Re: more WNAC / WLAW / WVDA

[Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

At 04:54 AM 7/23/97 +0000, you wrote:

>The more I think about it, the more I suspect that it was WNAC which took
>over the WLAW license (It thereafter was licensed to "Boston and Lawrence"
>for many years.) and WVDA which took over the WNAC license. 
>
I think you must be correct. However--and this also makes sense--Diehm must
only have paid a sum equal to the value of 1260. Now, how do you suppose the
flow of money went? A good possibility: General pays Rogers' estate for
WLAW. Diehm pays General for 1260. Thus General's out-of-pocket was equal
only to the increase in value of their Boston-market property. But if the
licenses flowed as you suggest, Garrett has to speak to the station
geneology as prescribed by the rules of the Boston Radio Archives.

One way of recording it might be to say that BOTH WRKO and WPZE are
traceable to WNAC and nothing is traceable to WLAW. Indeed, someone cited a
listing in the Broadcasting Yearbook that suggests that this is how the
stations themselves reckon it. But the Broadcasting Yearbook has no rules
for such listings. They simply publish what the stations say in their
responses to the Yearbook's annual questionnaire. And there are no rules
governing the stations' claims. So I think the Archives has to set its own
rules. I guess this case is "the exception that proves the rule." BTW, in
this case, the word "proves" means not to show that the rule is correct, but
rather to test the rule. I think we've done that!

- -------------------------------
Dan Strassberg (Note: Address is CASE SENSITIVE!)
ALL _LOWER_ CASE!!!--> dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
(617) 558-4205; Fax (617) 928-4205

------------------------------