AM in Boston after WW II was: WBZ-AM Allston backup is no more

[Doug Drown]

Very helpful, John!  There was a lot I didn't know.

Doug

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM John Andrews <w1tag@charter.net> wrote:

> Doug,
>
> Just some thoughts on WTAG-TV and WTAG-FM, based on my time with WTAG-AM
> and dusty old files I recovered at the time of the sale to Knight in 1987:
>
> There were four incarnations of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette going
> after a TV slot.
>
> The most famous was Channel 5, and they actually had the construction
> permit in hand at the end of WWII into (I believe) 1946. The obvious
> reason for giving it up was that they couldn't arrange a network
> affiliation. Of course, the TV networks didn't amount to much in 1946,
> and a lot of local programming would have been needed, given the absence
> of syndication, movies, etc. But there were other reasons. We have to be
> careful in applying our knowledge of what later happened to the
> situation the T&G found itself in!
>
> 1. The Channel 5 construction permit was for ridiculously low power,
> 16kW ERP, if memory serves. This would not have served the Boston market
> with a transmitter site in Paxton. They were pinned down by another
> station (on Long Island?) at the time, and it looked like no power
> increase was possible. Of course, things turned out differently.
>
> 2. WTAG became a CBS affiliate during WWII, partly due to CBS Radio's
> program schedule at the time, and because, unlike NBC, they allowed some
> FM simulcasting. So, the WTAG folks paid the most attention to CBS at
> the time of the Channel 5 decision. And CBS was convinced that color and
> monochrome TV would use incompatible systems, and that color would be
> done on UHF, leaving the VHF channels for B&W. Of course, the color
> would be done with the old CBS "color wheel" arrangement. Not wishing to
> be burdened with a monochrome signal, the WTAG folks saw less value in
> Channel 5. As we know, that situation went in a whole different
> direction shortly after.
>
> 3. Installation of TV facilities in the old 18 Franklin Street building
> was going to be quite a project. I have seen the blueprints for the
> proposed facility. One of the major problems was the afternoon Evening
> Gazette run on the old press setup, which was basically under the the
> proposed TV studios. Let's just say that they would have to have
> shock-mounted the whole facility at no small cost. A milder version of
> that had been done two floors up for WTAG in 1939, but this would have
> been a bigger project. Also, there was no possibility of a microwave
> shot from there to the Paxton site on Little Asnebumskit Hill, so
> another rooftop would have had to have been rented.
>
> All of this clouded the crystal ball enough that they decided to drop
> the Channel 5 approach and try to get something with more power. There
> were three remaining tries for a T&G TV station:
>
> I wish I had access to the files (I left WTAG 24 years ago), so what
> follows is just from my failing memory. I believe the first step was to
> get Channel 11 (the monochrome/color thing having been worked out by
> then), but some deal would have to be arranged with 10 and 12 in
> Providence, and that proved impossible. They then went after Channel 20
> and I think 53, the latter process being abandoned around 1954. In both
> cases they reached points were the lack of any network willingness to
> settle for Worcester, and they had to give up. Lots of bucks were spent
> with lawyers and consultants in all of those approaches, so it's tough
> to fault their judgement.
>
> To my knowledge, no TV allocations were pursued after that.
>
> Regarding WTAG-FM, a couple of thoughts.
>
> First, the decision to sell WTAG-FM to Knight Quality Stations was
> entirely made by the board of directors of the Telegram & Gazette. With
> the possible exception of Robert Booth, the WTAG radio people were not
> consulted. The directors of the T&G were certainly not radio people, and
> this was primarily a financial decision. To illustrate the depth of
> their radio knowledge, one of them later referred to WTAG-FM as "that
> short-wave station."
>
> Second, clearly WTAG-FM (and W1XTG which preceded it starting in 1940)
> never made any money. Depending on FCC and network rules, various levels
> of simulcasting were possible over the years. Toward the end of the T&G
> ownership, considerable capital expenses were made for a new
> transmitter, conversion to stereo, and remote control of the Paxton
> site. I never realized, however, the depth of the financial losses until
> we had to clean out some storage space in 1987. I came across a set of
> ledger books for WTAG-FM which clearly showed years of applying failed
> WTAG-AM activities to the FM side. While the books were properly kept,
> and nothing really nefarious was done, the board of directors must have
> only seen financial summaries that did not attribute the losses. I'm
> sure this colored their opinion of the viability of WTAG-FM.
>
> Third, the newspaper business was going through a big upheaval in the
> early 1960's. Unions had just come in, and there was a long strike by
> the folks that ran the Linotype machines right around that time. Major
> capital investments were being made with an uncertain future.
>
> Anyway, those are a few of the things that must have gone into the
> decision to sell WTAG-FM. It was a stupid move by any measure, and they
> should have dug into not only the local situation but the
> already-started move to FM within the industry. But they chose not to
> take their heads out of the sand, and later paid the price as FM won out
> in the 1970's. The WTAG folks were appalled when the decision was
> announced. Norman Knight got a good deal, and was willing to weather
> some non-prosperous years right after. He deserves credit for that, and
> for his eventual moves with WSRS.
>
> Hope this helps, and that my memory hasn't wandered too far from reality.
>
> John Andrews
>
> On 10/21/2020 9:04 AM, Doug Drown wrote:
> > WTAG was, under the Telegram & Gazette and later under Knight, a 5 kw
> > regional station that operated as though it were a 50 kw clear channel
> > station --- a class act in every respect, with an excellent news staff
> > (including a Boston bureau), a longtime NBC affiliation, engaging air
> > personalities, and a strong signal that easily covered the whole county
> > plus well into western Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont ("NBC for
> > Worcester and all of Central New England").  All that having been said,
> > during the period of its newspaper ownership the station made a couple of
> > colossal blunders by not pursuing the Channel 5 allocation and then, ten
> > years later, selling off WTAG-FM, which became WSRS and almost
> immediately
> > became a huge success with its new Muzak-connected format.
> >
> > In short: great management but lacking in foresight.  A bit of an enigma.
> > Go figure.
>