On Jul 11, 10:46*pm, Poetic Justice wrote:
Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:04 pm, Poetic Justice wrote:
dave wrote:
0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote:
Rumblings continue from the FCC on fairness, diversity and mandates
for broadcasters.
The airwaves belong to the people. *They should serve the people, not
large corporations. *Radio was better when ownership was limited to a
few stations per company.
The Constitution says FREE SPEECH, NOT *EQUAL SPEECH*

*perhaps you missed the part of the constitution called the supremacy
clause. of course, you have seen it before, which means you are
impervious to facts, logic, and reason.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


we have been thru this before, there are limits.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,


and its recognized that there are limits.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* *THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE* shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people. Like FREEDOM of SPEECH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no one would pay attention to any amendment without the supremacy
clause. its the basis for our government. other wise there would be 50
warring countries.
its simply beyond your scope of reasoning.

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 10:15 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

...
because they were purchased, or infiltrated by hedge funds that drove
up debts, so that the parasitical hedge fund could sit by their pools,
and collect checks from the cash flow. they created such bland papers,
that they drove almost everyone away, no matter the age.
now they cannot pay their bills. to bad, the papers backed free
market economics, and now its bite them in the ass.

You are full of untruths today.

that is your opinion. so far that is all i have seen from you, your
opinion.

Newspaper circulation is so trendable that charts are even in introduction
to media books at the college level. Circulation has been falling for
decades, and it is demonstrable. The loss of classified revenue, auto
revenue and real estate revenue is in every publicly traded print company's
annual reports and investor updates, with exact statistics. The ABC
documents circulation, and similarly documented counts of column inches of
advertising are readily available.

Papers have been on the decline for 25 to 30 years, because younger people
get their news and information from TV... and in the last decade, from the
Internet.

of course there are reasons for that. as i have stated. in europe,
news papers and magazines are doing much better because they are not
bland conservative doormats.

I was just looking at the financials of Grupo Prisa from Spain, publisher of
Spain's huge national daily... where revenues have been slipping for 10
years and the company is rapidly moving resources to new media instead.
England has seen papers cease publication, and the business is just as bad
there as the US, even though readership is enhanced by the huge use of
public transit.

Classifieds are so easy on the web, as is finding a house or
selling one. Checking out cars and prices is also easy on the web... even
buying one and then going to sign and pick it up.

that is true. but that does not mean total failure as we have seen in
america. the same things are happening in europe, yet papers are doing
much better there, even thriving.

No, they are not. They are losing ad revenue, losing younger demo
circulation and costs are increasing.

The most debt-free newspapers are still in trouble, because people under
35
or 40 don't read them, and many in older groups don't read as often or as
much... and the three biggest sources of revenue, cars, classifies and
real
estate, have all but dried up.

same in europe, yet, the european papers give people something to
read. they are staying afloat, ours are not. people simply do not
believe them anymore. they cover nothing that is important, or if they
do, its milk toast that some right wing stink tank issues.

Very, very few US papers have closed, save those that had a direct
competitor. Two paper cities practically don't exist, but that trend started
in the 50's with things like the News buying the Press in Cleveland, etc.
But papers are still viable, but are shrinking. If costs are reduced, they
will go on for years.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

The idea that there are musicologist-type DJs rummaging through thousands
of records is a myth, and in the few cases such exists or has existed,
most have failed.

Back in the day, KAPA in Raymond, WA used to have a library of literally
thousands of records, all in very nicely laid out libraries, from which
their announcers could retrieve pretty much anything they wanted to play.
The station did indeed finally fail.. but it was only AFTER it was bought up
by a corporate entity and pretty much driven into the ground.

Corporate radio has ruined radio. Even in the heyday of network radio,
individual affiliate stations had their own programming, usually in the
daytime. Networks ruled the evenings with the great comedy and news
programs.

A great many netcasting stations have thousands of tracks that they pick and
choose from. Almost none have a limited playlist (DMCA actually PREVENTS it
in cases where the stations are bothering to follow the law).

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...


Not so. Playlists existed back to the time of live bands at local radio
staitons... someone determined the songs the bands would play. And since
recorded music has been a staple of American radio, going back to the
rejection of the AFM rules and Petrillo's policies, stations have
pre-programmed music in almost every instance. In fact, the format concept
that "saved radio" in the early and mid-50's, Top 40, was based entirely
on the concept of a playlist and zero deviation from it.

The "Drake" format, a top 30 format, preceded the top 40 format. Even back
then, stations figured out that there is such a thing as limiting a playlist
TOO much. Something current broadcasters seem to have forgotten.

On Jul 12, 12:56*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

...
On Jul 11, 10:11 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:



About 99.9% of the radio stations in the Western Hemisphere have
"playlists." All that means is that the person in charge of programming
has
determined what songs can be played, how often and such.

*that's right, in the free market, someone else tells me what to
listen to. it was not always so.

It was always so for the vast majority of decades and stations. Just as
someone at a supermarket determines what products, sizes and varieties of
products to stock... and not stock, someone in each radio station determines
what songs are played and not played.



today, a playlist from some corporate goon in new york determines
what gets played, and what does not. in my youth, i got to hear lots
of local garage bands get air time, then make it national.
today, that would not happen, its the playlist, and nothing else.


And just like the supermarket, which uses research, sales tabulations and
such to deteermine desirable procuts, radio does the same thing to decide on
each song.



you are a kool aid drinker aren't you. many local grocery stores
stock products from small suppliers, with out all of the above goobly
gook.


The idea that there are musicologist-type DJs rummaging through thousands
of
records is a myth, and in the few cases such exists or has existed, most
have failed.

most have been taken over by corporate america, then came the play
lists.

Not so. Playlists existed back to the time of live bands at local radio
staitons... someone determined the songs the bands would play. And since
recorded music has been a staple of American radio, going back to the
rejection of the AFM rules and Petrillo's policies, stations have
pre-programmed music in almost every instance. In fact, the format concept
that "saved radio" in the early and mid-50's, Top 40, was based entirely on
the concept of a playlist and zero deviation from it.


yes there has been in the past, except, they were flexible. today,
see if a jockey was to sneak in something not on the playlist, see
what would happen to such jockey. its why independents can no longer
get airtime, but when i was a kid, they did.
you are simply a hard wired free market apologist.


Stations had playlists in the 30's, just as they had lists of the
commercials they had to run, called a log.

yes they did. but the disk jockeys would not get fired if they dared
to play something not on the play list.

Hmm... in the mid 60's, the first person I fired as a PD was a guy who
played one song that was not approved.


at your station. back then, there were 1000's of independently owned
stations. are you telling me that they all operated the same?


And if you worked for Storz or McLendon or Burden or Crowell-Collier or any
of the big operators of music stations in the 50's and broke format, you
were gone.


but, was there 10 companies or less that own just about all radio
stations in america? not!


nice try, in free market america, you have tons of choices, that are
almost all the same.

And that, in radio, is quite untrue.

i live in a metro area with about 3.5 million people, not only is
radio ****, so is t.v., and both daily papers. prior to 1981, it was
not so.

Probably the stations have adjusted to contemporary taste of the target
audience, which is generally 18-49 or 25-54, and you are either out of the
demographic or have not kept up with current taste.

snicker, infomercials are entertainment, that is how far we have
sunk. you are part of the problem, that is why corporate media is
failing.

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
news:01a2cb41-9192-4b72-a429-
correct, and the corporate conservative blandness is driving millions
of people away. people downloaded music in droves for a reason. they
get to hear what they cannot hear on the radio.
pretty soon t.v. is going to get hit really hard. reruns of lousy
shows over and over again, and only what they think you want to watch,
or, what they own.
when i was a kid, believe it or not, in my metro area, and we are in
the top 20, had 5 channels on t.v., and on friday and saturday night,
there were so many choices, that i had to weigh which choice was
better, and cross my fingers.
today, i can get 29 stations on a good night, and just about all of
them are either showing infomercials, which should be illegal, or more
reruns of what i just watched earlier.
and cable and the dish are no better. and they cost to boot.

When I was young (and up to not-so-long ago), even where there were a lot of
stations with the same general format, you could tune around and find a song
you liked better. This was especially true of AM at night. Even the talkers
were more interesting and varied. You had individuals at the great stations
like KSL, KNX, KGO, etc. all with different styles and opinions. Now, you
got Rush and Noory, everywhere on the dial. The only way you can tell what
station you're listening to is to hopefully catch the legal ID at the top of
the hour. Everything is the same, differentiated only slightly by
propogation path differences.

