David wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:19:56 -0800, running dogg wrote:

John S. wrote:

Well, here in Northern California the three formats I mentioned are the
preponderance of AM. There is one all news station, KCBS in San
Francisco, which only covers the Bay Area (of course, but useless if
you're in Sacramento). There are no oldies stations left on AM. There
used to be a big band station in Sacramento (KCTC, 1320) but they dumped
their format after determining that their listeners were all dead. (They
went to Air America, which probably caused some heart attacks among the
remaining members of the greatest generation.) Most stations that
advertise as being "oldies" in fact play a lot of hippie rock and 70s
stuff, not Elvis era stuff. AM simply isn't commercially viable outside
of a narrow range of listeners. Preachers like AM because it's cheap,
for the same reason that most domestic SW in the US is religious (and a
lot in Latin America too). Minority communities like AM because they can
serve their communities easily and cheaply. The rest of the stations
fight to survive by loading up on ranting Rushes.


KCBS covers the Western third of North America at night.


I meant NEWS coverage. Traffic reports rarely touch on conditions on
Central Valley freeways. Weather mostly covers SF and San Jose. News
items focus on SF. KCBS is groundwave for the
Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto region, meaning that it can be easily
received in the daytime here, so you'd think they could widen their
focus a bit.

clifto wrote:

David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

Negative funding? Are you talking about the taxes paid by the radio
stations, the taxes paid by the ranters, something else?

David wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:13:16 -0600, clifto wrote:

David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

That's not exactly true. Government largesse works in mysterious
ways.

Here's a civics lesson for you:

Advertising supported media is not free to tell you what you need to
hear. Too much conflict of interest.


Besides, the vast majority of talk radio is considered entertainment.
It's not considered news in any form. Even with the loose definition of
"news" used by American media, it's not considered news. This provides a
convenient smokescreen for the gabbers-every time somebody takes them a
little too seriously, they say "hey, we're legally entertainment, we're
not providing an actual news program, people should know that". That
ignores the fact that many people get their information almost
exclusively from talk radio. People think they're speaking the gospel
truth, when in fact they can lie more than the current president under
the cover of being entertainers. Every time somebody points out lies or
errors in some pundit's crap, be he conservative or liberal (think
Michael Moore), said pundit always pulls out his big ENTERTAINER shield
and claims that he doesn't have to be held to the same standard as the
nightly news.

I dont like or listen to news talk radio programs that are politically
biased one way or the other,the same goes for politically biased
websites too.One of the worst is,,,, heck,I can't even recall his name
just now,but he lives or broadcast out of Oregon and to him,bush can do
no wrong! It isn't Roger Fedinburg,Roger is A OK.
cuhulin

running dogg wrote:
clifto wrote:
David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

Negative funding? Are you talking about the taxes paid by the radio
stations, the taxes paid by the ranters, something else?

Yep, that and more. Not only doesn't government fund conservative talk radio,
it leeches money from it.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

junius wrote:
Right. Below is from http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html :

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues
and programming fees from over 780 independent radio stations,
sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from
the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small
percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget
-- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded
organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Well, hell, then they can do without that one percent and finance themselves,
can't they?

They repeat the bulls*it claim that only one or two percent of their funding
comes from Uncle Sam, but they scream like they've been tortured with
underwear on their heads if anyone tries to touch that money, saying they
can't live without it. That alone should tell even the weak-minded that
they're lying.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

David wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 08:06:07 -0800, "John S." wrote:


All the newscasters and program moderators I've heard carry their own
biases and beliefs into their presentations. We just have to realize
that news and information no matter the source has been filtered in
some way.

Give us some examples, please.

The list of examples would be each news reporter that has ever composed
a story and every broadcaster that has ever announced a news cast.
Inclusions and omissions of information, voice tone, raised eyebrows,
giving an opinion, etc., are all ways of coloring and filtering the
news. And there is not a person in the news business that isn't aware
that it happens, no matter how they try to be "objective".

On 5 Feb 2006 08:42:19 -0800, "John S." wrote:


David wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 08:06:07 -0800, "John S." wrote:


All the newscasters and program moderators I've heard carry their own
biases and beliefs into their presentations. We just have to realize
that news and information no matter the source has been filtered in
some way.

Give us some examples, please.

The list of examples would be each news reporter that has ever composed
a story and every broadcaster that has ever announced a news cast\0\0\0Inclusions and omissions of information, voice

U.S.fed govt does NOT!!! fund anything that is Conservative.
cuhulin

NPR has their mitts out on tv at least two times a year,wanting us to
send them our money.Well,they can go to H..l!
cuhulin