
you?) and he knows all about chainsaws.I had to show him at least seven
or eight times how to turn it on.He couldn't figure out that little side
button on the handle must me held in before the chainsaw can be turned
on.

Last Spring, he (he once said he is sixty two years old) bought a lawn
mower at a pawn shop.Believe it or not, he couldn't find the oil drain
plug on the bottom of the engine.He pushed his lawn mower over to my
sidewalk and knocked on my door, he hollered,,, Show me where that oil
plug is!

That is the way it is with ALL democraps and libturds, They Don't Know
****!

I am from Carthage,Mississippi, www.thecarthaginian.com my family
moved to Jackson in 1949 when I was eight years old.Maybe I am not
exactly an old country boy, but I have always known about chainsaws and
lawn mowers.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:


I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would
likely fall under being outside community standards and subject a
station to a $325 thousand dollar per play fine.

Bull****. You can talk about drugs all you want. Get a grip.

There are some real practical limits... and they come to community
standards. A discussion of drug legalization is OK, while a person
giving instruction on how to best set up a bong might not.





As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."


Or Johnny Cash's 'Cocaine Blues.'

Or Grateful Dead's 'Cocaine.'

Or the countless Cheech and Chong recordings that have hit the air since.

Please.

And then, there's Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner" which contained the
phrase, '...all the funky **** going down in the city," when it hit the
air on radio stations in markets across the country, straight off the
album in April of 1977. I can speak with some confidence on this....I
played it myself on stations in markets from small town Iowa, to big
city Texas, through Missouri, Kansas and Illinois, over the years. It's
playing in Chicago now.

Also playing in Chicago, on Bonneville's WDRV, no less, is Pink
Floyd's "Money." Complete with 'that goody-good bull****,' in tact. Even
in morning drive.

Spoken word content has been cracked more than once. And jobs have
been lost, to be sure. But lyric content has been challenged, has been
taken to court, and has won in case after case.

You should have heard KDNA, St Louis, in its heyday. You'd have had a
klong where you sat.

How to set up a bong was tame by comparison to KDNA.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

www.devilfinder.com
New Oil Exploration in Mississippi

Bolton is about nine or ten miles West of me.I sort of know a Ham Radio
Operator guy who lives in Mesquite,Texas.He was in the Navy in World War
Two.Then he went to work for some oil companies.One of them was in Yazoo
County Mississippi.There is a lot of oil and gas and coal in
Mississippi.
The largest off shore oil rigs in the World are made in Vicksburg.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

U.S.Soldier challenging Dumbass's legitamacy doesn't have to deploy.

Couple of articles about that at www.libertypost.org
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:


I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would
likely fall under being outside community standards and subject a
station to a $325 thousand dollar per play fine.

Bull****. You can talk about drugs all you want. Get a grip.

There are some real practical limits... and they come to community
standards. A discussion of drug legalization is OK, while a person
giving instruction on how to best set up a bong might not.


As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."


Or Johnny Cash's 'Cocaine Blues.'

Or Grateful Dead's 'Cocaine.'

Or the countless Cheech and Chong recordings that have hit the air since.

Please.

And then, there's Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner" which contained the
phrase, '...all the funky **** going down in the city," when it hit the
air on radio stations in markets across the country, straight off the
album in April of 1977. I can speak with some confidence on this....I
played it myself on stations in markets from small town Iowa, to big
city Texas, through Missouri, Kansas and Illinois, over the years. It's
playing in Chicago now.

Also playing in Chicago, on Bonneville's WDRV, no less, is Pink
Floyd's "Money." Complete with 'that goody-good bull****,' in tact. Even
in morning drive.

Spoken word content has been cracked more than once. And jobs have
been lost, to be sure. But lyric content has been challenged, has been
taken to court, and has won in case after case.

You should have heard KDNA, St Louis, in its heyday. You'd have had a
klong where you sat.

How to set up a bong was tame by comparison to KDNA.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against radio
since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations are
fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control utter cuss
words.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 7/15/09 01:07 , David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.



"Cocaine," I heard this morning. Is that current enough for you?
"Money" I heard about an hour ago "bull****" intact. "Jet Airliner" over
the weekend.

And Mancow has been using Cheech and Chong drops, making anti-gay,
anti ...his words...Jesse Jackass, and blatant drug references for months.

You need to get out of the server farm, once in a while.

'Smooth Jazz' KKSF 103.7 FM becomes KKSF "The Band" 103.7 FM
 

On Jul 11, 4:09*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...





"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message
....
On Jul 11, 9:12 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
We may have the 'freedom' to choose what we listen to on the radio, but
the
choice, thanks to corporatized radio, is miniscule.

