"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

It has been three decades since the FCC has considered night skywave
coverage important. It has been that long or longer since stations
themselves considered skywave coverage to be much more than a
curiosity.
Much of this has to do with the change int he radio model in the
mid-50s
from having the heaviest AM usage at night (before TV was universal) to
today, when AM listening at night is vastly less than any other
daypart.

Who was leading who on this? That is did the FCC decide out of the blue
to
deemphasize the clear channels or was it other stations who wanted to
operate at night?

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?



And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.



Canada is phasing out AM rapidly in all but the biggest cities. This is
because they believe there that AM is not the way of the future. AMs
are
left in big cit9ies to serve niche and minority audiences, like the
Chinese
stations in Vancouver or the standards station in Toronto.

Is the Canadian phase out voluentary?

The CBC has moved nearly all operatins to FM from AM, and commercial AM
operators are encouraged to trade an FM for the AM, with the AM going
silent. This has been going on for over a decade.

By the way, I happen to like listening to the brokered /ethnic stations.
If
that's all that's someday left on AM, AM will still be quite lively.

Certainly there will be limited viability. Many stations that are on SCA's
will possibly become AMs... we have Radio Tehran on our 107.5 in LA!

That's OK. That's hardly death. AM would be no deader than FM was in the
50s.



I know I'm not the only person with the passion for radio, this group's
full
of 'em. But I also know we aren't numerous enough to have an economic
impact on the broadcast industry. I suppose we're mostly a pain in the
ass
to you guys, acting like we get a sharp stick in the ear every time we
hear
the Din of Ibiquity.

I am curious to see if HD can be DXed. No good receiver has HD, and it
would
be nice if we had an R-75 (this Bud's for you, Ace) with an HD module!

I expect DXing IBOC will be all equipment rather than the mental aspects of
DXing. It won't be like listening for ID clues between a couple of stations
fighting it out in the noise.


The FCC has chosen long ago to discard this as less meaningful than
more
local service that is relible and consistent.

I see. It's all the FCC's fault. I suppose that's another one of their
silly decisions like when they were forcing stations to do "editorials".
So, how long has the broadcast industry been fighting them on this?

The congestion of the bands is definitely due to the FCC seeking increased
grey area and local service from the 50's through the 90's.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?



The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however. And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.



The FCC, buy restricting to low FM powers (100kw and under) and very low
AM
powers (nothing over 50 kw) has always encouraged localism. As the clears
went form one fulltime signal to a dozen or so, the FCC was sayking that
they preferred a new local station in St George, UT., to extended coverage
for WLS:

This was the very loudly stated opinion of the FCC for years: local
service,
local ascretainment, local ownership, etc.

Try talking to people who make below the US median household income...
families that live on $15,000 a year, or, for whatever reason, are on
subsistence programs. Tell them to spend $12 a month for each radio.
Free
radio has many benefits, or there would not be 94% of the population
using
it each week... and any other alternative further segregates the
priviledges
of the "haves" and thes leftovers of the "have nots."


Oh, that's really a reach. I really doubt most of the stations would go
the
pay route, even if they were offered the chance. But a few might, just
as
a
few TV stations had a fling with pay TV about 25 years ago.

I do not think any terrestrial stations will go to pay subscriptions.

Maybe not. But in a free market, nearly every idea gets tried.


But let's pretend the unimaginable happened. All the stations went
subscription. All the network stations, all the independents, all the
brokered stations, all the college stations ... well, you get the idea.
Then I guess poorer people -- that is those poor people who hadn't moved
to
alternative sources and actually wanted to listen to the radio -- well,
I
suppose they'd have to pay to listen to the radio.

Whatever. But radio will simply die before this happens

Ah. We will always have the poor. And the poor will always have radio.


Gee, I suppose some of those poor people might have to decide between
pay
TV
and pay radio:

"62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. "

And 42% do not.

Not all that different from the general population.



But maybe there's teeming masses of impoverished Americans who are now
barely able to afford radio.

I did not say this. They can afford radio, but would not pay $150
discretionary dollars for what is also available for free. In case yu did
not notice, XM and Sirius have hit brick walls. XM stock is off 60% since
the end of last year due to slowdown in subscriptions; Stern is a
band-aid-.

Nope. I didn't notice. I don't pay much attention to satellite radio.




Actually, I was thinking about rap. It's summertime, and I drive with
my
windows down. I hear alot of stuff which is, to put it mildly, unfit
for
mass radio. I'm guessing I'm hearing recordings.

The Ivy League white guys at the FCC can not understand it!

I don't even picture them listening to the radio.



P.s. Today, it is hip hop, not rap, mostly.



Either way, I hear alot of stuff unfit for broadcast.

