[bct] Re: radio and thermostat.

  • From: "Neal Ewers" <neal.ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09:54 -0600

And I am old enough to remember when Public radio did things like
broadcast plays, all kinds of educational shows, documentaries, etc.
Now it's mostly talk radio just like everyone else.  Sure, their talk
radio may be a cut above the commercial stations, but it's still yours
and my neighbors spouting off on things they more than likely don't
understand but have an opinion about anyway.  Myself, I'd rather hear a
good documentary, or lecture by someone who really does know, or some
music introduced by giving information about either the composer or
certain aspects of the music itself.  If I want to find out what my
neighbors think about world issues, I can ask them.  Talk radio seems to
be a very cheep way to take up my time while providing me very little
information I can use.

Sorry, I'll get off the soap box now, and everyone is free to disagree
with me.  You can even call up your local talk radio station and do it
on the air.

Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blindcooltech-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Lizarde
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:32 PM
To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bct] Re: radio and thermostat.


It seems like they want to invest.
In a few years time, they might turn around and sell them to clear
channel, 
infinity, or someone else.
We have a station here in California that is non profit, yet they have 
commercials, but they can't mention the word free on the air. They have
to say, "no cost" Isn't that an irony? Or better yet, isn't that dumb?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jeff" <j1armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:27 PM
Subject: [bct] Re: radio and thermostat.


> Neal and everyone,
>
>    Perhaps Wisconsin public radio should borrow some cash from 
> Minnesota public radio.  Within the last several years they have 
> purchased a new building for themselves, purchased a new station to 
> play classic music, and another one to play "alternative" music.  This

> gives them 3 FM stations and
> 1 AM station in my area.  The president of the MPR interrupted
programming
> to talk about how much money they need to continue.  He included the
fact
> that it is vital that they digitize their archives this year and
they'll
> need x amount extra for that project.  I guess if they wouldn't cry
poor 
> all
> the time, I wouldn't object to an honest fund drive now and then.
What is
> the percentage of funding from government sources anyway?  Don't get
me
> wrong, NPR, PRI, and our MPR provide some very top quality
programming, 
> but
> why purchase and operate new stations while the original
news/talk/info
> station runs replays of already broadcast programs a significant
portion 
> of
> the time? Saturday and Sunday are carbon copies of each other with
some
> programming moved around to make it seem different.   Why not improve
the
> real reason for having public radio to begin with.  There is no need
for
> public radio to include the support of music stations with the support
of
> the core station.  It should be separate and that way, anyone who
wants an
> "alternative" or classical station could donate to it as they see fit.
I
> wouldn't necessarily support those ventures.  Of course, this is just
my
> opinion, I could be wrong... Jeff
>
> 



Other related posts: