re: Boston talk / Pacifica

["Aaron [Bishop] Read" <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 06:58 PM 7/29/2002, you wrote:
> > I guess that the "hot talk" format didn't kick Boston's
> > butt they way it was
> > projected.  Didn't the NAC format that preceded it do
> > better?  Just curious.
> >
> > Brian Vita, President
>When the format started to welcome "starter kit" talkers and
>anystate-packages (Rush excluded) it just got ... boring.  Ironic
>that talk for the sake of shock simply dulled.  As for the FM
>talker, the further away from establish(ing) local products to
>national packages, the closer it will get to hopping on the
>format-o-matic and where it will stop, no one will care.

One thing I have always been surprised about is why doesn't Pacifica have a 
Boston outlet?   You'd think of all the cities in the country Boston would 
be fairly ideal for the (admittedly) far-left programming they offer.   I 
wonder how much Pacifica would have to offer Greater Media to get WTKK?  My 
guess is $15 million minimum.  Anyone know how much Emmis got for it when 
Greater Media bought in...what was it?  1993? 94?  Something like that, 
wasn't it?

I suppose Pacifica's been too disorganized (and too far in debt) over the 
past few years to make a play for a Boston outlet.    And all the college 
stations around here suddenly wouldn't seem so radical anymore, too  :-)

____________________________________________
Aaron "Bishop" Read     aread@speakeasy.net
FriedBagels.com Technical Consulting
www.friedbagels.com   AOL-IM: ReadAaron
"I'm weird, but around here it's barely noticeable."