Talk:WAMC

Controversy?

I take the Pirates' point about "public" radio station being an apparent misnomer; however, I would like to know whether the programming protocols for WAMC are any different from those of other so-called public radio stations around the country. Is there a difference between "public" and "public access"? If so, I'm not sure that the practices at WAMC are all that controversial. Crispinus211 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that, Crispinus. I've often woundered this myself. --Zr2d2 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many of the people who have responded to this are actually from the Capital District (or most of WAMC's vast coverage area), however those who are know that WAMC is one of the most polarizing organizations in the area and Alan Chartock one of the most polarizing people. Ask anyone with knowledge of the station or the man, there's no possible middle ground and anything pertaining to the two are going to have some criticism from the other side. I hope someone tries to do an even-handed article, however the odds of such are quite low.

As for the WAMC Pirate Network link, I think that precedent on other pages should be considered. I cite the inclusion of a link for Bad Transit, a site that rips into the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in a similar fashion, on the page for the MBTA. I understand that WAMC is much more controversial than the necessary evil of the MBTA, however is there any true difference? Scrabbleship 15:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

History

How should this section be cleaned up to conform to NPOV, and how should we address the WAMC Pirates? Zach 23:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, One of The Pirates here -- What is your definition of NPOV? I merely present facts. I can link to WAMC-FM's corporate by-laws if that will help. Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] with any questions. Thanks. 11:44AM(EST) 27, March 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WAMC Pirates (talk • contribs) .

I read it over again and i guess my main problem is with the following section: In addition, Mr. Chartock has served on a daily basis as WAMC's on-air political commentator and analyst. Though others have also offered to share that on-air role to give listeners a balance of competing political analyses and viewpoints, nonetheless the position of political commentator has remained solely in the control of Mr. Chartock espousing his own personal political viewspoints. --Zach 19:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. It's a fact though. So how best would YOU state it in order to satisfy your concerns. Thanks. [email protected] 3:16PM (EST) 27, March 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WAMC Pirates (talk • contribs) .

I think the best way to address the problems you have with the portion of the entry that deals with Mr. Chartock is just to remove all mention of him from the entry. Mention of him is not critical to the accuracy of the listing, and his near absolute control of what is, after all, a so-called 'public' station is quite controversial in the Albany area. Since you plainly feel uncomfortable with the facts of the controversy being included in the listing, it's obviously better just to avoid totally those aspects of the listing. I've made the necessary changes. Thank you. [email protected] March 31, 2006 01:33 EST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WAMC Pirates (talk • contribs) .

I didn't have a problem with mentioning Dr. Chartalk, I just thought the language was a little assertive. Zach 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User Hamilton Fish is playing silly games. He deleted a legitimate external link without giving a reasonable explanation. I have restored the deleted material.—Fungible 15:01 02 May 2006 (EST)

User Chiploe is also playing silly games. He deleted a legitimate external link without giving a reasonable explanation. I have restored the deleted material.—Fungible 19:08 02 May 2006 (EST)

I think that until such time as the few people who are deleting valid external links stop their childish behavior, that this entire entry should be left blank. —Fungible 14:42 03 May 2006 (EST)

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH! Blah blah blah CHILDISH BEHAVIOR blah blah blah and blah blah blah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bing Cherry (talk • contribs) 14:59, May 3, 2006.

Programs

The Round Table, The Capitol Connenction, Vox Pop, and Northeast Report should be added to the programming section. Are these shows part of National Productions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.50.135 (talk • contribs) .

Article Title

should this article be moved to "Northeast Public Radio"? This seams to be the first thing durring identification. --Zach 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

deletion

on 5/3, a large portion of the page was deleated. Why? Zach 02:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it has something to do with Chartock supporters and Chartock detractors deleting each others posts in an attempt to prove who is more annoying (Alan will always get my vote). There was a Wikipedia record for Chartock that got pulled recently for that reason. --Jango Davis

There's only one Chartock detractor around here: Glenn M. Heller of Monterey, MA. He's using Wikipedia to carry out his personal vendetta against Chartock. --Anonymous

---

Hi there, the real Glenn M. Heller - editor of The WAMC Pirates - here, and yes I do live part-time in Monterey, MA, though I do not know what significance that plays in these discussions. The reason for the big deletion is that the bulk of material deleted was mostly copyrighted material from WAMC's or Mr. Chartock's own Web site. Though labeled as being excerpted from the site, there was just so much of it that it wasn't a Wiki article at all but rather a reproduction of the copyrighted Web site. Since that has been shown NOT to be the standard to use on another related Web site, Alan S. Chartock, the ceo of WAMC, I figured it best to apply the same standard here and delete the copyrighted material from the WAMC article. Would welcome input on this matter. —Fungible 02:02 09 May 2006 (UTC)

There's more than just one Chartock detractor in the world Anonymous, and many of us detractors have worked or currently work for WAMC. -- Jango Davis

Personal attacks are cheap --Zr2d2 00:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning what exactly? Typical response by Alan's blinded supporters, don't address the allegations and spin the issue to question the creditibility of the those who speak the truth. Well, unlike you I actually worked at WAMC and know the truth. Why do you think he's never sued anyone for libel? Because we know all Alan's dirty little secrets...and that ain't a personal attack, that's just the truth. Its just a pity that you put the man above the station and its mission, and if the station can't exist without Alan, then it should deservedly go off the air. -- Jango Davis

If you look at the history I was actualy responding to a comment I deleated from Vin Doe that accused Mr. Heller of being anti-Semitism --Zr2d2 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on the Alan S. Chartock discussion page so I may as well pose the same question here: Is it appropriate in the WAMC article, under External Links, to post a link to an article I just posted on the WAMC Pirates Web site? http://www.wamc.net/taxcheat.html Fungible 03:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zr2D2. I was wrong in mistaking your comment as directed towards me. I stand corrected. -- Jango Davis

I'm Shocked, SHOCKED! Check out the following blog article entitled: WAMC Employees Vandalizing Wikipedia.Fungible 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee, I reverted the link at issue (WAMC.NET) because while no one may 'deserve' a link, the deleted Web site at issue has information directly related to and about the article subject WAMC, and thus the article would be remiss without at least having the link provided. In addition, in the controversy section, there is now mentioned a recent allegation made by the Web site's editor (me), concerning possible violations at WAMC of the US Tax Code. These are all very relevant subjects to any article about WAMC. Would like your further input on this, but for now feel the WAMC.net link is validly included in the article and so have restored same at least for the present

