Re: Blethan campaign against FCC rules

[Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 12:37 AM 8/27/2003, A. Joseph Ross wrote:
>On 26 Aug 2003 at 20:50, Dan Billings wrote:
>
> > The FCC could look at the financial position of the properties involved.
> > Boston would likely be a one paper town if Murduch did not buy the Herald
> > when he did.  We might have more papers today if cross-ownership had never
> > been banned.
>
>I can think of at least one example that supports you on this.  The old 
>Boston Herald-Traveler
>might have survived if they hadn't lost the channel 5 license.  The paper 
>was being
>subsidized by the TV revenues, and it folded fairly quickly after the loss 
>of that revenue.
>  --
>A. Joseph Ross, J.D.


Although I'm told that, in the past, the "reverse" is true for The Boston 
Phoenix and WFNX; FNX was surviving thanks to ad revenues from the Phoenix 
(well, that, and Mindich's legendary cheapness when dealing with employees 
:-)  this was back when it was just WFNX, not the other stations in Rhode 
Island, New Hampshire, etc.

Anyways, I have little proof to back that rumor up.  Can anyone 
prove/disprove it?  Have I got it backwards? Has the introduction of the 
out-of-state repeaters made WFNX fiscally viable on its own again?   I know 
that WWRX was doing well enough against WBRU to "break it off" from the 
rest of the FNX programming feed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron "Bishop" Read             aread@speakeasy.net
FriedBagels Consulting          AOL-IM: readaaron
http://www.friedbagels.com      Boston, MA