Frank Dresser

David wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:08:48 GMT, John Barnard wrote:

Steve wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you have your way, AM radio will soon be a thing of the past. IBOC
will be the stake through its heart
It is already dying. HD is an effort to see if it can be saved.
HD is a pathetic and misguided effort to see if it can be saved.


And your alternative is?????

JB

I'd make it hi-fi again.


Good point. The following site has a pretty good intro on the topic:
http://www.icycolors.com/nu9n/am.html

JB

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.



And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's, the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
news

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...
Commentary: IBOC Naysayers Fear Change
Educator Says It's Time for Radio to Leave the Warm Glow of the 12AV6

by Edward Montgomery

[long-winded, poorly-focused article snipped]

IBOC opponents aren't technical illiterates

I have never thought they were. Most are, however, satisfied with the
present analog technologies and have a different opinion on the reasons
for
change. The most common issue is to see the opponents focus on content,
without considering the disadvantages of a heritage delivery system.

And the IBOC proponents totally dismiss the primary advantage of the
heritage delivery system, that is long distance propagation.

When the FCC dismissed the final attempts to get the 1 A clears upgraded to
500 to 750 kw each in the late 60's, they began an effort towards extreme
localism that resulted, in the next decade, in the allocation and licencing
of at least on 1 B on every clear channel in the US. At the seme time,
lesser classes were allowed on the clears, including daytimers and lower
powered fulltimers.

The FCC was showing a policy that virtually eliminated the usage of even the
clears for long distance propagation in favor of local, groundwave reception
for AMs. A look at any of the clears in 1960 vs. 1990 or today will show how
this has populated those channels. The other classes, such as regional and
local channels were never guaranteed skywave coverage and were, in fact,
only protected form local skywave interference in the primary coverge area
at night (known as the interference free zone...).

It has been three decades since the FCC has considered night skywave
coverage important. It has been that long or longer since stations
themselves considered skywave coverage to be much more than a curiosity.
Much of this has to do with the change int he radio model in the mid-50s
from having the heaviest AM usage at night (before TV was universal) to
today, when AM listening at night is vastly less than any other daypart.

Oh, I know. There is no longer any economic advantage to long distance
propagation. But, for most of us, the debate goes beyond money.

That is only part of the matter. Would any station be interested in
consistent, listenable night audiences, there is declining usage of radio at
night, the decline in use of AM by younger listeners and the FCC's own
policies that come in the way. Add to that the fact that in may areas,
storng international Am interference ruins AM anyway.


- Canada is phasing out AM rapidly in all but the biggest cities.
- This is because they believe there that AM is not the way of
- the future. AMs are left in big cit9ies to serve niche and minority
- audiences, like the Chinese stations in Vancouver or the
- standards station in Toronto.

This would naturally mean that many Canadians driving around
in their Cars and Trucks with older AM/FM Radio's in them; and
at home late at night with an older AM/FM Radio; will find them
selves Listening to American AM/MW Radio Broadcasts from
across the border in the USA. - consider the possibility ~ RHF


The other night I was tuning around and caught a WBZ talkshow about the
tunnel collapse. It was interesting to hear Bostonians give thier
opinions
in their own voices. And I know my listening gave no economic benefit to
WBZ or the economy in general or even to myself in particular.
Nevertheless, it was worthwhile.

But you could also get WBZ on the web, right? You are not being deprived of
the message, just one medium.

The radio spectrum is one of our natural resources and ought to be managed
as such. Should every old growth tree in the national forests be chopped
down, even if it benefits some people? There are some national parks in
which hardly anybody visits. Should they be strip mined?

As I said, the FCC policies going back nearly 40 years have brought us to
this point, and, coupled with the "sound" of AM, we have a fait acomplit.

What's the economic value of a clear, starry night? None, really. But we
do make modest restrictions on light pollution despite thier economic
costs.

Long distance radio propagation on the AM band is a natural resource which
also deserves some protection.

The FCC has chosen long ago to discard this as less meaningful than more
local service that is relible and consistent.

I don't have any problem with fee based radio and I don't know anybody who
is much bothered by the concept.

Try talking to people who make below the US median household income...
families that live on $15,000 a year, or, for whatever reason, are on
subsistence programs. Tell them to spend $12 a month for each radio. Free
radio has many benefits, or there would not be 94% of the population using
it each week... and any other alternative further segregates the priviledges
of the "haves" and thes leftovers of the "have nots."

If some stations want to try to make a go
of it as pay channels, that's fine as long as they aren't interfering with
other stations.

There is no talk of this. The model is advertising support, not
subscription.

Yes, but the substitues have only been around for a few years and they're
growing fast. I find these things interesting, at least conceptually. If
I
were not so set in my ways, I'm sure I'd be really into them.

Satellite has spent 5 years getting to about a half-share of listening. And
it is cooling (withness XM's failure to meet projections and the loss of 60%
f its market capitalization).