I've removed it again. The problem is, the site is rather heavily and rather obviously biased against the station, and therefore should not only not be linked to, but not used as a relible source for any sort of references. --InShaneee 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, regardless of any bias you perceive in the Web site, how can the information posted not be considered reliable if it is based both on WAMC's own IRS tax files referenced by the links, and on eyewitness interviews with current and former WAMC employees? What's the point in having any article posted anywhere in Wikipedia if you are only going to allow posting of information favorable to a subject, and refuse to accept independently verified information just because it comes via a Web site you consider biased? I personally believe The New York Times to be biased on a LOT of issues, so should Wiki disallow The Times as a source in articles covering those issues?Request that you reconsider and rv my material. Thanks. Fungible 15:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just about bias, it's about specific, obvious bias. I'm not saying that the site has a republican leaning or anything like that. That's something that can be argued, and is hard to prove. I'm saying that the site exists solely for the purpose of discrediting this station, which makes it an attack page, which are not appropriate to use. This isn't to say that it's not possible to put unfavorable information about the station here; just that it'd be more appropriate to reference a source that's not dedicated to providing such material. --InShaneee 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, the problem with your line of reasoning on this is that the whole purpose of my WAMC web site -- the whole purpose of any muck-raking investigative Web site -- is that it is devoted to exposing fraud, waste, and abuse -- in this case at public broadcaster WAMC. I have chosen public broadcaster WAMC as my 'specialty'. Therefore, by definition, most if not all of what will be reported on my Web site is going to be articles discrediting practices at the station which are found to be bogus or abusive or illegal or wasteful. The manner in which you are choosing to interpret Wiki policy would have the effect of deleting from Wiki any sources of information that came from independent Web sites dedicated to exposing fraud, waste, and abuse -- meaning just about every single investigative journalist not connected with a major news outlet. Your policy would theoretically delete Matt Drudge's 'scoops'! Once again, I request you reconsider and rv the deleted material. Thanks for your time on this.Fungible 16:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy is fairly clear on this. Drudge is a muckraker, but he doesn't go after anyone in particular. Your site does, in a big way. Therefore, we simply can't use it as a reference. We need evidence that comes from a source without any agenda. --InShaneee 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, it sounds to me as though you have not even read the article cited in my WAMC post.[1]] In my article that is published on my Web site, I have discovered and produced evidence of what appears to be an open-and-shut case of income tax evasion involving WAMC. I quote extensively from the US Tax Code, from IRS' own Web site, as well as from a number of other tax-regulation-oriented Web sites. Plus, I provide links to those reference Web sites so people can see the quotes used. In addition, via links, I post photocopies of pages from WAMC's own IRS Form 990 return. Please read the article first before denying an editor the ability to post relevant investigative material to a Wiki article on grounds that you believe the Web site too biased. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read the article, and when you are finished, please again reconsider and rv the deleted material. Thanks. Fungible 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't just about the quality of your website; primarily, it's about the tone/subject. Regardless of how well sourced, the fact is that the website is still completely dedicated to dispariging this station. In that case, it typically doesn't matter whether its facts are correct or not; our policy prevents such sites from being linked to to prevent bias. If you can find evidence of this from another source, though, that may be acceptable. --InShaneee 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShanee: I am a former WAMC employee and have never met Glen Heller. I have read Glen's/Fungible's web site, particularly the allegations of perk abuse and sexual abuse. I know all the principal players involved and have first-hand knowledge of what he speaks, and while I agree that Glen can be agressive on these matters he is also completely accurate in his accounts. I know some of the former WAMC employees who have contacted Glen and can verify the accounts of those he quotes on his website to verify the allegations, including the names of those who wished to remain anonymous. Furthermore, if you read his website Glen is not disparaging the station, in fact we love WAMC, but rather calling attention to the abuse the CEO/General Manager Alan Chartock has engaged in by using the station and the public donations as a cash cow to pay for his lifestyle as well as pay-offs to the person he sexually abused, which I know of because I worked at the station with the victim. -- Jango Davis 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee: Please note Jango Davis' entry immediately above. Please also provide me with a link to the Wiki policy to which you specifically refer. I am trying to come up with a metaphor for what you are telling me. Here's one off the cuff: The equivalent of what you are saying would be for example that Wiki has a new policy not to link to racy TV channels because they run XXX movies and the policy is not to link to or to promote porn. But then what if some time the racy channel decides to run Casablanca every Wednesday at 9PM, then that would mean you still could not allow a link to that movie on that channel on that night at that time because of the policy that the channel was generally too racy. This is only a metaphor but if what you are saying is Wiki's actual current policy, then not only would I be disappointed, but also then it sounds to me that Wiki may have a bad, bad case of "Political Correctness" and "Let's only say nice things". Also, I have to point out that it will drastically hinder original source material from anyone who might be savvy and energetic enough to go out there and dig up new and perhaps damaging material about politicians, public figures and celebrities. i.e.: What if I was in the right place at the right time and got a clear photograph showing Congressman Patrick Kennedy hitting that police barrier the other night in Washington DC. Let's say I also got photos of the cops talking to him, and also a clear photo of him stumbling and red-eyed when he got out of the vehicle, etc.. And let's say I posted the picture on my theoretical Web site that is dedicated to just showing various Kennedys in compromising circumstances. Your no original source policy from negatively perceived Web sites would prevent that critically important photo from appearing on Patrick Kennedy's Wiki article (unless of course I sold it first to NBC or Fox who posted it on their Web sites). Thanks in advance for getting me the link requested above; and also please let me know to whom I should e-mail to escalate this whole issue because I would like to see this policy changed because it reaks of censorship (and as I said PC). Fungible 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your entries reek of Original Research. I should have called you on it earlier. --Zr2d2 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pirates' website might be Original Research, but there's no reason why a link to a website providing an alternative POV on WAMC shouldn't be allowed. Readers can visit WAMC's website and get one perspective on the station; they can visit the Pirates' website and get another. What's the problem? Crispinus211 13:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Fine by me --Zr2d2 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

InShanee, though I am not a Pirate and I listen to WAMC religiously, I think your continual deletion of the link to the Pirates' website is wrong. I don't think you understand the concept of bias, nor do I think you understand the purpose of the link. It's not as if the Pirates have hijacked the entire WAMC article -- that would be wrong. The link to their site simply directs people to an alternative point of view on WAMC. It depicts the station in a negative light, but that's its purpose, just as it is the purpose of WAMC's website to portray itself in the best light possible. Is that not the same sort of self-interested bias you're trying to censor? Furthermore, given that the Pirates' allegations are part of the WAMC "story," as it were -- part of the controversy here in the Capital district (are you even from the Albany area?) -- there needs to be a link to their website simply for the purposes of documenting the controversy. I note that a section on controversy was written but quickly deleted (by you). Perhaps another needs to be written from the "third-party" POV documenting the history of WAMC and the Pirates; or someone should just start a page on the Pirates and be done with it. I understand that you, InShanee, are a deletionist; but your deletions don't seem to be establishing consensus around here. Crispinus211 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think that, although I love WAMC, that the "pirates" view should be presented. --Zr2d2 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Crispinus211, regarding my recent article about WAMC's failure for years to report to IRS taxable 'perks' paid to a WAMC executive[2], do you think there is a format by which the nature of these allegations can be presented in this Wiki WAMC article that would pass muster with the Wiki gods? And if one of the Wiki gods happens to be reading this, please feel free to respond as well. (And please, DON'T recommend to get it published first in a main stream media venue. There is very little in the way of good investigative journalism in the MSM nowadays -- MSM are all too afraid of getting sued.) Thanks.Fungible 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I RV'ed Zotdragon's deletions because Mr. Chartock is CEO and on-air commentator at WAMC and his writings can rightfully be included as links in an article here about WAMC. These are Chartock's own columns published on WAMC's own Web site. If they express a point of view, it is not mine or anyone else's, but rather the head of WAMC himself and thus the man's words are fair game for inclusion in this article. .Fungible 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Heller, Mark Vogelzang, the president of VPR, got 156 K [3] for a network with half the listening audience of Northeast Public Radio. VPR's revenue in the same period was 7.3 million dollars. (see the 990 form above) If these numbers are in line with WAMC, even though WAMC's network has an audience twice as large, what is your problem with WAMC's revenue and the salary of Dr. Chartock? --Zr2d2 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, you pose an excellent question, and you also pose a big "IF". First off, let me state that if the dues-paying members of WAMC were to vote to give Mr. Chartock the moon and the outer planets, I would have no problem with that because it's the members' money paying for this extravagance. But WAMC does not give dues-paying members the right to vote in annual elections for the station's board of trustees, nor the right to vote on issues related to corporate governance.

That said, I don't know anything about Vermont Public Radio and whether VPR gives its dues-paying membership the right to vote in such matters. (Who knows, VPR might be just as out-of-control as WAMC?) Nor do I know VPR's audience numbers. I may be wrong, but I don't think there are Arbitron ratings for non-commercial stations, so it is really anybody's guess as to what are the actual audience numbers amongst the NPR, non-commercial set of radio stations.

Another thing to consider is that this is NOT commercial radio. This is a public charity. So if the pay is not as high as in commercial radio, that should be somewhat expected by those seeking the position. I bet there are plenty of executives in the Albany area that would salivate and jump at the opportunity to be CEO of WAMC at $80,000 if the position were advertised. I hope this answers your question. P.S. I note on VPR's Form 990 in Part V that the CEO lists his taxable and non-taxable fringe benefits and expense accounts. Too bad WAMC did not cast a glance easterly to see how sister VPR was handling that minor detail, eh? Fungible 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Heller, you didn't adress my question. Both the saleries and revenue are slightly above that of WAMC, and yet VPR has half the listening audiance. Does your dislike of the head honcho stem from the fact that "WAMC does not give dues-paying members the right to vote." You state later that you "don't know anything about Vermont Public Radio." If I were you, I would bone up on other comperable networks and be able to back up your accusations with examples from other public broadcasters. --Zr2d2 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, I thought I was very specific in answering your question, but let me try again. I do NOT think executive compensation in a publicly-supported charitable corporate structure should be a function of revenue and audience. (If that were the case United Way of America should be paying $10 million a year to its CEO, as should The Red Cross.) Rather, in public radio -- ESPECIALLY in public radio, I think the boss's salary (as well as those of the other highest paid employees) should be set by the dues-paying membership in a democratic vote at an annual meeting. After all, it's the members' money that is being used to pay those lush salaries.

