[BC] Another public station bites the dust

[Alan Kline]

------ At 11:53 PM 6/26/2006 -0400, The Most Honourable Bernie Courtney wrote: -------
>
>thats debatable.  Seems to more then a few casual observers they are holding
>onto it more for reasons of prestige for the NY Times company then much
>else.  They have been talks of studio moves/upgrades for WQXR that seem to
>be deemed not in the budget every time, so one must wonder how much they
>really want to throw at the station.

Corporations these days seldom hold onto an asset like a major-market
radio station for mere "prestige"--even if the company is the NY Times.
If the revenue isn't there, it could be that the company uses any 
losses to offset profits elsewhere in the company, for tax purposes.
What does it matter? The Commission doesn't care if stations are 
profitable or not.

Delaying studio upgrades really doesn't say much of anything about the
station's profitability or lack thereof.  We had to endure three extra
years of our old studio control room, constantly finding new ways to
patch the old Grass Valley switcher, before corporate finally unleashed
the money for the rebuild.  It wasn't anything to do with ratings--
we dominate the market.  And it certainly wasn't anything to do with
profitability.  It was simply a corporate decision to which I was not
privy.

The point is, that WQXR is the property of the Times, and it's the owner's
prerogative to do what they choose, within the law, with their property.
If they feel that classical serves a public interest and their own interest
as well, that's their decision. The FCC cannot and will not become involved
in that decision.

ak


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.4/375 - Release Date: 6/25/2006