Get ready for radio shock

December 27, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
If you've memorized the local radio dial, you can forget a lot of it beginning next month.

As IBJ reporter Anthony Schoettle wrote in this weekend's paper, several stations are starting new formats. We'll hear plenty of promos as they try to drum the changes into our heads.

The jockeying is so intense that Cumulus Media won't tip its hand about plans for its WWFT-FM 93.9. Cumulus ditched a news-talk format last month and has been running Christmas music until the changeover starts.

Will all these changes persuade you to spend more time listening to local radio? Or are you switching to satellite or listening to something else?

Read the story.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I switched to satellite radio over a year ago. I could no longer tolerate the deluge of commercials or the juvenile morning chatter that takes place on terrestrial radio.
  • Local FM radio is crap. So is AM for that matter.
    NPR is the only reason I turn my iPod off.
    Old technology, old news, bad music.
  • I've had Sirius Satellite radio for a year now and in all that time have not once missed local radio. I don't miss the Tom Shane commercials or the repetitive playing of The Spin Doctors or Natalie Merchant that WTTS kept trying to shove in my ears. Nor do I miss the blathering on and on from the morning talk shows. I get music in the morning with more than enough options if I don't like what one station is playing. I say good luck to local radio. I think it's only a matter of time though before they completely cease to be relevant.
  • Wow. True dat - true dat. tom Shane, please eat yourself. And yes, the music sucks. locval radio is irrelevant anymore, especially for any sort of music. About all you got left is local traffic alerts. Sad indeed, but they did it to themselves.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT