I'll agree with the guy who gave this thread props for reaching five pages, if for no other reason that Big A and Rox haven't gone nuclear (yet) and although there's been some political posturing, the thread stayed radio centered. Say what you will, but it's what makes this a much better board than so many others.
What I find interesting is that for a station reportedly that does not have any listeners, there is a great deal of response to the changes made at WYSL on this web site. Not everyone who has commented I'm certain is connected with the broadcasting industry either. Kind of makes one wonder about the ratings system doesn't it?
Mutually exclusive. This board is cumed by people well outside the reach of WYSL's potent daytime signal. BTW, as to your wife's Arbitron diary, one diary doesn't move the needle in a universe of 900 to 1200 diaries. Much depends on the in-tab. Much depends on diary placement. As Savage noted, there are thresholds of listening, for better or worse. Maybe your wife's diary was flagged because so much listening time was attributed to one station. It happens. And then there are the diary editors, which would take a thread in itself.
Savage runs a tight ship. With the change in network news affiliation and Salem as its national sales rep, one wonders, are the network compensation rates be better than ABC, and is Salem interested in his facility?
Big A noted that ABC Radio News' reputation may suffer because of its association with ABC TV; the same applies to Fox Radio News and Fox Cable. His point however stands, Fox Radio News and ABC Radio News play it down the middle, as does CBS.
Phil noted NPR's equilibrium in reporting the decision and giving fair and equal time to the opinions from legal experts and listeners. Major point made in that regard. Comparing WBFO to WBEN, the difference was startling. You can only imagine, then again, maybe not. It was
that pronounced. WBFO news did a thorough job with interviews and reactions. WBEN's news department was on the ball, but it was what happened between newscasts that spoiled the stew.
CNN and Fox Cable dropped the ball in first reporting the SCOTUS overturned the Affordable Care Act. NPR got it right. To their credit, CNN did a story on why and how it got the story wrong and Fo, with its tail between its legs, backtracked quickly. I suspect CNN got it wrong because its reporter/analyst/producer read the SYLLABUS of the decision, wherein CJ Roberts states the ACA does not hold under the Commerce Clause. It's understandable that a reporter can make this mistake because the decision was complex. There were four underlying issues argued on a number of grounds. The real pros were meticulous in analyzing it, beginning with the cover page. Some immediately went to the Dissent to get quickly get to the Court's decision, but even the Dissent was dense.
