Conference turris::womannotes-v2

What DJs and talk show hosts say on the radio and what they mean don't need to
have very much in common.

In this case, my guess is the underlying meaning was "Gee, we haven't been in
the Herald for a few weeks. Let's fix that."

When it comes to ratings, "fair" isn't even a concept.

    
    That's nothing...
    
    Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh do his Peace Update?
    
    To the tune of Marty Robbins singing "Una Paloma Blanca", he
    blows up Berkeley, Cambridge, the Kennedy School (guess he
    wants to be doubly sure of a hit), NOW HQ, Demo HQ, the UN,
    Mitch Snyder's HQ, etc., etc...
    
    

    
    WAAF was recently taken over by new management (you could tell when the
    music went from rock and roll to teen-age pop remakes (IMHO) - also
    when the catch-phrase went from "non-stop rock" to "untamed radio" or
    something).
    
    This new management does the following:
    
    posts billboards with a leather-clad woman with cleavage crawling at
    the viewer - and then prints up explanations of the ORIGINAL billboard
    which had even MORE cleavage but was censored by the billboard folks.
    
    uses phrases such as "lock us in and lock them out" (like on your radio
    setting buttons) which quickly became other things like "lock us in and
    rip your clothes off" or something like that
    
    I mean, it's not your thoughtful station (not that it was TOO
    thoughtful before, when they had a sing-along every friday morning
    which featured a call-in listener female snorting like a pig - and
    various other barnyard folks joined in - but they were asking to do it,
    and there weren't really any racial/cultural slurs involved (except
    maybe to farmers....)
    
    I think the new WAAF thrives on annoying people, on pissing them off
    sometimes.  I think they think "untamed radio" means "we can do or say
    anything we go*damn please, so long as we appeal to the greater mass of
    uninformed listeners out there who we're very busy courting because
    they all seem, for some unknown reason, to be switching to WZLX and
    WBCN" ;).....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    think about it...
    
    how many people's minds are being shaped by shows like this..
    
    bonnie

    
    How many are being shaped by the liberal mindset media/NPR cabal..?

    
    Hmmmm.  Does that make one, bonnie?
    
    		{ ??? NPR cabal ??? . . . what an odd suggestion. }

    This is my first input into the Womannotes file, buy you have hit a
    topic very dear to my heart.  The blood pressure has gone up at least
    15 points and I only hope I can be coherent.
    
    When I first saw the poster of "Untamed Radio", I was so upset by it
    that I nearly drove the car off the road.  The idea that women need to
    be tamed, obvious by the leather straps on the woman's neck, wrists and
    ankles, made me furious.  
    
    What bothers me the most is that this radio station is focused toward
    the 18 to 25/30 year old males.  Just what are they saying to these
    young males?
    
    Several weeks ago, I went to visit a friend who lives in Medway.  As I
    was driving from my home which is west of Worcester, the radio stations
    kept fading out.  I was only able to receive one station at a certain
    point in my trip.  When they announcement came on that it was WAAF, I
    decided to ride without a radio rather than listen to THAT.
    
    I guess this should be prefaced with the statement that I am not
    usually that angered, although lately I am becoming more aware and much
    more angry about these things.  I have even thought about starting a
    campaign to pull that type of advertising, but I don't want to boost
    their ratings in any way and from the previous notes, I gather that may
    happen.
    
    Thanks for letting me get this anger out.  It has been boiling for a
    long time.
    
    Bernice
    

    		I'm with you Bernice! I'm very concerned with the messages
    this station offers to my children. I wasn't really surprised at what
    Allison experienced with the D.J.'s...it seemed consistent with the
    whole tone they've been generating lately.
    
    		WAAF is out now with my family. Allison has influenced her
    boss, a president of a New England ski resort to consider removing
    his ads. this hurts em where it counts...we really didn't want them
    to get any publicity for this; that they thrive on anyway.
    
    		By the way for those interested the Waaf program directors
    name is Ron Valari and his phone number is (508) 752-5611. I've found
    with these people that their sponsors are their weak spot...very little
    else motivates them.
    
    
    		Don

 Frankly, I listen to the radio for two reasons: music and news. I get my 
political commentary etc in large enough doses on the net.

 While I dislike the welfare system, I also dislike tasteless people. WAAF
is no longer a useful station for that reason.

 The Doctah

    
    is this note attacking the radio station or about attacking welfare
    recip. if the later about a month ago i read an article in the paper
    about this topic. one woman said that she moved up here from
    another state because we had better benifits.
    
    i think this is the type of people they were refering to.

    	My wife called in to find out exactly who they were attacking. What
    she found (see note 1090) was an incredible insensitivity to anyone on
    welfare...especially women with children.
    
    	Our bias here is that welfare mothers don't have the public
    relations resources that other groups might have. We futher feel
    that people concerned with government wasting money are often mis-
    directed to people on assistance programs rather than people who
    are involved in one government agency or another where there is
    considerable monies wasted or even stolen. People in agencies like HUD
    or the Pentagon procurement offices have a good deal of political
    clout and their sins are often overlooked for long periods of time.
    
