Stoddard, Kamal wrote:
If you would defend your right to a free and open media marketplace as
strong as you defend against a perceived slight against Matt's efforts then
this would never be a problem.
Fxck yerself. I went to 5 community action meetings with 2 including members
of the fcc, where there was strong opposition to say the least. I'm talking
--> Well hoo-fxcking-ray for you! Do you want a prize? I gave money to
community radio for years, including WDET in Detroit. But I must admit I only
did it for the free t-shirts in order to look cool. Do I get a prize too while
we're giving them out?
Granted it's a small country, probably the same size as the Chicago market
that Matt services, but it's the idea.
You're wrong again. When you're talking radio and exposure (which you are by
the use of the word niche market) it's not the idea, it's the coverage area
and the number of listeners.
--> Belgium has a population of about 9 million according to the CIA. I suspect
that Belgium national radio has about the same potential market size as
community radio in Chicago. So market reach is about equal. Chicago community
radio relies on the community for funding. Belgium national radio relies on
involuntary theft from the pockets of all Belgians, who are probably better off
for it. This leads to being able to PLACE national advertisements for Belgian
national radio, which leads to, I will ASSUME, a larger actual market, and hence
reaching more people.
How the hell you can compare taxpayer-funded national radio with
community-funded community radio on a quantitative basis is beyond me. I can
see comparing it on a qualitative basis; I bet communnity radio the world over
is more LOVED than national radio.
Not true. What you said was, "...What's even more remarkable is that this,
for so many reasons, would *never* happen on American radio these days."
(which sounds to me like marginalizing community radio) I think everyone that
has replied were simply addressing this statement and giving counterexamples.
And it's true. Garnier and Mills would *never* play on US radio which has a
similar market size of Belgian national radio, and I won't even get started on
those spoiled Brits with their BBC and how large *their* market is compared to
any community radio in America.
I think the problem here is my phrase "American radio" and since many of you
here have, or help with, great shows, playing great music on community radio you
take offense at this, but come on, you can't be so obtuse. Let me show you the
absurdity of what you're saying:
Tosh: Mills and Garnier would never play a gig in Zimbabwe, the people are too
poor.
You: Oh no they are not poor, look and Robert Mugabe, he has planes and cars and
servants, the people of Zimbabwe are very well-off.
Well yes, Mills and Garnier could go and play for Mugabe and friends, but don't
be so nit-picky, honestly, it demeans your intellect.
I don't have to wait till mills and garnier decide to get "eclectic" to hear
sets like that. And that's what's really important. So instead of slagging
--> I NEVER said it was a great set, I NEVER said anything about the set except
that it happened and that I doubted it would EVER happen in the USA. The fact
that you jumped on their set and criticized it speaks volumes.
Damn, this was NEVER slight against Matt's efforts and everyone involved in
community radio. It was a pretty obvious (to me at least) slight against the
state of American radio these days, controlled as it is by two companies, but
mostly just one. Perfectly defining "American radio" as that controlled by
these companies would make my posting too academic, so I rely on people to
realize that when I say "American radio sucks" I rely on people to know that
Matt MacQueen is not included.
Tosh