On Jul 12, 1:05*am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

...
On Jul 11, 10:15 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

....
because they were purchased, or infiltrated by hedge funds that drove
up debts, so that the parasitical hedge fund could sit by their pools,
and collect checks from the cash flow. they created such bland papers,
that they drove almost everyone away, no matter the age.
now they cannot pay their bills. to bad, the papers backed free
market economics, and now its bite them in the ass.

You are full of untruths today.

that is your opinion. so far that is all i have seen from you, your
opinion.

Newspaper circulation is so trendable that charts are even in introduction
to media books at the college level. Circulation has been falling for
decades, and it is demonstrable. The loss of classified revenue, auto
revenue and real estate revenue is in every publicly traded print company's
annual reports and investor updates, with exact statistics. The ABC
documents circulation, and similarly documented counts of column inches of
advertising are readily available.


because they are bland conservative door mats. but in europe, its
different.


Papers have been on the decline for 25 to 30 years, because younger people
get their news and information from TV... and in the last decade, from the
Internet.

of course there are reasons for that. as i have stated. in europe,
news papers and magazines are doing much better because they are not
bland conservative doormats.

I was just looking at the financials of Grupo Prisa from Spain, publisher of
Spain's huge national daily... where revenues have been slipping for 10
years and the company is rapidly moving resources to new media instead.
England has seen papers cease publication, and the business is just as bad
there as the US, even though readership is enhanced by the huge use of
public transit.



i did not say all was roses, however, they are doing better. because
they are not bland conservative doormats.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...n_180621..html

European Newspapers Thriving While Americans Struggle

New York Times | Eric Pfanner | 03/30/09

New York Times:

PARIS -- As the death toll in the American newspaper industry mounted
this month, the German publisher Axel Springer, which owns Bild, the
biggest newspaper in Europe, reported the highest profit in its 62-
year history.

At Springer's headquarters in Berlin, there has been no desperate talk
of how to survive the recession and the digital revolution. Instead,
Mathias Döpfner, Springer's chief executive, said he was looking for
opportunities to expand, scouting around for acquisitions in Germany,
Eastern Europe and maybe -- in what would be a first for the company
-- the United States.

Read the whole story: New York Times


Classifieds are so easy on the web, as is finding a house or

selling one. Checking out cars and prices is also easy on the web... even
buying one and then going to sign and pick it up.

that is true. but that does not mean total failure as we have seen in
america. the same things are happening in europe, yet papers are doing
much better there, even thriving.

No, they are not. They are losing ad revenue, losing younger demo
circulation and costs are increasing.



some are, some are not. typical in the business world, however, as i
have posted, some are doing really well most of ours are on life
support. they are bland conservative doormats that no one believes
anymore.


The most debt-free newspapers are still in trouble, because people under
35
or 40 don't read them, and many in older groups don't read as often or as
much... and the three biggest sources of revenue, cars, classifies and
real
estate, have all but dried up.

same in europe, yet, the european papers give people something to
read. they are staying afloat, ours are not. people simply do not
believe them anymore. they cover nothing that is important, or if they
do, its milk toast that some right wing stink tank issues.

Very, very few US papers have closed, save those that had a direct
competitor. Two paper cities practically don't exist, but that trend started
in the 50's with things like the News buying the Press in Cleveland, etc.
But papers are still viable, but are shrinking. If costs are reduced, they
will go on for years.

they need to become the guardian, which just broke a huge story that
made world headlines. except here of course. its why american news in
general is losing readership, and viewership.

On Jul 12, 1:09*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message

...



The idea that there are musicologist-type DJs rummaging through thousands
of records is a myth, and in the few cases such exists or has existed,
most have failed.

Back in the day, KAPA in Raymond, WA used to have a library of literally
thousands of records, all in very nicely laid out libraries, from which
their announcers could retrieve pretty much anything they wanted to play.
The station did indeed finally fail.. but it was only AFTER it was bought up
by a corporate entity and pretty much driven into the ground.

Corporate radio has ruined radio. Even in the heyday of network radio,
individual affiliate stations had their own programming, usually in the
daytime. Networks ruled the evenings with the great comedy and news
programs.

A great many netcasting stations have thousands of tracks that they pick and
choose from. Almost none have a limited playlist (DMCA actually PREVENTS it
in cases where the stations are bothering to follow the law).

correct, go get the shill. i was in a local station more than once in
my youth, and i got to pick my own playlist from 1000's of 45's. then
the jockey played them.
today, corporate america has ruined not only radio, but t.v. and the
papers. they have loaded them up with debt, and severe restrictions
that make them bland, conservative in nature, safe.

On Jul 12, 1:18*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message

news:01a2cb41-9192-4b72-a429-
*correct, and the corporate conservative blandness is driving millions
of people away. people downloaded music in droves for a reason. they
get to hear what they cannot hear on the radio.
*pretty soon t.v. is going to get hit really hard. reruns of lousy
shows over and over again, and only what they think you want to watch,
or, what they own.
*when i was a kid, believe it or not, in my metro area, and we are in
the top 20, had 5 channels on t.v., and on friday and saturday night,
there were so many choices, that i had to weigh which choice was
better, and cross my fingers.
*today, i can get 29 stations on a good night, and just about all of
them are either showing infomercials, which should be illegal, or more
reruns of what i just watched earlier.
*and cable and the dish are no better. and they cost to boot.

When I was young (and up to not-so-long ago), even where there were a lot of
stations with the same general format, you could tune around and find a song
you liked better. This was especially true of AM at night. Even the talkers
were more interesting and varied. You had individuals at the great stations
like KSL, KNX, KGO, etc. all with different styles and opinions. Now, you
got Rush and Noory, everywhere on the dial. The only way you can tell what
station you're listening to is to hopefully catch the legal ID at the top of
the hour. Everything is the same, differentiated only slightly by
propogation path differences.

that is correct. i have waited for a long time to hear the i.d.'s to
figure out who they are. the jockeys voice is different, but the music
is exactly the same. i do a lot of traveling.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
news

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

The idea that there are musicologist-type DJs rummaging through thousands
of records is a myth, and in the few cases such exists or has existed,
most have failed.

Back in the day, KAPA in Raymond, WA used to have a library of literally
thousands of records, all in very nicely laid out libraries, from which
their announcers could retrieve pretty much anything they wanted to play.
The station did indeed finally fail.. but it was only AFTER it was bought
up by a corporate entity and pretty much driven into the ground.

Excellent. There are 14 thousand stations in the US, and you base your
conclusion on one of them.

The station, without knowing it, failed because it was a Class IV on 1340 in
a very sparsely populated county... where even today, a C2 FM only puts a
decent signal over 60,000 persons. And that county, unlike in the 50's, is
now invaded by many usable FMs from other nearby locations... yet it had a
monopoly when it went on in 1950.

Today, that AM is silent, like so many like it... KYOR in Blythe comes to
mind... because FMs had so much more coverage and there was no need for an
AM.

The fact that the station did not have a format did not help.

Corporate radio has ruined radio. Even in the heyday of network radio,
individual affiliate stations had their own programming, usually in the
daytime. Networks ruled the evenings with the great comedy and news
programs.

I'd suggest you revisit publications like Radex, as you can see that the
webs provided programming for much of the day, including the daytime drama
shows that evolved into soap operas. Many issues of Radex, with complete
programming schedules, are at www.americanradio.com.

Network stations carried loads of daytime content, too.

A great many netcasting stations have thousands of tracks that they pick
and choose from. Almost none have a limited playlist (DMCA actually
PREVENTS it in cases where the stations are bothering to follow the law).

The DCMA has very few restrictions that would affect even the most limited
playlist in use today. There is a restriction on repeats, and in how many
songs by an artist that can be played together or in proximity...
specifically:

"In any three-hour period:
not more than three songs from the same recording
not more than two songs in a row from the same recording
not more than four songs from the same artist
not more than three songs in a row from the same artist
not more than four songs from the same anthology/box set
not more than three songs in a row from the same anthology/box set. "

The tightest Top 40 in the US which repeats some songs every 90 minutes
would break those rules... stations generally don't repeat an artist more
often than every 45 minutes, and they seldom would play that deep in a
particular recording or set.

So, a station with a 40 song library would be able to comply with the rules,
and they do. But since most CHRs have over 100 songs today, there is no
issue.

The problem with stations with thousands of songs is that nobody listens to
them.