    	We do believe that there are people on welfare that are not using
    the system properly. We don't believe this means that all people on
    the program are doing this. the mind set that expands on the actions
    of the few to encompass the many is usually the platform of bigotry.
    We are concerned to see the airwaves used this way while realizing that
    there is little we can do about it.
    
    	Thanks for the comments.
    
    	Don

    I wonder if their licence could be attacked?

WAAF used to have somewhat decent morning announcers (Drew and Zip?) a while ago
but lately, for the maybe 30 seconds I have listed, it's abyssmal.
(Kick A$$ radio! pphhhhttt.......)
The music tends to be MTV, glam, hard rock stuff, one band cloned from another.
I ended up going to one of the Axis shows sponsored by AAF, there was an 
ENORMOUS beer promotion (can't remember the name of the beer tho...=) ), lots
of women all made up with big hair, short leather skirts, and towering heels.
A complete turn-off for me, just can't stand that scene.  I probably dislike
WAAF more than any other station I've heard in New England.  They're selling
an image, one of rebellion, one where the women are built and easy, hard 
rockin' good times with plenty of beer, etc.  A very shallow image, I wonder if
they would have been able to make a successful change to this format if MTV
didn't exist.  I have an idea of the audience they're aiming for, it's 
really similar to a lifestyle that I saw alot when I lived in small town NH, but
it's pretty stereotyped, and probably belongs in the "Sexist/Stereotype thoughts
I have" note.

[As an aside, when the thrash band I wanted to see came on, all the AAF hard
rock people stayed near the back while the dozen or so thrashers had fun up
near the stage.  Of course we just had on our generic old pants, random cotton
T-shirt, non-hairsprayed do's, Chuck Taylors, a complete contrast to the others.  
We all left after that band. I don;t think the others understood us any better 
than we understood them, yet we were all at the same show and to someone who
doesn't listen to alot of loud music, we may have well been listening to the 
same music.  I would disagree....=)]

As one pretty heavily involved in the world of college radio, I've given up on
commercial radio.  The music is more diversified under 92, no commercials,
noone being too obnoxious, etc.  No preprogrammed format 24 hours/day,

Lisa

Oh BTW, FWIW,

WAAF didn't need to change their format, they had very good ratings beforehand.
I guess they thought the ratings would be even better.  What an insult to the
general population.

Yeah...two notes in a row.  This subject is one that bothers me.  But in the
end, the final verdict is that noone is forcing you to listen to WAAF so you
can't really complain.  You can tell the sponsors that you won't buy their
products, maybe that will get them to change.  You can write to the station, if
they get enough letters maybe they'll change.

Remember though, that trying to stifle the objectionable announcer, (IE writing
to the FCC about him) will only hurt all radio in general.  The easier it is
to have the FCC step in and fine a station, or throw someone off the air, the
harder it will be for program directors to plan new and innovative music and talk
shows.  Everyone will be afraid of offending ANYONE and we'll just end up with 
mush.  This will really affect smaller college/local stations, all they would
have to do is offend ONE person, and get ONE fine, to be off the air for good.

My $.02.

Lisa

 As far as symbolically blowing up welfare recipients on the radio, it doesn't
really bother me. But I'd prefer that they blew up Savings and Loan scammers;
they cost us a hell of alot more money.

 The  Doctah

    in re .5
    
    it is my feeling that if NPR is really shaping minds the
    world will be a better place for it.
    
    Bonnie

A radio station is required to operate "in the public interest, convenience,
and necessity."  If you believe that WAAF is not doing so, either by
"blowing up welfare recipients" or by posting advertisements that advocate
violence towards women, you may find that a polite letter to the FCC
stating your concerns and asking when their license is up for renewal
will be effective.  You may want to copy this letter to your congressman
and senators.

Also, if you believe that the company that posted the billboard (or
bought the space, or produced the ad) is advocating violence towards
women, you may find that the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
will be sympathetic to your concerns.

Martin.

    
    re .18
    
    Cleverly chosen stories with a common emphasis on the cabal's view
    of rightness still equates to propaganda in my mind.
    
    Rush Limbaugh, nauseating as he can be, openly declares his editorial
    view of the world and proudly asserts his conservative convictions
    (numerous times I might add..)
    
    NPR, on the other hand, is more subtle and uses artful choices of stories
    and of spokespersons. Using articulate young liberal female spokeswomen 
    against a conservative male, fat and balding, in a Brooks Brothers 
    brown suit and speaking bureaucratese is a common ruse.
    
    They won't label themselves as others who make editorials on the air
    are required to. They free themselves to grind axes whilst bathing in
    praise for being 'unbiased'. Sure, I even agree with many of their 
    views, but I insist on honesty when they present opinion. 
    
    My local station, KQED, has *only* perspectives ( regular editorial  
    opinion by local luminary) by persons whose needles are banging
    against the left pin, Is the public only leftist? By what right
    do they call themselve public, when they represent only one political
    viewpoint?
    
    
    
    I refuse to acknowledge the primacy of the goal over the type of 
    process used to achieve it. 
     

 re: .20 Bob Holt

 I agree 100%. Well said.

 The Doctah

|   NPR, on the other hand, is more subtle and uses artful choices of stories
|   and of spokespersons. Using articulate young liberal female spokeswomen 
|   against a conservative male, fat and balding, in a Brooks Brothers 
|   brown suit and speaking bureaucratese is a common ruse.
    
    Wow!  What kind of RADIO do you have, anyhow?
    
    								-mr. bill

 It's the new Sony. Jeez- Bill, keep up with the modern technology. :-)

 The Doctah

    
    	RE: .22  -mr. bill
    
    	> Wow!  What kind of RADIO do you have, anyhow?
    
    	That was *my* first thought, too!  (I didn't realize it was possible
    	to detect fat, balding, and Brooks Brothers brown suits over the
    	radio, either!)  ;^)
    

    
    Well, back to the main topic .......
    
    I think Greg Hill is a pig! He reminds me of a milder
    Andrew Dice Clay.  And I bet a lot of college guys
    just love it. I now turn right past them on the dial. 
    
    PS What the heck is a NPR cabal? No offense, but .20
    you kind of lost me. 
    
    
    

	After reading through these responses (thanks for them) I find myself
with some new considerations and questions.

	The considerations...

	. WAAF targets and influences adolescents as well as adults
	. The value system promoted seems socially irresponsible at least sexist
	. value messages relating to Women are commonplace
	. If sucessful with this format other stations may copy it
	. This is probably reflective of a larger societal situation

	The questions....

	. Is it enough to just turn the station ? What if the phenomena grows ?
	. Does constitutional protection leave concerned citizens with little
	  recourse in these scenarios?
	. Is it advisable or ethical to bring pressure to bear via expressions
	  of displeasure to media management or sponsors?
	. Do we owe the children listening anything ?
	. How much apathy would it take to spread this media orientated sexism?
	
	I admit freely to asking loaded questions; they are a reflection of a
	bias I mentioned earlier (#11).


		Don

    
    re:.18
    i agree with bonnie.
    (surprise)
    

    Well folks.  I was going to let this go, but I'm starting to chew a
    hole in my tongue.
    
    re .18
    
    >in re .5
    >
    >it is my feeling that if NPR is really shaping minds the
    >world will be a better place for it.
    >
    >Bonnie
    
    SET FLAME/MELTDOWN
    
    So shaping minds is ok so long as they're being shaped to *your*
    viewpoint?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    
    SET FLAME/SIMMER
    
    have a nice day.
    fred();

    
    	RE: .28  Fred
    
    	Geesh, no need to get hysterical about it!
    
    	Perhaps Bonnie feels that the views offered by NPR would, indeed,
    	help make the world a better place.
    
    	If you disagree, then disagree.  Hysterics aren't needed.
    

    
    
            Take Route 85 from Route 9 towards Marlboro and Route 20
    
            Hard to miss it....

    Poor FM reception?  Try AM.  (A rapidly failing segment of the
    broadcast industry.)  Lots of interesting talk radio around.  Thanks to
    the sunspot cycle some great DX listening is available.
    
    Want an even better alternative?  Kenwood and Icom both have nice
    replacement radios covering international broadcast bands.  Listen to
    the BBC or Radio Moscow while you commute.  The news that never makes
    it to the popular US media is amazing!  It makes you realize that
    tunnelvision isn't limited to males, 18-25, listening to blather.
    
    Yeah, I know, *some* people prefer music.  phhht. :{)

    re:WAAF Billboard,
    
    The first time I saw the "Untamed Radio" billboard I was really taken
    back. I was going to post a note about it but forgot. Typical of me.
    It is really offensive. Just think would WAAF people portray a black
    person or a child in bondage like that? Think again. Why not? Because
    everyone would certainly see the demeaning offensive nature of such
    advertising. Now that I know I'm not alone I think I'll call the station 
    or write to them.
    
    Kate  
    

    re. 34--and a few others.
    
    I thought that we'd hashed all this *&^% about 'shaping minds'
    and 'silencing' those who didn't agree with our openion back
    in the 1770's and 1970's.  Once every 200 years or so is enough
    for me.
    
    Btw--I have about a 1 hr drive into and home from work.  I too
    often listen to NPR.  Mostly becaues I get news about global
    events and places that the other news media do not provide.
    However, there also times when some of their *news* gets so
    blatantly biased that I have to exercise the right-nob option
    and go listen to the oldies for a while.
    
    fred();

    fred,
    
    I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say..
    
    if it is that we should no longer care about the disadvantaged
    then I don't agree with you..
    
    once every 200 years isn't often enough for those who are suffering
    now.
    
    Bonnie

    re: attacking welfare receipients....
    
    I'm one of those folks who think welfare is not for the good of
    the recipient, but for the good of the welfare processor. When people
    go off welfare his/her job is in jeprody. I'm a firm believer in
    the Pete DuPont "workfare". 
    
    A few years ago a program was developed to educate teenage mothers
    and mothers to be in the fine art of grocery shopping with their
    welfare checks. (intended purpose of checks) 100 women were told
    to pick up their checks at an unnamed supermarket. When the supermarket
    opened, about 25 women were waiting. Most took their checks and
    walked out. Some stayed. Stragglers showed up and some stayed for
    the training. Of the 100 women something like 60 showed up to get
    their checks in person and 18 or so stayed. (article was trying
    to be positive and was vague on the exact numbers, but kept mixing
    totals with percentages) Around 15 never showed (reasons not given
    but were explained as no transportation, no babysitters, illness,
    etc). The kicker is that 25 people who were not entitled to the
    checks showed up to pick them up for the recipients. Men who claimed
    to be the sons of teenage mothers, brothers, mothers, fathers, cousins,
    neighbors. The program fell apart.
    
    Welfare is supposed to be an interim survival program in between
    employment. It's also supposed to be a program that insures that
    children get food and clothing. The problem with it today is that
    recipients spawn other recipients within the family. Why work? All
    of the needs for adults and children are met. Everything from Nikes
    to braces. I've witnessed women taking 4-5 kids into Thom McCann and
    purchasing shoes. Then they go out of the store and bring the shoes
    back after the clerk gets busy with someone else. They return the
    shoes and get the money and trapse off with $200-300 of the taxpayers
    money in their pockets.
    
    The system is in shambles. Benefits are so good that people don't
    want to get off the system. Because the benefits in Mass. are
    excellent, the state attracts a huge welfare population. The problem
    is now reaching epidemic levels and the state hasn't got the money
    to keep upping the take.
    
    So....is it fair to attack welfare recipients on the radio? Sure.
    The announcers have a right to voice their opinions just as we do.
    They have a right to question the systems they pay for. They also
    must give equal time to dissenting points of view from responsible
    parties.
    
    re: WAAF etc.
    
    I no longer listen to FM radio unless its WSSH or WSRS. I listen
    to Talk Radio. I may not agree with a lot that's being said, but
    I find that issues of the day are topics of discussion on WRKO and
    WHDH. Some of it is glitz and garbage, but its like the checkout
    counter at the grocery store. You find 'People', 'US', 'TIME',
    the 'Star', 'Enquirer' and 'Cosmo'. There are wide ranges and variety
    for evry taste. 
    
    By falling for the traps in advertising like the billboards for
    WAAF nad publicly debating the worth, we do exactly what WAAF wants.
    We tell people like Mike Z 8^) how to find them and he just may
    take a trip down 85 to see it. Subconciously, when scanning the
    FM dial, we'll "check" up on WAAF to see how awful they are and
    catch 8-10 commercials and up the stock of the station.....we are
    so gullible.
    
    Ken

re .32:

>>    Want an even better alternative?  Kenwood and Icom both have nice
>>    replacement radios covering international broadcast bands.  Listen to

For cars?  I have one at home... where (other than Hong Kong) can I get one
for my car?

M

    
    	This may be a possible rathole, but......
    
    	3 years ago, I collected unemployment for 36 weeks. Not *once*
    	did they ever verify that I was looking for a job, as they are 
    	supposed to. In fact, I was the only person in line with a stack
    	of rejection letters under their arm. And no others were asked to
    	prove they were seeking jobs. The best part was that I attended
    	college tuition free under a retraining program. I just paid for
    	my books and fees (*LOTS* of fees), with the understanding that I'd
    	still seek a job. I did get a job thru the school, which wasn't too
    	bad.
    
    	Now I'm sure you all know that taxmoney doesn't pay unemployment,
    	companies contribute, but it is still an expense of doing business.
    	Had there been no unlemployent, I'd have taken a job at McDonald's
    	after my severance pay ran out. 
    
    	Had I not been actively seeking a job, I could've had the longest
    	paid vacation in my life.
    
    	Oh, the DES also had a program for free cheese, but I didn't
    	qualify because I owned a house. had I not owned a house I may have
    	qualified for welfare aftermy unemployment ran out.
    
    

     	
    	 RE. last
    
    	Guy Novello
    

    re: welfare
    
    	I personally believe it's an individual case.....I haven't written
    much here but I had to after reading the cutups of welfare!   YOU do 
    not know the reason for some of these people being on welfare, I know 
    of one case a few years back, the father walked out leaving the mother
    with 2 kids, the mother worked, and welfare just helped, in a case like
    that there is NOTHING WRONG with welfare as long as the mother (in this
    case) was trying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  The mother
    was educated, she is an LPN, a few years back they paid nurses shi*!!!!!
    welfare and food stamps helped the family!!!!!!!!!!!!!  and I must add
    now the mother is off of any assistance and standing on her own two
    feet!!! 
    
    Yes some people do abuse welfare, but I don't believe you have a right
    to categorize EVERYONE that is on welfare.   Currently my grandmother
    she is 78, she is a seamstress for one store in town and still does 
    "outside" work.  Recently her health insurance went sky high, and 
    thru encouragement from the family she went to the welfare office,
    and is now elegible for the medical benefits and food stamps.  Welfare
    isn't only for money, it helps some of those who help
    themselves!!!!!!!!!  
    
    Sorry to seem steamed, but please remember it's an individual case.
    
    re: WAAF........If you don't like it don't listen there are many other
    stations out there!!!!!!!!
    
    Candy

    	Candy, what you said (41) needed to be said. I too know of several
    cases of women on welfare who had no other recourse; had children and
    didn't abuse the system! For every horror story of individual Welfare
    abuse there are probably thousands who legitimately need and comply.
    
    	I've no problem with turning the station (WAAF). I only raise the
    questions concerning teen-aged children who get their message who may
    not know enough to turn the station...do we owe them anything at all.
    Is there any area for concern here? Maybe not.
    
    			Don

    Someone recently gave some Welfare food to one of my roommates.
     I don't know where they got it.  I assume this is food that is
    given to people on welfare?  Anyway, it was a large can of pork.
    My roommate said it tasted terrible and gave it to my cats.  My
    cats refused to eat it.  For two days they ate around it, eating
    the 9 Lives cat food that I put on top of it.  Then I threw it out.
     So, I really don't envy people on welfare the free ride some seem
    to think they're getting.  Can you imagine canned pork that tastes
    so bad my cats preferred their 9 Lives??
    
    Lorna
    
    

    As I think I may have mentioned before, I grew up on welfare. 
    Virtually my whole childhood.  The money always ran out before the
    month did, which meant that we lived on day-old bread and water for the
    last few days.  Our clothes *always* came from the Goodwill unless the
    items weren't to be had, in which case my mum could get a chit to take
    to one of the really cut-price clothing places.  One pair of shoes, 2
    skirts, 2 blouses, one coat, socks, underwear, that's it, toto, wear it
    til outgrown or unmendable.  Two rooms in a third-floor tenement,
    cold-water sink, bathroom down the hall shared with 3 other families
    all in the same straits, rats scampering across your face at night so
    that I learnt to sleep with the blanket over my head, no phone in the
    building, walk everywhere we went no matter how far, always the threat
    of being put in an orphanage because the social worker thought my mum
    should be doing better.
    
    Trust me, it's a *awful* existance. 
    
    						=maggie

	The last several notes moved me. They also helped crystallize my
anger at the insensitivity shown by WAAF.

	It's so easy and human I suppose to be judgmental and smugly
categorize whole classes of people less fortunate then we. It's a
dangerous smugness though, particularly in these times. The winds of
economic change are sweeping through our region much as they did in
Texas and other areas of our nation. There will be more of us out there
unemployed with fewer opportunities to pursue.

	Of course this usually means a greater number of women with children
to raise by themselves. It's a pattern shown time and again in communities hit
by shifts in economic fortune; the devastation of the basic family unit. It
was so in the great steel cities, the great car cities, the oil cities and
probably it will be part of the story in New England also.

	What shall we do with people in need through circumstances beyond their
control? Blow them up! Can any of use feel great comfort with economic shifts
occurring with greater rapidity everywhere?

	I know I'm a bit off the subject here. I apologize. I was greatly moved
by the preceding notes...and still I felt the human dignity conveyed by them.

		Don

	

    The following information is taken from _The_Dictionary_of_
    _Misinformation_ by Tom Burnam, ISBN 0-690-00147-9, within the
    (alphabetical) entry "welfare cheats and chiselers."

    He references "three recent [as of 1975] studies", one by the
    Oregon Department of Human Resources, one by the University of
    Michigan and Pennsylvania State University, and one by the United
    States Census Bureau.

    Oregon: Half of the ADC cases had been on welfare less than a
    year.  Over half of *them* had NEVER received public assistance
    previously.  Three-quarters had been on ADC for two years or less.
    The *adult* recipients (including the blind, the deaf, and the
    aged) in each category had a median figure of four years or less.
    Only .4% (4 per 1,000) of welfare cases were referred to prosecution
    for cheating; conviction rates were of course lower.  Over 60% of
    the ADC familys had only one or two children -- with a monthly
    "raise" of $27 per child, large families really don't pay that well.
    The welfare breakdown: one fifth over 65, blind ior totally disabled,
    one fifth mothers caring for (mostly preschool) children, over
    one half children (average age: 8), one twentieth in a "temporary
    bind", remainder fathers looking for work.  (In Oregon, which is
    not unique, childless adults are not eligible for welfare.)