This is not such an unusual practice. At annual town meetings in Massachusetts, for example, the town meets and decides by democratic vote what the salaries will be for the upcoming year for each town position. Some get raises, some stay the same, and some positions get phased out.

Why should the public in 'public' radio with dues-paying listeners be treated differently than the public in publicly-owned corporations with shareowners?

In answer to your question: Does my dislike of the head honcho stem from the fact that "WAMC does not give dues-paying members the right to vote." That is a definite AFFIRMATIVE! Mr. Chartock and his crew running WAMC have never once in 25 years stood for election before the paying membership. My dislike for the head honcho stems from that, and also the fact that the head honcho has proven himself to be a common thief, albeit a highly arrogant one. Don't believe it? SEE: TAX CHEAT! How Alan Chartock conspired with WAMC to avoid paying IRS.

The specific documents showing the false reports to IRS are all linked for all to see, along with gobs of reference material so you can see for yourself the reporting requirements for tax-exempt organizations. Also, there are interviews with various WAMC individuals. Read the article and decide for yourself.

Hey, Zr2d2, I sure hope you are not going to blame me for ratting-out a guy who for years was screwing IRS. The rules say if you get use of a 'free' company car, a 'free' company apartment, and all the frills that go along with being the CEO, then you got to pay income tax on the fair market value of all that 'frosting'. Don't shoot the messenger just cause you don't like the message.Fungible 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fungible, why has you research been picked up on by other organizations. Not that your wrong, but it seams like you only can back up your claims from your website and original sources. (mainly IRS 990s) You also have not mentioned other public radio networks --Zr2d2 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You ask great questions Zr2d2! I suggest you pose those same questions to Albany Times-Union editor Rex Smith. He appears on WAMC all the time. Ask Smith whether there is a single fact or statement reported in my Tax Cheat article that can be shown either not to be true or not based upon fact!?! Ask him to have one of his own reporters investigate and determine if anything reported in the article can be refuted!?! Betcha he won't even respond. Experience has taught me that the main stream media in Albany protect their own as well as the Capital district's sacred cows. (Why else do you think New York State is in the mess it is in?)Fungible 21:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't cited any other networks for comparison. I'd be interested in your findings --Zr2d2 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, please be very specific as to what comparisons you are referring to, and which you think ought to be made. Concerning executive compensation? Concerning dues-paying members participation in corporate governance? Concerning reporting to Uncle Sam taxable fringe benefits paid to executives? Fungible 00:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the first two questions. Your responses seem to only be focused on WAMC, and not comparing it to other networks. I would say that if it's common practice, then the public views it as ok, and therefore it is ok. --Zr2d2 02:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, I already stated above that it does not matter to me what the CEO is paid as long as the membership gets a chance to vote on it during an annual public meeting. Thus, it makes no difference what other public broadcasters do, and that's why I have not spent the energy to interview other public broadcasting execs. Concerning dues-paying members being able to vote in annual elections for trustees and participate in other corporate governance issues like that above, at this time there is no one so-called 'common' practice. Some public broadcasters allow the paid membership to vote, some do not. WAMC does not. I think they should. I think WAMC's failure to allow members to directly participate in the trustee election process is one of the main contributing factors leading to WAMC's failure to exercise control over shenanigans in its executive suite. What else would you expect from an organization that allows its CEO to hand-pick those who would sit on the board that oversees the CEO? Hope this addresses your questions. Fungible 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization

This talk page has gotten quite long. Any ideas on how we should organize it? --Zr2d2 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Potentially POV issues

This article and the Alan S. Chartock article seem to be getting a lot of POV edits so I'm adding a list to both for future reference and to build consensus on what belongs in the article. Antonrojo 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Potentially POV statements to avoid

1. General characterizations of the quality or political affiliation of Chartok's show that aren't supported by an unbiased source. This would include both statements that the show 'gives voice to all opinions' or that it is a 'soapbox'. Antonrojo 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Chartock doesn't have a show per se, he's the general uber-manger and appears on any WAMC show either he or the producers feel he should be appearing on. Besides, if anyone wants to read raw opinion on Chartock all they have to do is read the discussion page. As the discussion page is linked to the article, all the opinions presented on the discussion page are argueably already part of the article, even though they do not appear on the main page of the article.-- Jango Davis 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Antonrojo, I rv'ed the word 'invective'. It is quite appropriate in the context in which it is used. Chartock, when going into one of his regular rants, uses all kinds of accusations, insults and abusive language when referring to President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, White House operative Karl Rove, the Administration's foreign and domestic policies, or Conservative Republicans. Chartock uses this invective as a device to cadge ever greater sums from his left-leaning Lib listener base during WAMC's thrice-annual bega-thon drives. The word 'invective' deserves to remain. Just listen to the station over the Web and you can hear Chartock's snide invective for yourself whenever he discusses politics. Fungible 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fungible, what you say might be true and I think the article should focus on verifiable facts. For some people their daily does of Rush Limbaugh is the gospel and guiding light in their lives and for others it is uniformed and malicious nonsense. A NPOV description will avoid both extremes by using terms that are more descriptive than 'colorful'. Antonrojo 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of the Jonathan Kern quote in the Criticism and Views section seems weak. He says "if you're in the news division, you do not express opinions on the air," but if you actually follow the link in the citation, he's referring to commentary by Alan Chartock, who isn't "in the news division." The whole thing is kind of incoherent. Surely there must be a better citation than this? - Stellmach 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that he isn't a formal part of the department because his job title isn't listed in that area or if you're stating that his on-air 'commentary' is distinct from basic news reporting in the way newspapers set aside an opinion section?

From the little I've heard of Chartock giving commentary/news/whatever he falls somewhere between the opinion and 'just the facts' spectrum. His strong connections with local politics and the fact he heads a legislative newspaper while at the same time advocating social issues further muddys the water. In addition, unlike a newspaper, if you turn on the radio in the middle of an 'opinion piece' you may assume that it is news. It seems that this uncertainty is both what you, I and Kern are responding to.

Due to his role in NPR, I think Kern is both knowledgeable about the issue and relatively unbiased. Since he's about as close to an offical spokesperson on the issue for NPR as probably exists, evidence that Kern is not objective or knowledgeable would be called for to discount his possibly confusing opinion. Antonrojo 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, however knowledgable he might be, Kern mistook Alan Chartok for a reporter. Otherwise his statement just doesn't make sense. His argument is a syllogism: "newsmen shouldn't express on-air opinions" and "Alan Chartok shouldn't express on-air opinions," only without the key "Alan Chartok is a newsman."

Chartok isn't just "formally" not in the news division. He doesn't do any news reporting that I'm aware of. I don't see what you mean by "commentary/news/whatever." Commentary involves discussing the facts of a matter because otherwise your listeners can't tell what issue you're giving an opinon about, but how does that make Chartok different from any other commentator out there?

The article isn't explaining this to me, and in fact is creating what seems like the false impression that Chartok is a reporter. I suspect that there's a coherent point of view against opinion from people the station's CEO, and I think the article would benefit from describing it, but this isn't that. Stellmach 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Commentary/news/whatever" refers to the fact that you can't easily put radio broadcasts into an editorial frame--in other words you can't have an Opinion header like a newspaper so listeners tuning in to the middle of a show won't know if it's opinion or news. On the other hand, I'm sure that regular listeners know better, just as most listeners wouldn't confuse Rush Limbaugh with news. I was probably also implying that his reporting is somewhere between the two poles and that the term 'commentary' is pretty ill-defined. An extended quote from the 'NPR producer' in this article seems to indicate that Chartock has included commentary within a new report time slot:

“...there was this guy on the air ranting,” says one Washington-based NPR news producer, who didn’t want to be identified. “He was talking about the war in Iraq and how wrong it was and how we’re being held hostage as a country by this right-wing administration.”

The NPR producer assumed he had tuned into a Pacifica radio station, one of a small network of community stations that broadcast left-of-center advocacy-journalism programs. “It was actually sort of entertaining,” the producer recalls. “But then I nearly couldn’t believe it when this guy said, ‘In just a few moments we’ll be returning to NPR’s All Things Considered.’”

I don't know what you mean by "his reporting." Again, he's not a reporter. That's the whole crux of the matter. If the issue is that this was going on during the time slot normally scheduled for All Things Considered, then the article should make that clear. Mind, since the context of the incident was that ATC was pre-empted for a fund drive, the contention that there was likely confusion seems shaky. But if that's the argument, the article should present it. Is the problem supposed to be that Chartok is a reporter (he's not) expressing opinions, that he expressed opinion during ATC's time slot, or what?

