Matt Sledge, 97X DJ, comments on the impending sale of 97.7 to a Texas company. Matt breaks the news that he "more than likely" will not be working with 97X after the sale is completed. This is sad news for radio fans and Oxford residents. I think Matt will be missed. I hope he finds a new place to keep and raise his peanuts with the same charm that was WOXY.
CityBeat has a very good story on the sale of 97X. I have not seen anyone list the latest rumor I ran across that the studio for the online version of 97X will relocate to Cincinnati.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Local 12
Rick Bird writes about WKRC’s change in marketing of their local news programming. Bird speculates what the other local stations might say:
1. Don't waste time on national news wire reports. If the national news not at least regionally relevant, let the Network cover it.
2. Stop running stories about Flordia Child Abductions and try and tie it locally through fear mongering..."Is your child safe when you go to the store?" A non-locally related story with "footage" will make the local TV news even though it took place 1,000 miles away.
3. Report information, don't just get video of something and pretend looking at it is news.
4. STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE!!! (see #2 for example)
Local TV news is nothing much beyond the Superbowl Half Time Show. It is meant for the person who can't find the time to read the headlines of the newspaper, but can watch Inside Edition while they tape Oprah.
Of course, the news directors at Local 5, Local 9, Local 19 and now Local 64 would probably say, "Hey, that's what we do too -- cover local news." So, does the phrase mean Local 12 is planning some new and bold way to cover local news? Not necessarily.If the local TV news outlets want to get back into the business of covering local news, then I have a few suggestions.
1. Don't waste time on national news wire reports. If the national news not at least regionally relevant, let the Network cover it.
2. Stop running stories about Flordia Child Abductions and try and tie it locally through fear mongering..."Is your child safe when you go to the store?" A non-locally related story with "footage" will make the local TV news even though it took place 1,000 miles away.
3. Report information, don't just get video of something and pretend looking at it is news.
4. STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE!!! (see #2 for example)
Local TV news is nothing much beyond the Superbowl Half Time Show. It is meant for the person who can't find the time to read the headlines of the newspaper, but can watch Inside Edition while they tape Oprah.
CityBeat's Blade Goes Before Council
Leslie Blade was questioned before the City Council Law Committee. According to the article she answered all but two questions from Councilman Chris Smitherman, but did not add much beyond what was reported in her December article.
The quotes from councilmen were priceless:
Pepper had more too:
The subpoena of Leslie Blade was a waste of time. Smitherman?s rookie excuse is running thin. He needs to get results if he is going to shoot from the hip.
UPDATE: The Post has more.
The quotes from councilmen were priceless:
"This was the definition of silly," said Republican Pat DeWine. "If the council member had taken the time to read the story, he would have gotten the same information we did today. This is not a way to run a government, and I'm embarrassed to be part of this government today."I say Smither, you say Man: Smither-man, G-Man.
Pepper had more too:
"We have, as a city, a pretty poor record when it comes to the First Amendment," said Pepper, a Democrat. "You could probably write a book filled with cases of 'City of Cincinnati v. Someone' with all the First Amendment cases we've screwed up."I am happy David supports the 1st amendment. I have to wonder, what other First Amendment cases has the city screwed up? I assume he means Free Speech/Right to Assembly cases, not Freedom of the Press issues. If I am wrong, I hope those issue come to light.
The subpoena of Leslie Blade was a waste of time. Smitherman?s rookie excuse is running thin. He needs to get results if he is going to shoot from the hip.
UPDATE: The Post has more.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
CiN Weekly: Gay Marriage Ban in Ohio?
CiN Weekly is asking for your opinion on the Gay Marriage Ban in Ohio? Civil unions should be the minimum level of equality acceptable for homosexuals. Marriage is still something I think they should have the option to participate in if they so choose.
Burress: Ignorant or Idiot?
Phil is of course a big target of scorn for me, so it goes without saying that I have no respect for the man. I must point out, however, to those who are not as negative on him as I am, his statements in the Post today that I believe indicate he is Ignorant, an Idiot, or both. From the article:
1. Article XII states "The city of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment." The bold section prevents the city from making discrimination against homosexuals illegal. There is no other protection for being discriminated against in State or Federal law based on sexual orientation. If there is any protection it is news to me. What the original law was doing was preventing ANYONE from being discriminated against because they are either heterosexual or homosexual, as the new hate crime states. Gays can’t discriminate against straights and visa versa. Phil is lying on this point.
2. Article XII is anti-gay and only anti-gay. The law did not remove the rights of people to be protected based on their race, religion or nationality. Phil and his goose-steppers singled out homosexuals because they don't like gays, and want to keep them in a second-class status. See the Ohio DOMA law as another example.
3. If discrimination can only be based on immutable characteristics, then why is religion protected? Religion is not immutable, yet I don't see Phil seeking to allow Christians to be prevented from renting an apartment because a Muslim landlord might want to keep out the “infidels”. Phil just needs to group up and accept that being homosexual is as much of a choice as being left handed.
I agree with one thing, people can be treated different because of their behavior. Having sex with a consenting adult is just one that everyone should have the right to do, without the Phils of the world trying to regulate it. I myself do treat bigots who speak out their bigoted beliefs differently. I don't hesitate calling them a bigot or a racist or just plain old “asshole” depending on the instance.
He contends that Article XII does not legalize discrimination against gays, it only forbids gays from receiving a "higher degree of protection than other people."Ok, lets now easily refute Phil's comments:
"Article XII is as far from being anti-gay as you can get," he said. "It is in response to the 1992 City Council ordinance which gave preferential treatment to people who claim to be homosexual."
Burress contended that the preferential treatment was "based on behavior and you cannot have a legal classification of people based on behavior. It has to be immutable characteristics, like race or gender.
"You can't claim to be a minority by joining a certain type of behavior. If you're going to start granting minority class status based on behavior, then the groups you could name are endless."
1. Article XII states "The city of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment." The bold section prevents the city from making discrimination against homosexuals illegal. There is no other protection for being discriminated against in State or Federal law based on sexual orientation. If there is any protection it is news to me. What the original law was doing was preventing ANYONE from being discriminated against because they are either heterosexual or homosexual, as the new hate crime states. Gays can’t discriminate against straights and visa versa. Phil is lying on this point.
2. Article XII is anti-gay and only anti-gay. The law did not remove the rights of people to be protected based on their race, religion or nationality. Phil and his goose-steppers singled out homosexuals because they don't like gays, and want to keep them in a second-class status. See the Ohio DOMA law as another example.
3. If discrimination can only be based on immutable characteristics, then why is religion protected? Religion is not immutable, yet I don't see Phil seeking to allow Christians to be prevented from renting an apartment because a Muslim landlord might want to keep out the “infidels”. Phil just needs to group up and accept that being homosexual is as much of a choice as being left handed.
I agree with one thing, people can be treated different because of their behavior. Having sex with a consenting adult is just one that everyone should have the right to do, without the Phils of the world trying to regulate it. I myself do treat bigots who speak out their bigoted beliefs differently. I don't hesitate calling them a bigot or a racist or just plain old “asshole” depending on the instance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)