    Detroit (the U. of M. and P.S.U. study): More male welfare recipients
    worked more than half time than male non-recipients did.  (The
    majority of female welfare recipients and non-recipients both worked
    at least half time.)  Characteristics keeping people in poverty:
    "rural origins with poor educational opportunity; migration to the
    city or elsewhere; lack of skills and training.  And all these
    problems were compounded for racial minorities and women.  Good
    jobs for such people were not usually available no matter how great
    the desire to work".

    Census (Concerning the myth that rural blacks migrate to northern
    cities to go on welfare): "In six northern cities blacks born and
    raised in the city are more likely to be on welfare than those who
    have moved there."

    						Ann B.

    re 36 and 42.
    
    The most dangerous and disgusting thing I see in this note is that
    someone thinks they have a 'right' or a 'duty' to silence a radio
    station that does not espouse their beliefs.
    
    I agree that there are a lot of people who really need the help from
    welfare.  I also agree that there are a lot of people who abuse that 
    system (and me by way of the taxes that I pay).  My ex wife sat on 
    the witness stand in court and blatantly admitted that her boyfriend 
    was living off of the welfare and child support.  The court did
    nothing.
    
    A little honest debate and examination never hurt anybody.
    
    fred();

    I wonder if the reason why WAAF is saying/doing something like this 
    might be (re)stated ...
    
    IMHO...
    
    	Their goal:		Maxamize advertising revenue (same as
    				another business).
    
    	Their tatic:		1. Increase listnership so advertisers will
    				   pay more for spots (same as any other
    				   radio/TV station).
    
    				2. Create controversy (somewhat like
    				   others).
    
    				3. Make statements intended/designed to
    				   inflame the listners (either positively *or*
    				   negatively - - don't care which) (not so
    				   somewaht like others, except some of the
    				   talk shows).
    
    				4. Go to potential advertisers with
    				   statistics on increased listnership
    				   stating with (?increased?) rate schedules.
    
    				5. Obtain more $ $ $.
    
    Possible counter-result:	Advertisers have had their customers (you
    				and I) conciously (we have to tell them)
    				cease doing business them due to their
    				polocies (such as advertising on WAAF).
    
    Hard ball:			You bet.
    
    Other options:		I, for one, am open to any alternatives.
    
    
    			Charlie ...

    re .49
    
    I was speeking of the debate and the openion being raised by the
    radio station.   
    
    I have no objections to discussion either so long as ALL 
    participants are allowed to express their point of view.
    
    fred();

    re .50
    
    You're asking me to support a plan of action based on an *awful lot*
    of assumptions.
    
    fred();

    fred(), I realise that the "ass/u/me" is a very popular saying, but
    like many such bits of folk wisdom, it's only partially true at best. 
    We go through life making "an *awful lot* of assumptions" all the time,
    we couldn't survive otherwise.  You assume that your car won't explode
    when you start it in the morning, that no madman is lurking in the
    restaurant kitchen poisoning the customers, that the smokey is really
    taking pictures with that thing and not fixing to blow you up.  You
    assume DEC will pay you tomorrow, and that your bank will honor the
    checks you write.  I could go on forever, but I'm sure you take my
    meaning already.
    
    						=maggie

	Hi fred,

		Please don't think me disgusting.I might be wrong,
	I often am, show me where.

		I appreciate your concern. I'm not advocating shutting
	down radio stations for expressing various viewpoints. I am
	for trying to influence them when I can though particularly
	when concerned about undue influence on younger people.

		I love my children. I really feel terrible when I
	too often hear about young people destroyed drunk driving
	on our highways. When some Saturday morning disk jockey keeps
	referring to his last nights drunk as if it were somehow
	admirable...I think of my children who think he's cool...and
	a cold finger touches my heart.

		I'm concerned that my son might pick up the sexist messages
	constantly promoted and apply them in his life. I'm concerned that
	my daughters might be victimized down the line by someone with the
	same lack of regard toward women, encouraged by who knows what medium.

		You see Fred its not some political viewpoint I'm mostly
	concerned with here...its a value system that doesn't seem to
	respect very much. The message seems very tuned into the misplaced
	and misdirected angers and frustrations of the young..but it has
	no positive place to go.

		I know the difference between trying to influence and trying
	to censor outright. In all human relations the attempt to influence
	is a common process. I try to do it justly and with integrity.

		I have a personal belief that tells me its not just my right
	to try to influence but in some cases my obligation. To just turn
	away (turn the channel) and chance that this negative message might
	spread would be to me the choosing of 'chaos over community'.

		Allison and I could be wrong. We've tilted at windmills before
	and lost sorely (remember ERA). If we are terribly wrong and others
	don't match our concern...thats ok..part of a very healthy process.

					respectfully,
					Don Mac Millan
		
	

    
    Why is this a forum for only one side of the argument?
    
    Are we falling back on old predictable censorship patterns
    again?  
    

    
    Well, we certainly must avoid offending anyone, by censorship by sex
    if necessary...
    
    This is what I think you are saying... 
    
    

    
    		I think the 'other side has had some expression here. I
    believe someone has raised the issue of radio media having some un-
    declared and hidden agenda (was it NPR in question). I know a number of
    angles of the welfare question have been examined. A number of avenues
    of dealing with WAAF have also been suggested.
    
    		I don't think only one side is being expressed here.
    
    		I invite any coherent message from any point of view on
    this issue. I'd prefer more 'light than 'heat though.
    
    						Don
    
    

>I am
>	for trying to influence them when I can though particularly
>	when concerned about undue influence on younger people.

 I understand your concern, Don, and I think it is a valid one. However, it is 
impossible to close off every "bad influence" your children may encounter.
It is better policy to convince them that DJs etc are not horribly socially
or politically astute individuals, and that they should always strive to hear 
both sides of every story before coming to an independent conclusion about the
merits of the various arguments.

 As a young adult who also happens to have teenagers nearing young adulthood 
(long story), I have a rather unique perspective on parenting. There are times
when I'd just as soon turn the damn TV or radio off so my kids will not be
exposed to certain influences which I think are harmful. Unfortunately, that
doesn't prepare them whatever for life on their own. If they are going to
make mistakes, I'd prefer that they were smaller mistakes and they were done
such that I was in a good position to offer advice and assistance.

 One aspect which makes me different from most parents who have kids the age of 
mine is that I was a teenager not very long ago, and I remember how I felt
pretty well. I remember which things influenced me and which did not. This
helps me resist my parental "shield and protect impulses" and channel that 
energy into teaching how to cope with the general case.

>		I love my children. I really feel terrible when I
>	too often hear about young people destroyed drunk driving
>	on our highways. When some Saturday morning disk jockey keeps
>	referring to his last nights drunk as if it were somehow
>	admirable...I think of my children who think he's cool...and
>	a cold finger touches my heart.

 I guess the key is to convince the kids that he's not so cool. It sure isn't 
easy, but there will be a million temptations in your child's life. It's best
to teach them how to deal with them, rather than futilely attempt to eliminate
the temptations. You won't always be around to "save the day." as it were.

>		I'm concerned that my son might pick up the sexist messages
>	constantly promoted and apply them in his life. 

 Show him that the sexist messages are false and misleading. When you and your
son find an example of a woman who is against the stereotype being proffered,
point her out and discuss her with your son.

 The Doctah

    	Hey Doctah....this is pretty darn good. (#60)
    	I'm going to digest this very thoughtful piece and share it with my
    	family (and probably get back to ya).
    	Thanks....
    		Don

    re: .53
    
    Fred, on the contrary, to support or not to support is your decision.

    	If you agree, so state with your wallet.

    	If you don't, you don't have to do anything.

    I was outlining how broadcast economics work, having been (remotely) in
    the broadcast business in lives past. 

    			Charlie.

---------------------------------------

>
>    You're asking me to support a plan of action based on an *awful lot*
>    of assumptions.
>    
>    fred();
    

    >re 50 and 62
    >Possible counter-result:	Advertisers have had their customers (you
    >				and I) conciously (we have to tell them)
    >				cease doing business them due to their
    >				polocies (such as advertising on WAAF).
    >
    >ard ball:			You bet.
    
    No! Censorship.  Of the most blantant form.
    
    I remember campaigns of this sort against Rock&Roll stations back
    in the 50's and 60's, and how those stations were going to 'poison'
    all the youth of the nation.  The First Ammendment applies just as much
    now as it did then.
    
    fred();

    I'm sorry Fred. You've finally touched a hot button. Censorship, ti me,
    is if we force a person or an organization to stop saying, writing, or
    diseminating what they wish to by illegally using force, be it
    political or military (police comes under military) to shut them down. 
    
    What is being attempted here is a peaceful change. What, as it appears
    to me is being done, is, "WAAF, we will not listen to you and we will
    not purchase any products that are advertised on your station unless
    you change your ways. Now, we are not saying that you must do this. You
    just do not have our support. Nor do your advertising clients. Copies
    of this are going to your advertising clients offices." Do you see. I
    will defend to the death your right to say and think as you please but
    I may not defend, support, and may actively oppose what you say and
    think. This is my own oppinion and does not necessarily reflect the
    views of the other noters. It may be a simple world view, but it's my
    own. Who knows? Next time I might take your side.
    
    
    
                               Phil

    	RE: .63  Fred
    
    	Anyone who relies on advertisers for most/all of their income
    	is subject to being influenced by them (who are in turn influenced
    	by their consumers.)  It's called "voting with your pocketbook"
    	and it happens all the time in this country.
    
    	The bottom line is not "censorship."  Advertisers don't make it
    	illegal to say certain things on the radio - they can, however,
    	make it unprofitable.
    
    	If a radio station wants to go against their advertisers - fine.
    	They can do so (if they think they can generate income some other
    	way.)  If they believe enough in what they're doing, they are free
    	to try to run without advertisers.  No law will stop them.
    