Go look at the article again. The citiation is on Kern's description of a code of ethics that seems clearly not to apply to this situation (applying, as it does, to people "in the news division.") My point is simply, whatever the argument against Chartok may be, this particular citation is a non sequitur. -Stellmach 13:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know whether 'commentary seeps into news' regularly. The producer and Kern quote provide some evidence that people who had appear to have no stake in the matter and who would be expected to be supportive of NPR affiliates were alarmed by Chartock's comments. Antonrojo 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In what sense do you imagine that Kern has "no stake" in the matter? He's cited as the official in charge of NPR's anti-bias workshops. His whole job seems to be to have a stake in the matter. Moreover, this seems to ignore the considerable controversy about the impartiality of NPR itself. An NPR official is about the last person I'd pick as an impartial observer on the content of a member station's broadcast.

That's beside the point, though. The article clearly identifies the roles of these NPR officials, in a section that's clearly labelled as documenting criticism. I don't think it matters whether they're biased, because the article isn't actually pretending that they're not. Stellmach 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

WAMC → Northeast Public Radio – {this is how they identify themselves as a network --Zr2d2 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

I think this is fixed: I created the article and added a redirect. For future reference, that just requires adding #REDIRECT [[go to here]] to the page that should redirect. Antonrojo 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Fungible 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Zr2d2 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Omigod! What a truly dumb idea. Leave it be!

The legal name for the 501c3 tax-exempt, charitable, educational broadcaster that controls WAMC's so-called 'network' of radio stations is WAMC, Inc..

The organization is registered with the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Communications Commission, as well as New York State's Charities Bureau as WAMC, Inc..

The call letters of the organization's flagship radio station are W-A-M-C (and that radio station has been identified as such for more than 50 years).

The organization's Web site is WAMC.org.

On that Web site, the organization variously identifies itself as WAMC, or WAMC Northeast Public Radio, or WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network.

The brainiacs who dreamt up this idea of renaming and moving the Wiki entry will merely confuse readers of average intelligence, let alone the Einsteins who fashion themselves Wiki editors. There are plenty of Northeast thingamabobs, lots of public radio stations, but as anyone who lives within the station's coverage area can attest, there is only one WAMC. Fungible 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since most, if not all, other public radio networks (both state and regional) are listed not by call letters but by network name, renaming WAMC to Northeast Public Radio will conform to this standard. If there are a plethera of other stations using this convention, which there are, it will not confuse readers, wiki editors or otherwise. Durring the ID, they say, "Your listening to Northeast Public Radio," and then go on to list the individual stations.

• Alabama Public Radio
• Georgia Public Broadcasting
• Iowa Public Radio
• Maine Public Broadcasting Network
• Michigan Radio
• Minnesota Public Radio
• Nebraska Educational Telecommunications
• Nevada Public Radio
• New Jersey Network
• North Carolina Public Radio
• North Dakota Public Radio
• Oregon Public Broadcasting
• South Carolina Educational Television
• South Dakota Public Broadcasting
• Vermont Public Radio
• Wisconsin Public Radio

• Chicago Public Radio
• Commonwealth Public Broadcasting Corporation
• Jefferson Public Radio
• Troy University Public Radio

Zr2d2 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, You obviously don't live in Albany or in Western Massachusetts (the largest areas serviced by WAMC). If you were to walk down the street in Albany and tell someone you just heard something on Northeast Public Radio, most would look at you and wonder what station did you mean? Whereas, if you said you heard it on WAMC, there would be instant recognition. The call letters WAMC are what the so-called 'network' is known by, and always has been. Besides, WAMC 90.3 FM is the station with the real wattage -- ERP of 10,000 watts. The stations that make up the rest of the 'network' and rebroadcast WAMC's signal have relatively little power as you can see from the ERP's I today listed in the article (all data taken from FCC's online records). In some instances, the transmitters in the network are little more than 'lightbulbs' broadcasting weak signals to a small area. WAMC Management doesn't like to acknowledge this point, preferring instead to give advertisers and underwriters the impression that WAMC's 'network' is a powerhouse of signals throughout seven states. The reality is that except for the powerhouse of the WAMC 90.3 FM transmitter with its 10,000-watts of primary coverage broadcasting from a tower atop Mt. Greylock in Massachusetts, the rest of WAMC's broadcast territory is a hodgepodge of small, relatively weak coverage areas. Fungible 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I live outside of Pittsfield, thank you very much --Zr2d2 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think people in the "hodgepodge of small, relatively weak coverage area" would take offense to you calling their transmitters "light bulbs". May I point out that you in fact don't live here anymore. If WAMC is the only station with "real wattage", why do they say "this is Northeast Public Radio", and then list the stations that their network is made up of? Even on their homepage, it says "NORTHEAST PUBLIC RADIO" in big blue letters. The reason it says WAMC on the left is because thats part of their logo. But because of their expansion, they've re branded themselves Northeast Public Radio. --Zr2d2 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this problem with solved with a redirect. See Northeast_Public_Radio. --Antonrojo 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If we want to leave it at a redirect. The networks branding is more twards the "Northeast Public Radio" side. The only reason that things are registered under WAMC is thats how it was set up a while ago (20 something years i believe) --Zr2d2 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Zr2d2, I hate to break it to you, but the FACT is that ALL of WAMC's stations and translators (except one) are registered with the Federal Communications Commission with the licensee being listed as 'WAMC'. Even WAMC's most recently acquired stations are registered to licensee 'WAMC'. NOT A SINGLE ONE of WAMC's stations is licensed to any entity containing the words 'Northeast Public Radio'. Check this out for yourself at FCC's Audio Division. One other fact to set you straight: I have been a part-time resident of Berkshire County since 1956 and remain so to this day (as are thousands of other seasonal residents in Berkshire County with 'summer' homes). Please don't make suppositions about WAMC (or about me) unless you can back up your statements with facts. Fungible 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I though I had read that you had moved out of the area. Anyway I was talking about branding. Of course they're registered under WAMC, because thats their legal name. I'm saying that they market themselves more in the direction of Northeast Public Radio. Thats why they put it first during the identification. The legal name was set long before they started expanding, but the rebranding has been a more recent effort --Zr2d2 23:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Result:no consensus

Seems to me that there is no conesnsus. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

only two people weighed in. I was going to leave it open so more people could vote --Zr2d2 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Coverage Maps

RE: My RV of the phrase: 'claimed by the broadcaster'. WAMC's published map is merely a 'claim' and is NOT backed up by what FCC determines is the broadcaster's 60dBu - industry standard - primary coverage area. WAMC's published map is just exactly what it is: a 'claimed' coverage area. Plus, you'll notice that WAMC does not deign to include any sort of disclaimer of the type that FCC includes (and which is included in my FCC-based version of the coverage map). WAMC's obvious disingenuousness in this regard is the main reason for posting the second, FCC-based map. Using the word 'claimed' is inherently accurate and more fair and polite than using more appropriate words like 'bogus,' 'phony,' or 'wishful thinking' to describe WAMC's version of its coverage map. --Fungible 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WAMC's coverage map merely shows counties that are covered "in part or in full". Thank for overlaying FCC data --Zr2d2 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:WTA lists 'claimed' as a word to avoid Antonrojo 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coverage Maps, Stations, Translators, Wattage, Service Contour Maps

do you think we can come up with a shorter, more concise title? --Zr2d2 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. "Station Technical Information" comes to mind, but my guess is subheads are needed to break-out the info. Any ideas? --Fungible 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. that may make it bigger than it needs to be --Zr2d2 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias tag, criticism section

The criticisms seem to be well sourced and properly cited so I have removed the tag. If you disagree I suggest leaving a message here and on my talk page. Antonrojo 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alan Chartok

There seems to be a lot of discussion of Chartok in this article - perhaps this would be better placed in the Chartok article? WAMC's policy and bias are not synonymous with one person, whatever his title is in the organization. Also, several of these sources seem to come from a website that seems to exist exclusively as an anti-Chartok site. Perhaps it would be better to replace these sources with verified published journalism? Justinkrivers (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Bias

That seems like an awful lot of space to devote to a single anonymous critic. I'm thinking of removing that bit but would like to hear what others think first.--Skyraider (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, it does seem out of proportion. Justinkrivers (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)