Ja, unt Government will give you more for less - bwaHAHAHAHA!

You have never had a greater choice in radio programming in all of
history.
STOP with the Liberal Fascist propaganda lies!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

The choices of radio formats in most cities have dwindled to but a few:

Hip Hop
Oldies
Country (not in many east coast cities)

Except for New York, name me two East Coast metros without a country
station.

Sports/talk
Rock

Well, let's look at LA. Around 13 million people, 91 or 92 licensed
stations.

We have:
Liberal talk
Sports talk
Conservative talk
All News
Christian Talk
NPR / Talk
Childrens' (Disney)
Contemporary Christian
Christian Teaching
CHR
Alternative Rock
Classic Rock
AAA
Rhythmic AC
Traditional AC
Oldies (actually "Classic Hits" as we have no real oldies station)
Country
Jazz
Rhythmic Oldies
Urban
Classical
Hurban
Smooth Jazz
Adult Hits
Americana
CHUrban
Spanish CHR
Spanish AC
Spanish Adult Hits
Spanish All Sports
Spanish talk
Spanish Regional Mexican (equivalent of country)
Spanish rhythmic
Spanish religious
Spanish regional Oldies
In addition there are stations in Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese as well as
ones that combine various Asian languages.
And, finally, there is a station 24/7 in Farsi.

I can't really think of anything that is missing. And compared to the 60's,
the number of viable alternatives has more than trippled.



Gone from almost all venues are classical, opera, jazz, easy listening and
MOR.

The audience for classical has declined as it died; changes in school music
programs have pretty much eliminated the creation of a new generation or two
of classical listeners. Opera is simply an extension of this... there was
never an all.opera station, as opera was an occasional feature of classical
formats.

- Jazz was never a broadly successful (read: it
- did not have many listeners) anywhere.
- My first job was at a jazz station, WCUY,, in
- Cleveland, so I have followed the genre, and it
- has few followers, even in the few places where
- there are pockets of interest. Also, it is an art
- form that is dying due to the ageing of its artistas
- and fans.

'Smooth Jazz' KKSF 103.7 FM becomes KKSF "The Band" 103.7 FM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKSF
http://www.kksf.com/main.html
http://radiotime.com/station/s_33596/The_Band_1037.aspx
http://www.yelp.com/biz/kksf-103-7-t...-san-francisco
http://www.infinitedial.com/2009/05/...37_the_ban.php
http://radioinsight.com/kksf-san-fra...oining-a-band/
http://www.sfradiomuseum.com/blog/20...-for-band.html

-but- Smooth Jazz lives-on via the Internet
and via FM Radio on 98.1 HD-2 [HD-Radio]

KKSF 'Smooth Jazz' Streaming Audio
http://www.kksf.com/pages/hdradio.html?_show

'Smooth Jazz' via 98.1 KISQ [KISS] FM HD2 [HD-Radio]
http://www.981kissfm.com/main.html

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
David Eduardo wrote:


I doubt anyone would play the drug reference song, as that would
likely fall under being outside community standards and subject a
station to a $325 thousand dollar per play fine.

Bull****. You can talk about drugs all you want. Get a grip.

There are some real practical limits... and they come to community
standards. A discussion of drug legalization is OK, while a person
giving instruction on how to best set up a bong might not.

Wrong. Read the Pacifica decision. It only covers sexual and excretory
depictions. Period.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.

"Cuss words" are not prohibited. Words that describe sexual or
excretory functions in an offensive manner are the only words prohibited
(with the usual "fire in a crowded theater" exception).

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"dave" wrote in message
m...
David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.

"Cuss words" are not prohibited. Words that describe sexual or excretory
functions in an offensive manner are the only words prohibited (with the
usual "fire in a crowded theater" exception).

That is just one part of the FCC's regulation of indecency. The rest is
contained in the vague mantra of "community standards" and while we have had
no list of prohibited words... even Carlin's set of 7 was never formally
prohibited... there is an understanding and belief that gratuitous profanity
and cussing would be subject to review.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/15/09 01:07 , David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.



"Cocaine," I heard this morning. Is that current enough for you?
"Money" I heard about an hour ago "bull****" intact. "Jet Airliner"
over the weekend.

And Mancow has been using Cheech and Chong drops, making anti-gay,
anti ...his words...Jesse Jackass, and blatant drug references for
months.

You need to get out of the server farm, once in a while.

I don't even know where there is a server farm.


Bull****.


And Mancow has been fined and sanctioned repeatedly; the Commission is
considerably less tolerant today. Remember, the FCC is not proactive but
reactive. All it takes is a complaint about a song with "bull****" in it
to get them started. Many groups and stations already have policies
against such content and have eliminated or edited songs to comply with
internal policy.

And again, the song has been playing, here, on Bonneville's WDRV
since the frequencies were acquired from the Florians. Unedited,
played regularly. As recently as last evening.

For clarification, that would be just YESTERDAY. And I'll hear it
again, likely, TOMORROW.

Disk jockeys flapping their gums get cracked regularly for their
content. But song lyrics have been challenged for years. And have
those challenges have been beaten in the courts, for years.

Again, as late as YESTERDAY. If there would be complaints, you'd
think it would be within Bonneville itself.

As for Mancow...SOME, but not all of his stations have been
fined, over the years. He's been on the air here, again, for nearly
a year now. And his content isn't changing.

But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good
pedantic rant.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/15/09 01:07 , David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."

We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.



"Cocaine," I heard this morning. Is that current enough for you?
"Money" I heard about an hour ago "bull****" intact. "Jet Airliner"
over the weekend.

And Mancow has been using Cheech and Chong drops, making anti-gay,
anti ...his words...Jesse Jackass, and blatant drug references for
months.

You need to get out of the server farm, once in a while.

I don't even know where there is a server farm.

Bull****.


And Mancow has been fined and sanctioned repeatedly; the Commission is
considerably less tolerant today. Remember, the FCC is not proactive but
reactive. All it takes is a complaint about a song with "bull****" in it
to get them started. Many groups and stations already have policies
against such content and have eliminated or edited songs to comply with
internal policy.

And again, the song has been playing, here, on Bonneville's WDRV
since the frequencies were acquired from the Florians. Unedited,
played regularly. As recently as last evening.

For clarification, that would be just YESTERDAY. And I'll hear it
again, likely, TOMORROW.

Disk jockeys flapping their gums get cracked regularly for their
content. But song lyrics have been challenged for years. And have
those challenges have been beaten in the courts, for years.

Again, as late as YESTERDAY. If there would be complaints, you'd
think it would be within Bonneville itself.

As for Mancow...SOME, but not all of his stations have been
fined, over the years. He's been on the air here, again, for nearly
a year now. And his content isn't changing.

But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good
pedantic rant.

'Eduardo' would never do that!

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/15/09 12:43, dxAce wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 7/15/09 01:07 , David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter wrote in message
...
On 7/14/09 14:26 , David Eduardo wrote:

As evidenced by the hundreds of millions in fines assessed against
radio since 1977 for Clapton's "Cocaine."
We are, I think, talking about today. Most of what Stern did when on
terrestrial radio would likely get the FCC in a uproar today; stations
are fined when celebrities who are totally out of a network's control
utter cuss words.


"Cocaine," I heard this morning. Is that current enough for you?
"Money" I heard about an hour ago "bull****" intact. "Jet Airliner"
over the weekend.

And Mancow has been using Cheech and Chong drops, making anti-gay,
anti ...his words...Jesse Jackass, and blatant drug references for
months.

You need to get out of the server farm, once in a while.
I don't even know where there is a server farm.
Bull****.

And Mancow has been fined and sanctioned repeatedly; the Commission is
considerably less tolerant today. Remember, the FCC is not proactive but
reactive. All it takes is a complaint about a song with "bull****" in it
to get them started. Many groups and stations already have policies
against such content and have eliminated or edited songs to comply with
internal policy.
And again, the song has been playing, here, on Bonneville's WDRV
since the frequencies were acquired from the Florians. Unedited,
played regularly. As recently as last evening.

For clarification, that would be just YESTERDAY. And I'll hear it
again, likely, TOMORROW.

Disk jockeys flapping their gums get cracked regularly for their
content. But song lyrics have been challenged for years. And have
those challenges have been beaten in the courts, for years.

Again, as late as YESTERDAY. If there would be complaints, you'd
think it would be within Bonneville itself.

As for Mancow...SOME, but not all of his stations have been
fined, over the years. He's been on the air here, again, for nearly
a year now. And his content isn't changing.

But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good
pedantic rant.

'Eduardo' would never do that!


LOL!

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

I like those Cheech & Chong movies.Especially the one where that dude
cranks up that motorcycle inside that house.
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

MAJOR VICTORY For ARMY WARRIOR.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum-269379

YEEEEEEEE HAWWWW!
GO ARMY!
and GO NAVY! GO AIR FORCE! GO MARINES! GO COAST GUARD!
cuhulin

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:

I don't even know where there is a server farm.


Bull****.


No, the bull****ter is in your mirror. Your only saving grace is a better
vocabulary and writing style than Mr. Ace.