    	As an example, when Ted Turner ran a show sympathetic to the Pro-
    	Choice position, it is my understanding that he faced some grave
    	difficulties finding sponsors for it.  So he decided to run it
    	WITHOUT paid advertisers (because he is a strong advocate of the
    	Pro-choice movement.)
    
    	Was it censorship for advertisers to resist paying for time on a
    	pro-choice show (as the result of the pressure put on these
    	advertisers by members of the pro-life movement)??  You tell me.
    
    	The pro-choice message got through anyway, of course, because the
    	network changed its priority from making money to delivering what
    	they considerred an important social message.
    
    	By the way, MAD Magazine has always resisted selling space to
    	advertisers (as a way of avoiding any kind of pressure about what
    	they write.)  They made this decision early on (as the ONLY way
    	to prevent others from trying to influence them economically.)

    
    as if advertising in Mad would be taken seriously...

	Alright, I was trying to influence and while doing that I was
influenced. My horizons have been expanded a bit and my perspective is
a bit more rounded. I'm a bit more mindfull than mindless in my passion.
This is a great process!

	Of course you're right Doctah a great part of the answer lies with
the proper education of ones own children. I can't pretend that the world is
not out there, either for myself or my kids. There is a lot of wisdom in
allowing/monitoring some of the exposure you suggest.

	There is still my conviction, however, that people can and should
try to 'influence' media which seems unhealthy. Particularly so in the
context of 'media influencing children'.

	There are probably a great many young people being influenced by
various mediums while getting no adult guidance at all.

	Doctah...when do you draw the line in the dust; yell nuts to the 
advesary; scream 'saddle up Sancho..we're at it again!'?

	Being a student of history suggests that most negative cultural
influences gain energy and grow more from people turning away in apathy
then from overt activism on anyones part.

	Our culture is dynamic and evolves as we ponder. There are , from
my point of view, negative and more positive cultural evolutionary tendancies
being taken. I'm for influencing the more positive; who knows there may 
be far less negatives I'll have to expose my kids to some day. Hope so.

			Don

	

    Okay, I admit it. I listen to WAAF while I'm getting ready for work
    in the morning.  I find that it's the station that wakes me up the
    fastest, and I actually like their selection of music!
    
    Anyway, I think that Ruby Cheeks and the Hillman partially redeemed
    themselves this morning as far as political and social awareness
    goes.  They had a conversation about a court in Florida (I think?)
    that when ruling on a rape case, asked the jury to decide whether
    the way the woman was dressed was "asking for it."  They talked
    for a bit about the fact that rape is a crime of violence and that
    the victim should never be blamed for the way she was dressed. 
    I think this is a *good* message to get across to teenage boys,
    so maybe the DJ's are not all bad.
    
    Lorna
    

>   Censorship, ti me,
>    is if we force a person or an organization to stop saying, writing, or
>    diseminating what they wish to by illegally using force, be it
>    political or military (police comes under military) to shut them down. 
 
Your definition precludes the existence of *legal* censorship.  If the 
government passed a law to ban all books with the word "shareholder" in
them, then it is censorship, even if they don't use *force*, and obviously
if they do use force it is legal.  If the first Amendment was overturned
then any amount of censorship could be made legal.  Doesn't make it not
censorship.

There are all sorts of censorships which are both legal and *still* censorship.

D!

>	There is still my conviction, however, that people can and should
>try to 'influence' media which seems unhealthy. Particularly so in the
>context of 'media influencing children'.

 I hear you. I find the half hour commercials disguised as cartoons to be
particularly odious, especially since I have a little one, but I won't call
for a ban on them. We as parents need to learn to say no sometimes, and
not give into the whining "pleeease."

 I have a tremendous distaste and distrust of the media, since I have seen
a multitude of cases where they try (and often succeed) to shape public opinion
through use of disinformation, biased coverage, and incomplete reporting (so
called "half-truths.") You really can't believe everything you read or hear.
It's scary.

>	There are probably a great many young people being influenced by
>various mediums while getting no adult guidance at all.

 This is definitely a problem, but I think the solution lies in getting the
adult guidance and influence to the kids, because other, perhaps worse
forces exist besides wayward deejays.

 I certainly have no problem with you or anyone else writing to a specific
station and complaining about attitudes, coverage, policy or whatever. They
have to get feedback, and if it's negative, it's negative. I just caution
you against thinking that will be enough. Because as soon as you succeed in
one instance, another one or two will take it's place.

>	Doctah...when do you draw the line in the dust; yell nuts to the 
>advesary; scream 'saddle up Sancho..we're at it again!'?

 I don't have a particular rule. I'm generally a pretty patient person in terms
of this sort of thing. I resist the urge to react for as long as possible;
perhaps that explains the vehemence when I finally do react. :-) When it
happens, it just happens, and I _know_ it's time. I can't really describe it.

 The Doctah