Let's not forget censorship. Alot of popular stuff won't pass FCC muster.

I think you overestimate the number of people who want to hear DJs cuss. And
that is what satellite can serve.

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...

This would naturally mean that many Canadians driving around
in their Cars and Trucks with older AM/FM Radio's in them; and
at home late at night with an older AM/FM Radio; will find them
selves Listening to American AM/MW Radio Broadcasts from
across the border in the USA. - consider the possibility ~ RHF

Considering that what is available on any signal that would get into most
Canadian cities would be very American talk, I doubt this would have much
appeal. The CBC has FM repeaters all over Canada, and there is no lack of
big FMs, either. Listening to US AM stations is something that is unlikely.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the
late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?

Yes. The FCC had a policy of localism. Local applicants had a huge
advantage
over companies or distant applicants for new TV and FMs as well as AMs in
that period, and localism was required in the license renewal process via
ascertainment of needs, community (PA) programming, news content, etc. The
FCC was obcessed with localism. I do not know of any station or group that
lobbied for it as a policy, although plenty of applicants went for the
licenses based on pushing local ownership and management.

OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?




And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no
skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was
pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.

"Everyone wants to operate at night", "nobody did want to operate at night".

Whichever. It's hard to say the FCC was doing anybody any favors by
allowing expanded nighttime operation.



And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect
for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.

By the end of the 60's, the FM band was pretty full, especially in the
major
markets, and the FCC was starting on its way to break up the clears.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM
operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?

FM was not profitable until the mid-70's on a major scale. In the 50's,
the
number of FMs declined between 1950 and 1960... by nearly 25%. It was not
until the FCC mandated an end to simulcasting in the late 60's that FM
started to react, based on new programming, but forced by the FCC.

And the broadcast industry pros didn't know what to do with FM, either.


The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing
editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however.

No, they did everything they could to prevent editorializing, especially
the
requirement to give equal time for opposing viewpoints. I never worked
with
a station from 1959 through the 80's that editorialized. It was legally
too
full of problems and could put the license in jeopardy.

OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258 (1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14 "major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g., Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=364#f14



And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups
from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.



Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness
doctrine.

Yes, now we can all editorialize freely without having to notify, grant
replies, etc.



Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?

The motive was a belief in the concept that local media reinforces the
Republic. No kidding... there were frequent references to things like this
back in that era. It was believed local voices were important. I think the
FCC used the newspaper model for localism, not undetrstanding that
newspapers are restricted by distribution, not localism.
OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before
the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views
through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

But the fact is, due to the restrictions and potential for litigation,
fines, protests, nearly no station did editorialize until later that decade
when Fariness was revoked.

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less
subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC
concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with
the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258
(1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees
serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14
"major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires
of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g.,
Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

Still, nearly nlo station editorialized in the 50's, 60's and 70's. All they
needed to do is look at Red Lion to see how editorials can lose the licence.
I do not remember a single station that editorialized in that period, and it
was out of fear. There were plenty of other ways to get the license renewed.
like keeping the commercial locad below 18 minutes, running PSA,s etc., that
one did not hve to jump in the fire on editorials.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.

A very big station... one of the top 10 reevenue producers in the USA, in
fact.

Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard
a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none. It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?

The motive was a belief in the concept that local media reinforces the
Republic. No kidding... there were frequent references to things like this
back in that era. It was believed local voices were important. I think the
FCC used the newspaper model for localism, not undetrstanding that
newspapers are restricted by distribution, not localism.
OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before
the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views
through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

But the fact is, due to the restrictions and potential for litigation,
fines, protests, nearly no station did editorialize until later that decade
when Fariness was revoked.

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less
subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC
concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with
the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258
(1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees
serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14
"major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires
of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g.,
Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

Still, nearly nlo station editorialized in the 50's, 60's and 70's. All they
needed to do is look at Red Lion to see how editorials can lose the licence.
I do not remember a single station that editorialized in that period, and it
was out of fear. There were plenty of other ways to get the license renewed.
like keeping the commercial locad below 18 minutes, running PSA,s etc., that
one did not hve to jump in the fire on editorials.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.

A very big station... one of the top 10 reevenue producers in the USA, in
fact.

Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard
a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none. It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

BUSTED!!

"Steve" wrote in message
s.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none.
It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.

BUSTED!!

What does that mean? You have now said it three or four times, and it is
borderline incoherence.

My next oldest sister (her nick name is Tinker) was over here a few
minutes ago,checkin to see if I am still alive and kickin.She brought
about thirty pounds of frozen leftovers too,as usual.Where am I going to
put it? my frige is already so full that when you open the door,stuff
falls out.I think I will give it to my litlte African girlfriend up the
street.
cuhulin