What Happened to WINA’s Programming?

Anonymous writes: I had been a great admirer of WINA news. However, I’m curious about the support that WINA has for their afternoon programming. Clark Howard is interesting and educational. But the rest of the afternoon programming is really one long hateful outpour (I’m thinking particularly of Neal Boortz). I keep accidentally having to hear him when all I want is the weather. So what’s up with the afternoon programming? I’m told that this is what people want. How do they know this? The station manager says it’s ratings and that’s why advertisers sign on. But do they listen to this stuff and how hateful it is? Is there any way to talk to advertisers and say that contrary to rating books, the programming stinks and makes me want to send a note to the advertisers?

59 Responses to “What Happened to WINA’s Programming?”


  • Why does BS like this get posted to the front page of cvillenews?

    Why do people always think business is NOT out to make money. In case you havn’t noticed, business is out to MAKE money.

    That means, if people don’t listen and don’t want the show and that means advertisers don’t buy the slots, they won’t carry the show. If they think they can get more money doing nice relaxed left leaning reports, they’ll do that. But syndicated junk is a) cheap, and b) folks are more likely to stay tuned to something that gets them going then to well balanced pap.

    If you think you know better, start your own station and make millions. Otherwise, realize that these folks lives revolve around ratings numbers, and a lot of this stuff has been worked out across the nation (what works where).

    This doesn’t have a single specific piece of information that would allow folks to express an opinion. Let’s get an example of that “hateful outpour”.

    The reason why this bugs me is that groups from the right side of the spectrum are ALWAYS denouncing various things the media does in strong terms. But when you get down to it, their “treason” is an article talking about Palestine. Their “encourages violence” is an article about abortion which they see as murder.

    They pull the same BS this anonymous poster does. Just spew out pure crap, without even a single example (even out of context) to back themselves up.

    Bootz is def conservative and insulting.

    http://www.boortz.com/ and you can listen yourself, or read his program notes.

    But it’s probably only a hateful outpour if you disagree with it. To the folks that like the guy it’s someone finally calling it straight.

    You should hear the real hatefull outpour from liberal groups. They hate corporations, they see Israel and Sharon as Hitler. They hate politicians, they hate cars and freeways. They call folks all kinds of names all the time. Since I agree with them on some things doesn’t mean I delude myself that it is not very similar to what these conservative radio hosts talk about.

  • This doesn’t have a single specific piece of information that would allow folks to express an opinion. Let’s get an example of that “hateful outpour”.

    “After dismissing satellite images as not necessarily believed universally, the radio show host then said American military aircraft should have targeted the mosque. Compounding insensitivity with ignorance, the man WINA touts as ‘the Mouth of the South’ then proceeded to suggest that our nation should target all of Islam’s holiest sites to warn terrorists that we would pulverize them if they so much as try to ‘break wind.'” –Bob Gibson, 10/14/2001

  • Why does BS like this get posted to the front page of cvillenews?

    I think it’s a particularly reasonable question when you consider that WINA appears to have cut out the vast majority of their local programming in the past couple of months. I think they may have stopped news entirely, or at least their evening news. Though I don’t mean to put words in the submitter’s mouth, I think that the real question here is this: Why is WINA using so much syndicated programming? What are their future plans for local programming?

    Why do people always think business is NOT out to make money. In case you havn’t noticed, business is out to MAKE money.

    But that doesn’t mean that businesses can’t behave in a manner that elevates the greater good of the community. For example, WINA could hypothetically decide that Boortz’s speech is so offensive as to be detrimental to the area and decide to stop carrying his show. That might cost them a couple of advertisers and require that they work to find something to replace it. But stations do that all the time. Is that the best business move? Not always.

    The question is even more relevant in this case, I think, because Eure Communciations and WINA (pre-Eure Communcations) are business entities with a history of acting for the greater good of Charlottesville. If that weren’t the case, I imagine that Brad Eure would have sold his stations to Clear Channel by now.

    BTW, here’s what happened when a UVa professor appealed to WINA to have Boortz removed from the air.

  • Why are almost all political talk radio shows so far to the right?
    Right-wing commentators tend to question the position of the government. Left-leaning commentators tend to question corporations. So which type programming would be favored by profit motivated broadcasting?

  • A caller was asked where he went to school. He mentioned Kent State University. Boortz asked if the “Dead Hooker Statue” was still there. The caller was mystified and said, yeah. Boortz went on and it appeared that he was referring to a memorial to the dead students and events that occurred at Kent State. Mind you, this comment had nothing to do with the caller who wanted to cheer Boortz. Mind you, that the two women who died at Kent State were not hookers (one was on her way to class and it was not established that the other was even in the demostration). Mind you that the statue or memorial in question is an allegory of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

    My point isn’t whether Kent State was right or wrong or if the demonstrators were right or wrong or if Vietnam is right or wrong. My point is why is it necessary or entertaining to hear someone (dead in this case well over 20 years and just a very very small part of history) maligned for an insult and a laugh. Would anyone enjoy 20 years from now a leftist leaning program making sport of Johnny “Mike” Spain in the CIA? It’s demeaning and unnecessary and it’s a mockery of the words “entertainment” and “discussion.” I’d say it’s at the level of a five year old except I’d be doing a disservice to five year olds.

    LG

  • Hmm. You write “they pull the same BS this anonymous poster does. Just spew out pure crap, without even a single example (even out of context) to back themselves up.”

    Then you write that “You should hear the real hatefull outpour from liberal groups. They hate corporations, they see Israel and Sharon as Hitler. They hate politicians, they hate cars and freeways. They call folks all kinds of names all the time.”

    Do you have any examples (even out of context) to back yourself up? Which liberal groups (or individual commentators) do this? Can you point to any specific examples–quotations would be nice–of their hateful statements about corporations, Israel, politicians, cars, and freeways?

  • It’s about listeners. If you got a left wing broadcasters with good numbers certain coporations would beat down their door. Leftist don’t buy things, see movies, or support causes?Capture and hold a liberal audience and you will be rich- of course it is a bit like herding cats.

    I think there is a belief, not mine, that mainstream media- Hollywood, the music industry is left leaning. All you have to do is watch a entertainment awards show and see how often you see conservative thought. So the left has little representation on AM radio- this doesn’t seem a very big deal when you look at the whole market place.

    This country’s media is undergoing profound change and most of it will be market driven. WINA biggest problem is alot of popular programing is owned by coporations(ie Clear Channel) and WINA is locally owned. They could put on more locally programming but they decimated their news department years ago- the Sarah McConnell era. More competition and less resources make for leaner times. Of course Channel 29 or the Progress could take up the slack- Oh nevermind!

  • And five-years olds have such a fine grasp of history.

  • Why do we think that all coporations and their ilk are evil? One theory is that when television and movies were analyzed the number one criminal type in media was- the white male business man. And if one look at their crimes in the media vs. reality, media WMBM are over 10 times more likely to protray a criminal then arrest and court records show.

    Why does no one complain – because the WMBA is in charge of the indusrty that fosters this image. If it were any other group the charge of racist or sexism would be deafening.

    Some coporate types are evil as are all walks of life. But making money is not the root of all evil-it’s the LOVE of money.

  • While we’re on the topic of “hate” in Charlottesville, I’d like to invite others to comment on Alvin Edwards’s remarks on the subject of hate, hate crimes, racism in the local press and judiciary, and more. An interview with him on these topics was posted at George Loper’s website here.

    I’m dumfounded by his remarks.

    I’m certainly not accusing him of making hateful comments — indeed, I’m a Democrat who can count on one hand the votes I’ve cast for other-party candidates and, further, one who generally appreciates Edwards’s contributions to the City in years gone by . . . but recently he seems more inclined to inflame existing racial tensions (at least I think so) more than anything else. And I fear this might possibly alienate otherwise Democratic voters.