I have never been near a server farm, and the closest one I know to exist is
in central Washington state. There may be one down the street, for all I
know, but since programming and programming research have been my concern
for the last coupla' decades, I have little practical interest in knowing
where a bunch of servers are located, and even less curiosity.

From discussions at the recent NAB, every communications attorney in DC and
elsewhere seems to be cautioning it's clients on the use of profanity which
goes beyond the clearer "sexual acts and excretory functions.... appealing
to the prurient interest" guidelines. Additionally, content which appears to
promote the use of drugs is being given greater review.

In my example, I mentioned something to the effect of "giving instructions
on setting up a bong.." which could be interpreted to be consent to or
promotion of the usage of (illegal) drugs. That's different from references
to a drug, spoken, sung or otherwise.

Most stations and operators do not want to be "the" test case on a new
application of community standards, since there have been rulings such as
the Boise case where "local" has been taken out of the application of
standards, meaning that community standards are whatever the FCC decides
them to be.

Every time I drive out of town, I am passed by speeders. I know, and they
know, that there is some degree of certainty that they will be stopped and
fined. Similarly, many station operators know that they are operating in a
gray area, and may be fined. Some risk the consequences since there are no
black and white rules in place. Others do not take the risk as they do not
want to be the cause of the determination of such rules.

What's not understood by many is that things like the "F" word are not
prohibited... just most uses of it are, based on content. But if a PBS
station had a professor who discussed how offensive terms made their way
into the language, including the word origins and applications, the FCC
would likely not find such usage offensive.

But the consensus is that there is more attention being placed on content
than we have seen for many decades.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/15/09 13:41, David Eduardo wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:

I don't even know where there is a server farm.


Bull****.


No, the bull****ter is in your mirror. Your only saving grace is a
better vocabulary and writing style than Mr. Ace.


Actually, I rather enjoy Ace's crisp, pointed style.



I have never been near a server farm, and the closest one I know to
exist is in central Washington state. There may be one down the street,
for all I know, but since programming and programming research have been
my concern for the last coupla' decades, I have little practical
interest in knowing where a bunch of servers are located, and even less
curiosity.

From discussions at the recent NAB, every communications attorney in DC
and elsewhere seems to be cautioning it's clients on the use of
profanity which goes beyond the clearer "sexual acts and excretory
functions.... appealing to the prurient interest" guidelines.
Additionally, content which appears to promote the use of drugs is being
given greater review.

In my example, I mentioned something to the effect of "giving
instructions on setting up a bong.." which could be interpreted to be
consent to or promotion of the usage of (illegal) drugs. That's
different from references to a drug, spoken, sung or otherwise.

Most stations and operators do not want to be "the" test case on a new
application of community standards, since there have been rulings such
as the Boise case where "local" has been taken out of the application of
standards, meaning that community standards are whatever the FCC decides
them to be.

Every time I drive out of town, I am passed by speeders. I know, and
they know, that there is some degree of certainty that they will be
stopped and fined. Similarly, many station operators know that they are
operating in a gray area, and may be fined. Some risk the consequences
since there are no black and white rules in place. Others do not take
the risk as they do not want to be the cause of the determination of
such rules.

What's not understood by many is that things like the "F" word are not
prohibited... just most uses of it are, based on content. But if a PBS
station had a professor who discussed how offensive terms made their way
into the language, including the word origins and applications, the FCC
would likely not find such usage offensive.

But the consensus is that there is more attention being placed on
content than we have seen for many decades.


Nice academic backpedalling. But it doesn't address that your
statement was simply wrong. Stations DO run songs with drug
references. Jocks DO say make drug references in their patter.

And they do it today. With impugnity.

If some choose not to, that's not a blanket incumbent on the
broad number of stations.

If there's more attention to content, it's focussed on things
like race, sex, and politics. Drug lyrics still get a pass all over
the country.



And for the record, consensus does not equal truth.

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

On 07/16/09 03:56, dxAce wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 07/15/09 13:41, David Eduardo wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:
I don't even know where there is a server farm.

Bull****.

No, the bull****ter is in your mirror. Your only saving grace is a
better vocabulary and writing style than Mr. Ace.
Actually, I rather enjoy Ace's crisp, pointed style.

Thanks!



:)

The "Progressive" Promised Land
 

My old buddy was in the Navy.He was a Ship Fitter/Pipe Fitter.Four years
Active Duty on the USS Ticonderoga and the rest of his years in the Navy
Reserves, he put about thirty years in the Navy.He also retired from
delivering the U S Mail and then he worked in the maintnance department
at a building in down town Jackson.
cuhulin