Re: WGBH stories

["Shel" <shel@lotsofun.com>]

>I find it interesting that in these stories WGBH is criticized for trying
to
>play music that will attract listeners.  Isn't that the point?
>

A professional broadcaster-friend of mine recently remarked that NPR or any
"public" stations, could not care less, as they were dependent only on
satisfying those who supported them.  It's rare that stations below 92.1
receive decent ratings, and in reality, why should they?  So much NPR
programming is highly-niched.  I doubt if any station - including NPRs -
whose programming varies so much hour-to hour, could garner many rating
points.

BUT....even if the programming were just plain bad, and enough people with
money funded it well, why would the stations care?

You may know that I don't believe the public ought to be funding NPR or any
radio station for that matter. But my opinion above has nothing to do with
that.  But I do find it outrageous that a station would be "flamed" as it
were, for simply trying to meet more of its listeners' tastes.

What does the "GBH" in WGBH stand for, anyway?

:) shel

Old enough to remember when WGBX-44 first took to the airwaves, and the
great Louis Lyons doing the news. America's worst newsman who was so bad, i
watched him anyway!  He was good for a few laughs.  I was only about 14.

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