    Anyhow . . . any comments welcome. (I mention and link it b/c I’m not sure how many cvillenews.com readers use the permanent link, here to the left, to Loper’s superb site.)

  • “Some coporate types are evil as are all walks of life. But making money is not the root of all evil-it’s the LOVE of money.”

    Yes–and that’s exactly why some people “think that all co[r]porations and their ilk are evil” (although your way of phrasing it creates a strawman–“evil” is not the term I would use, for example).

    My problem with corporations is that “love of money”–that is, pursuit not just of profit but of as much profit as possible–crowds out just about every other consideration, particularly considerations of the rights of the community (defined as “those people who are NOT on the corporation’s board or senior executive team.”) Many corporations only give back to the community that which they are absolutely forced to give by law (i.e., taxes, which many try strenuously to avoid paying through their accounting partners).

    Yes, I KNOW that businesses exist to make money. But, as Waldo indicated in another post on this topic, businesses also make decisions every single day–ethical/moral decisions, practical decisions–about which of many options to pursue. It’s not as simple as this: Neil Boortz pulls in a lot of listeners, so WINA had no choice but to put Neil Boortz on the air, otherwise the business would die. The truth is, WINA had and has lots of options, many of which would feed the business. They chose (for some reason) Neil Boortz, and it’s perfectly appropriate for people to criticize that decision.

  • WINA USED TO BE A GOOD STATION, NOW IT STINKS. NO NEWS IN THE EVENING, NO DECENT MUSIC, JUST TALK, TALK AND MORE TALK. I’M TIRED OF THESE CLEAR CHANNEL STATIONS. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THEY SUPPOSEDLY POLL? Everyone I talk to complains about the lack of decent radio stations in C’ville.

  • “considerations of the rights of the community”. Are you talking about those written into law or special rights you “feel” exist. Would would I use to look up these “rights of the community”?

    p.s. Neil sucks- I don’t listen to him, let it go! Call WINA cause I just don’t care.

  • I agree and futher as a conservative I wish there was a website as good as Loper’s for local conservatives. Maybe if I sign my post I could get in his Rogue’s gallery.

  • I meant, What would I use. Typing at work can be hazardous!

  • Being ironic? You seem to be missing the point of the first poster. Calling names is the level of a five year old.

    As for the grasp of history, this incident demonstrates the adage, “Those that think it permissible to tell white lies soon grow color blind. Austin O’Malley”

  • I don’t care for their morning programming, either. I thought Nancy King was an excellent interviewer and talk show host. I miss her.

  • I was just trying to get a smile;)

    I just thought that the five year old comment was weak on it’s face. Name calling is always used by those for whom original thought has failed and it’s also a type of shorthand for the logically challenged.

  • I too am dumbfounded by his remarks.

    In my opinion, as long as attitudes like his exist, we will have racial tension.

    To paraphrase him, he believes that crimes directed against blacks or Jews, strictly because they are black or Jewish, should be classified as hate crimes, because they have a history of persecution. However, those same crimes, directed at caucasians, strictly because they are caucasian, should not be classified as hate crimes because they don’t have the same historical record of persecution.

    This, to me, is a crock.

    Any time you make a discrimination of any sort based on skin color, race, ethnicity, whatever, you are promoting racism. It doesn’t matter if your intentions are good, bad, or ugly; you are supporting racism.

    This is true whether the discrimination is who gets hired for a job, who gets fired, who gets sentenced to jail, or who qualifies for a scholarship. This is true whether it “supports” whites, blacks, blues, or purples; or whether it excludes them.

    For us to all exist as the brotherhood that Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned, there must be NO DIFFERENCE in how we are treated as individuals or groups based on race ( or ethnicity, etc.)

    Ok, I’ll get off my soap box now.

  • Nancy King’s travails have been the subject of a previous cvillenews.com thread.

    She was superb — one, if not THE, highlights of WINA’s former commitment to local news and intelligent programming.

    Do I remember correctly — from Bob Gibson’s column a week or so ago — that King had landed on her feet, in a role with the City’s new Lewis and Clark promotion?

  • Name calling may mostly be used by those for whom blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Break yo’self — here is some hamster-style:

    Name calling is a much broader class. There may be some name calling that fits the description that you listed. There is plenty of other name calling, where the name is a proxy for other more complex information which doesn’t need explication every time it is referred to. Name calling as a class does not have the reductionist traits you attach to it.

    For example, calling someone a “train conductor” is “name calling”. I don’t really think that it necessarily reveals a failure of original thought or a shorthand for the logically challenged. Although I’ve already shown you to be in the wrong, I will go on. As you may well point out, there is a gap between calling some a “train conductor” and calling someone “Choat-o-boy”.

    I would suppose, though, that the difference could be characterized thusly:

    In calling someone a “train conducter”, you are signaling your belief that the person has nearly all of the traits of a train conductor. Other name calling seems to be more metaphorical. That is, in calling someone “Choat-o-boy”, you may well not be showing your belief that the person is actually the superhero sidekick Choat-o-boy. Instead, given the obvious falseness of that, you may be metaphorical referring to Choat-o-boy: perhaps your subject is short, has an explosive organ or fights with a potent, potent style. Whatever it is, you are using the audience’s understanding of the name, of the context and of the subject to highlight (note: not really to inform, for reasons that I can explain if you’d like) a particular trait of the subject’s that you think is here relevant.

    Surely, metaphor, which is the essence of name-calling, may be abused. But, it may also be used. Get your panties out of the wad, get off of your high horse and be at least aware of the difference.

    So here is your smile: :). I will resist the temptation to say that ‘categoricals are always used by those for whom original thought has failed and are also a type of shorthand for the logically challenged.’

  • I have got to make that +1 Baffling moderation category.

  • Nancy King was the BEST!!

    Neal Boortz is irritating but a great education!

  • Not to put too fine a point on it, but WINA isn’t a Clear Channel station. WINA is locally owned and operated by Eure Communications. But speaking of Clear Channel, it’s worth noting that they recently pulled WINA’s biggest money-maker that helped finance the afternoon local news: Rush Limbaugh. Yep, the big fat idiot was paying many of WINA’s bills. Clear Channel, which owns the network that distributes Rush, pulled him a few months back and put him on their WCHV.

    So I suppose it is reasonable to place a lot of the blame on the decline of WINA’s local news programming squarely at the feet of Clear Channel.

    But in all honesty, in this town if you really are interested in decent music, I suggest tuning to WTJU (91.1), WNRN (91.9), or one of the NPR stations. They won’t let you down!

  • You should hear the real hatefull outpour from liberal groups. They hate corporations, they see Israel and Sharon as Hitler.


    Sharon IS a war criminal.

    “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”

    –Benito Mussolini.

  • “Yep, the big fat idiot was paying many of WINA’s bills.”

    He’s not fat anymore. As for idiot, well, I guess that depends on your point of view. :)

  • The source of community rights is the same source as that for most of the rights individuals (and corporations) have accumulated over the course of 200+ years in the US: legal precedent.*

    The courts (Supreme and lower) have always recognized the rights of the community (a.k.a. “the public interest”) and have always tried to balance these rights against those of individuals and corporations.

    The fact that our legal system allows the government to pass minimum-wage laws, abolish child labor, prevent a corporation from building a mammoth pig farm right next to an elementary school, use its power of eminent domain to take land for public use (i.e., schools, hospitals, highways, etc.) demonstrates that the legal system recognizes the rights of the community, or the public interest. (Maybe what’s confusing about this is that it’s always the government acting on behalf of the community–people no longer equate government action with “public interest.” Be that as it may, what other societal entity CAN stand up to a corporation on behalf of individuals who don’t want a pig farm built next to the neighborhood playground?)

    These aren’t “special rights” that some liberal bogeyman is screaming for; these are rights that the Constitution allows for, through, for example, the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which allows government to take private property for public use IF gov’t compensates the individual fairly. Upon that statement alone an entire edifice of public interest law has been built. These are rights that the Supreme Court has supported, although that support has ebbed and risen depending on who’s sitting on the Court.

    You ask, “Would would I use to look up these ‘rights of the community’?” Well, it’s not that tough to go on the Internet to Google or Yahoo, type in “community rights” or “public interest,” throw “law” into the Boolean mix, and start educating yourself.

    *Newsflash: a strict and literal reading of the Bill of Rights is NOT the only source of rights in this nation. For example, the right to privacy, upon which Roe v. Wade rests, is not “written into law” in the way you seem to assume rights must be–it’s not literally spelled out anywhere in the C or the BOR. Instead, in U.S. constitutional law the right of privacy has been inferred from the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; the First and Fifth include privacy protections in that they focus not on what the government may do but rather on the individual’s freedom to be autonomous. Out of that has come the right to privacy, which I think you along with most other Americans would insist DOES exist even though there’s no single amendment to the Constitution that spells it out in big block letters for all to (mis)read.

  • Do that when you make the +1 Ridiculous category, too.

  • Clear Channel, which owns the network that distributes Rush, pulled him a few months back and put him on their WCHV.

    WCHV is a former Eure Communications property (I used to work there.) Ironically, they were forced to sell it out of anti-competitive concerns…and Clear Channel bought it.

  • Benito Mussolini!

    JEEZ, where is the quote from Hitler,”Nazism, just a bunch of good guys in brown shirts”.

    We should let all criminals define their own crimes.

    “Cannibalism – good for the animals and reduces cemetery overcrowding” Jeffery Dalmer and Alferd Packer

    “making vice-presidents useful again”

    Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth

    “instant urban renewal without messy government red tape” Osama Bin Laden 9/11

    “Helping women up the coporate ladder and making the world a happier place”

    Mayflower Madam and Heidi Fleiss

    “Making the world safe for Japanese everywhere”

    Admiral Tojo after the rape of Nanking

  • Ok Cecil – take a breath!

    I asked for the source of the rights you were referring to. The question was one of laws vs “special” rights.

    You said”considerations of the rights of the community (defined as “those people who are NOT on the corporation’s board or senior executive team.”) ”

    These does not say, to me, the laws on the books but something different. The rest of your condescending essay assumes that no one understands that the law is changing, almost living thing.

    Here is the point you zoomed right past- if it’s legal to pursue money and you don’t violate the law then there is no problem with a corporation doing that. Corporations are under no legal obligation to care about the community, other then to follow the law. It is in a coporation’s interest to have the support of the community but legally does not have to do so. If that coporation violates the law it should be punished. If new laws are needed to re-balance public/private OK.

    Your post dealt,IMHO, will the MORAL obligation you “feel” a coporation owes the community. The next post talks about the formation of our legal system. And your NEWSFLASH is at best a point that no one really disagrees with and yet adds little to the question being asked. It assumes the prior poster is ignorant of our freedoms.

    If you want to tell me why a corporation “must” be more accomodating then the law requires fine, make that point. If you want to argue that that a corporation must follow the law then we have nothing to disagree about.

  • Actually, I was referring to Al Franken’s hilarious book title, not Rush’s current physique (or even his intellect, though that’s certainly a ripe area for discussion!).

  • Dude, could you please tell me of whatever it is you are smoking. It must be quite a rush!

    “hamster-style” Is that where the wheels go round and round but you don’t get ANYWHERE or the fact that both your cheeks are stuffed with nuts?

  • Thanks, but I’m not winded.

    The first anonymous asked for the source of the community rights to which I referred, and I answered the question. I’m not sure why you think I didn’t answer it–maybe it’s because you’re now, retroactively, changing the question.

    The question now seems to be not “what is the source of community rights” but “If you want to tell me why a corporation ‘must’ be more accomodating then the law requires fine, make that point.” This is a totally different argument–or maybe it’s just that the first posting phrased the question really badly.

  • “Are you talking about those written into law or special rights you “feel” exist”

    From the first post this was the question that was asked as well. That makes the last post asking the question again.

    OK ,in your opinion, the question is poorly worded. Hopefully this is better.

    In your first post Cecil you seemed to be saying that corporations must accommodate the community more then even the law demands? Is this a fair reading of your post?

  • The truly scary thought is Rev. Edwards clearly has the ear of the current City Council and has a tremendous amount of influence in local decisions.

  • I knew about the book title. I just don’t assume that most people know he’s trimmed down in recent years, since he’s rarely seen except on the covers of his books.

    Hmm, I wonder how much more off-topic I can take this thread? :)

  • Hey Waldo, how about some actual “Cville news” instead of your moronic muddlings? This isn’t news, it happened a while ago, as no doubt you’ve found out by now. If you keep “accidentally” hearing the terrible voice of Neal Boortz, maybe you should listen to another station. I myself don’t listen to WINA anymore because 1260, thanks to ClearChannel, got all the good programming.

    What you really seem upset about is Boortz’ rightism and sense of humor. Talk radio is dominated by the right because that’s mostly who listens to it. Maybe if you “just want the weather” you can listen to NPR (why are you listening to WINA anyway?) or you can get it off the Interweb or off your digital satellite phone or whatever you cybernetic wunderkinds do these days.

    If you want to whine about it, fine, no one will pay attention to you, though. WINA is in a desperate enough position as it is thanks to ClearChannel. Again, you are in the minority in this audience.

  • Waldo didn’t write this, I did. I submitted to him. I’m the one who accidentally heard the alleged humor of Neal Boortz. (Speaking of alleged, please cite some humor for the rest of us who have responded to this discussion.)

    I turned on the radio b/c I am not a “cybernectic” (is this a word? really?) and I was driving around town and wanted to know if it was going to three degrees tomorrow or 104 degrees since the weather is so weird. (Insert the Bob Dylan quote here.)

    What’s funny is that everyone automatically assumes that radio must be “right” or “left.” But you’re still disregarding my main annoyance, sadness, or whatever with this programming: it is a hateful pile of anger from an angry belligerant bellicose man who has the viewpoint, “My way or the highway.” And, while he’s at it, let’s insult everyone in every possible insulting, derogatory and demeaning way.

    BTW, if you don’t like this website, feel free to start your own.

    So show us some of the humor, send something to Waldo that you feel is illuminating and see if it flies, etc.

    LG

  • PS I am posting this anonymously because I hadn’t received my registration so that comment would be a straw man.

    LG

  • Thank you for pointing out that Ranting Anonymous doesn’t read very carefully–it wasn’t Waldo’s submission.

    How hard is this, folks?

  • Yes, that’s a fair reading of my position on the relationship between individuals, corporations, and communities. I don’t think the law goes far enough in articulating and enforcing community rights. I think that in the US, the scales have been tipped massively in favor of capitalist enterprise at the expense of community rights, practically since the founding of the nation but particularly since the late 1800s.

    I don’t know how to say this without sounding inflammatory, so I’ll just say it and hope that you don’t take it that way: you seem to be deriving your very limited definition of community rights from existing laws. In other words, you’re looking at the laws on the books and saying “those must be the only rights the community has, because those are the only laws on the books.”

    That seems backwards to me–as I understand it, we don’t derive rights from laws, but the other way around. We have general principles (which are kind of big, abstract, and, yes, moral), and from those principles we create laws. That’s kind of what Locke was all about, right? The idea that people have certain inalienable rights that are separate from whatever laws a particular government passes?

    Your thinking on community rights seems to be reasoning backward because, to repeat myself, you seem to be looking at the laws and deriving the general principle of community rights based on the laws. “Here are the laws, therefore that’s as far as community rights goes.”

    But I’m saying that there is a larger general principle of community rights that is separate from any individual laws currently on the books for protecting the public interest. (Just as is the case for individual rights.)

    You may ask, where does this larger general principle come from, for Cecil? Geez, I don’t know–same place Locke pulled his inalienable human rights from? We’ve naturalized those rights–we think, “of COURSE we have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness”–but I doubt many people can explain exactly where those rights come from (since they don’t–can’t, according to Locke–come from governments). So I don’t feel too bad that I can’t pinpoint exactly where my notion of community rights comes from. (But I’ll work on it.)

  • hmm, how about the fact that Rush is losing/has lost his hearing? or was that an April Fool’s joke?

  • A fair and well reasoned response- though I don’t agree with the assesment. The individual vs the community is the part of the equation that doesn’t seem balanced. It is from my fear of the tyranny of the majority from which most of my concern still springs.

    Keep working on the reason why you think it’s important. I look forward to seeing what you will come with.

  • Indeed I am working on it–i got out all my old political philosophy textbooks to help me out…

    question: if you fear the tyranny of the majority, why don’t you fear corporations? they seem to me to be far more powerful and liable to trample everything in their path than a community (or even a government).

  • I actually think that the massive increase in stock ownership by groups like Calpers and other shareholders will help increase balance to corporations in the future. I think that corporations absolute power has been reduced since the days of Standard Oil and Big Steel.

    Good corporate behavior has become good business. If a corporation turns it backs on consumers then they die quickly. The problem of pollution is much improved from the 40 -70’s. With continued pressure it will keep getting better. Proven science, enviromental groups, and the government eliminated DTT, lead in paint, and other ills.

    My concern is that if you begin to increase the power of the community you could put individuals rights in question.

    My real concern is privacy vs the government. I worried that this converstion is not between me, you and the readers of cvillenews but some government computer as well.

    Corporation aren’t perfect nor the source of all problems. But without them it’s very doubtful you and I could talk to each other in this medium with these lower cost goods on a free site with a cheap fast connection without some corporations help.

  • My real concern is privacy vs the government. I worried that this converstion is not between me, you and the readers of cvillenews but some government computer as well.

    Ain’t no government computers on my end — but that doesn’t mean that Adelphia, Ntelos/CStone, etc. haven’t had Carnivore machines installed in their offices.

  • Hey Waldo, how about some actual “Cville news” instead of your moronic muddlings? This isn’t news, it happened a while ago, as no doubt you’ve found out by now.

    1. This is quite clearly labeled as a submission, and not by me. Duh.

    2. The mere fact that something happened awhile ago should in no way indicate that it’s not worthy of discussion. Or perhaps you’ve never taken a history class? Meta-discussion regarding local media is always welcome on cvillenews.com.

    The original poster’s question was essentially this: what’s the deal with WINA’s news recently, and what’s the source of the rise of conservative talk shows on WINA?

    I believe in the radical notion that a press release is not required to make something worthy of discussion or even (horrors!) to make it “news.” If you want only want news that’s a result of a staged media event, I suggest you watch NBC 29.

    Put a little thought into your postings before you unleash the flamethrower, would you?

  • Thanks, Big Al for setting me straight about clear channel radio. Also I’ll check out those stations.

    MJ

  • So, Anonymous, just how long have you been working for ClearChannel? Hate to say it, but from the timbre and content of your post it is you, I believe, who is in the minority in this audience.

    Waldo’s right – you might want to be sure your brain is engaged before putting your flamethrower into gear. Just a thought.

  • It is interesting, isn’t it, that when the big local radio turnover all occured, Eure/Charlottesville Broadcasting was forced to divest itself of WCHV and WKAV, while Clear Channel was allowed to purchase both, in addition to the former Oldies station, the Country station, and (they had hoped) the Mix. According to the FCC, what they were looking at was ad revenues, and at the time 3WV and WINA had a pretty good stranglehold on that. Since the turnover that has shifted dramatically. Apparently 3WV still owns their market, but WINA is losing ground in a hurry – purely because Clear Channel pulled their programming. Sure doesn’t seem like good old fashioned honest and fair business competition, does it?

    If Clear Channel isn’t predatory, neither is M$.

  • I’m still struggling to find a way to think of Edwards’s comments as something other than outrageously offensive.

    I mean: is he really saying that ALL white folks are racists?

    And is he really saying that whatever crimes black persons commit against victims who belong to other ethnic/racial communities should be forgiven due to the assailaints’ community’s history of oppression?

    And is he saying that the media coverage of the recent CHS-UVa attacks was racist in nature?

    And who belongs to this conspiracy of racist power in Charlottesville to which he alludes?

    Or have I completely misunderstood his words?

    Again, I’m dumfounded, concerned . . . and — the more I think about it — I’m downright offended by his words.

  • That was actually true. He gradually lost all his hearing over the course of 6 months or so. A month or two ago, he received a cochlear implant which he claims has been wildly successful, in that he can carry on conversations and even listen to certain types of music. Most noticeable is that he’s not using a teleprompter when takes callers, which was very apparent back when he was deaf — there was always a few second delay between the end of the caller’s question and his response.

    More than you ever wanted to know….

  • Edwards’ comments are pretty outrageous–I doubt you’ll get much argument about that. I was particularly disturbed and depressed by his suggestion that a white reporter would be incapable of covering an issue involving nonwhites in an objective manner. Maybe it’s the Enlightenment speaking through me, but I still believe that people can achieve a measure of objectivity–that how you report is not wholly determined by who you are (partly determined, yes–wholly determined, no).

    There’s a big part of me, however, that wants to say “so he made really stupid comments–what of it?” These comments are no more offensive and ignorant than comments made by other folks (white, black, purple) every hour in America. He’s not an elected official. It’s true that he enjoys prominence among the African-American community here–that’s reason for concern. But beyond that, what’s the point of deploring his obviously ill-thought-out opinions? I kind of feel like it’s shooting fish in a barrel.

  • He use to be the Mayor. I expected more from a man of the cloth. That’s two reason for starters.

  • those are two good reasons why he should know better.

    but i just wonder what we’re supposed to do with the realization that he made these outrageous comments. i’m worried that folks will use this to confirm their cynicism about racial politics in c’ville. i don’t see anything productive coming out of this thread yet. i could be wrong.

  • You don’t think that confirming cynicism is productive? I think it might keep us on our toes.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this has affected my cynicism about “racial politics in c’ville”. However, it has very thoroughly confirmed my cynicism regarding racism among our so-called “leaders”, both white and black. In this case, it happens to be a black former-mayor and reverend that has shown the world that he is, in fact, a racist.

    That doesn’t make me believe that all black former-mayors and pastors will also be racist… so I don’t think the damage to my “cynicism” is too outrageous. I just hope that this man is a role model for as few of our children as possible.

    His kind of thinking really shouldn’t be propogated.

  • Cecil writes: [Edwards is] not an elected official. It’s true that he enjoys prominence among the African-American community here–that’s reason for concern. But beyond that, what’s the point of deploring his obviously ill-thought-out opinions?

    Anonymous writes: The truly scary thought is Rev. Edwards clearly has the ear of the current City Council and has a tremendous amount of influence in local decisions..

    Lafe writes: His kind of thinking really shouldn’t be propagated.

    For the moment, I’m just thinking about the political aspects of Edwards’s comments.

    In the summer of 1992, candidate Bill Clinton denounced the racist/inflammatory remarks made by “Sister Souljah” in order to show moderate voters that his views on racial views were more like their own, and less like those of some black leaders who had been important to his winning of the Democratic nomination.

    I’d like to see a similar sign from Caravati and Searls that they know that May 7th isn’t the Democratic Party’s nominating convention.

    (Or does the issue not resonate with an attractive voting group, as Schilling thought?)

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog