KCBS has been running an annoying tag line on its news breaks: "Live and Local". It's not an every now and then blurt--it's run continuously during the morning and afternoon news blocks.
Why?
KCBS is the top-rated news station on local radio. We all know the content is "live and local"--it doesn't need to be rammed down our throat every 20 minutes.
Live and Local is a trite radio phrase that's become a cliché. The average listener doesn't know or care about live and local. It's useless actually because most people who listen to KCBS want traffic reports, weather, sports and news. Yes, news, what a radical concept. Local news too. Unless we're on another planet the listeners know it's live already so I don't get the idea that this idiotic slogan is run nonstop at the news station. Is KCBS that paranoid that they have to run on a loop of one of the dumbest and useless catch phrases in broadcasting? Apparently so.
*The disconnect at KQED--both on the radio and TV side --between management and staff, has never been more cantankerous and divisive. The heart and soul of the discomfort lies in KQED raking in more bucks than ever; most managers making well over $200K with healthy benefits and perks; plus sweet bonuses paid out to a select few. All of this is great for managers but not so great for everyone else: the rank and file workforce who have had to fight to keep their pay status whole and health benefits intact. This has been an ongoing battle at KQED for some time now and the way one veteran staffer says, "ain't going to get better anytime soon--they're trying to screw with us and see if they can tke us down."
*Blunt: Roberta Gonzales --respectable on TV, overly sappy on radio.
*Mankind will cease to exist: a radio station without a weekend chef on air. (Praise the lord)
*Sarah and Vinnie: dumb and dumber.
*If the Warriors were to win the NBA championship the idea of where the parade would be held--SF or Oakland?--was leaked to me by a source close to the goings-on-- here's the plan: Begin in Oakland with a march and parade down Broadway all the way to Jack London Square where the team will then take the ferry across the bay to the city with a parade to City Hall and speeches. You read it here first.
*Follow me on Twitter
Much as we all love the atmosphere of excitement at Oracle Arena, the Warriors never should have left SF in the first place. The only NBA team in the area plays on the lesser side of the bay? Come on! But the problem back in the early 1970s is that San Francisco didn't have a suitable arena; there was the dowdy old Cow Palace just across the Daly City line where the Warriors played most of their games in the 1960s, and there was Civic Auditorium downtown, (now Bill Graham Auditorium), where they played weeknight games because they wouldn't get crowds much bigger than 7,000 in those days, and that's about how much the old Civic Auditorium would hold.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how the new waterfront digs in the city will change the demographic of the fans. I think you'll see a lot more techies and high rollers at the games in the city than you saw in Oakland, (although most techies could care less about sports...(just ask Mark Wallburg if he cares about the Niners, Warriors or Giants...NOT!)
The ticket prices are almost certain to go through the roof when the Warriors return to the city, and a lot of middle class fans will be shut out.
I remember my Dad taking me to games back in the 1960s, and good seats cost about 5 bucks in those days, with the 'cheap seats' up in the rafters costing about a buck and a half.
Much as I like the idea of the Warriors returning to my native city and once again being called: 'The San Francisco Warriors,' rather than 'Golden State,' (that is so ambiguous!) I fear that the passion will be missing from the arena, much like it is for the Niners since Jed York turned his back on the city and moved the team to Santa Clara. BTW, how dare that he still call the Niners 'San Francisco.' They should be the Santa Clara 49ers or the 'South Bay' 49ers. That's as good as 'Golden State' don't you think?
The Golden State name came from the fact that the Warriors played games (one season only I think) in SF, Oakland and San Diego. Hence the 'Golden State' Name.
DeleteHas the second worst show in bay area radio come to an end? Cooking with Royal Schmuck?
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame! Where will we get to hear recipes for chimichanga or glutten free churros? There's no more riveting radio than hearing the chef and his buddies drinking cocktails on air. Damn! What a loss. I'm still reeling from Rabbi Lapin this is too much.
DeleteLet me brag for a moment. 1st,I wrote about Radnich wearing tennis shoes with his slacks and sports coat on KRON. He's the guy who says he's too sophisticated for bluejeans. KRON has now put a teleprompter that block views of his feet. He could wear slippers now.
ReplyDelete2: I wrote preseason the A's need to stop the practice of no player names on uniforms during homes games. Who knows who they are?
The A's wear their names on home uniforms now.
Ok. Believe it or not,but that's how I see it. People- BIG people read blogs.
Yes you dumbass, they have always had names on the back of their uniforms. In the preseason and spring training they wear different jerseys.
DeleteThat's funny, I was going to call him a dumbass this morning when I saw the comment but thought to myself "he's too old and ignorant he'll never change". And then I saw your response and laughed.
DeleteStan, you ignorant slut....
DeleteBut the Giants and Yankees don't have names on their uniforms.
DeleteStan, Put down your Budweiser, The A's have always had the names on the back of the Jersey's!
ReplyDeleteThe Warriors trying to have it both ways is just stupid. The Golden State name does not take away that it is an Oakland team. In the future, when they move to SF, then they should and will do things here in SF. But right now they have no SF connection, SF itself does not really care or support the team, and trying to market toward a future connection by marching in SF now is insincere, pandering, and a diss to all the CURRENT loyal fans. Picture Ed Lee giving the Warriors the key to the city or a proclamation- you can't, can you? Warriors -- accept where you are today and own it. Be respectful and do not try to pretend you are something you are not.
ReplyDeleteI guess you haven't seen the packed BART trains with Warriors fans heading from SF to Oakland before games then.
DeleteLike the A's opponents, the teams that come in to play the Warriors spend their $ in SF hotels and restaurants---not in Oakland.
Less than 40% of the season ticket-holders are from the East Bay.
DeleteThe remainder are from Santa Clara, SF, San Mateo, Marin etc.
The new arena won't be in the center of a parking lot surrounded by nothing, it will be in a lively, restaurant and bar filled neighborhood like ATT has. I don't think the team will have any problem filling that place, even if some of the East Bay fans are priced out.
And yes, "Golden State" does take away from the fact that it is currently an Oakland team. For marketing purposes they avoided calling the team the Oakland Warriors opting for the vague inclusiveness of GS.
Yesterday, SF Chron writer, Peter Hartlaub, broke down the history of the Golden State name. I'm old enough to remember it well. San Diego had lost its team to Houston and Warriors' owner, Franklin Meuli, was going to have the "San Francisco" Warriors play half their games down there and half up here. Kinda like the old Cincy/KC Kings, now Sacramento. I think when the Warriors move back to SF, they should try and be creative with their name and keep the regionality. Something like San Francisco Bay or Bay Warriors, maybe, but that's off the cuff.
DeleteThanks for jinxing the Warriors asshole!
ReplyDelete@1:25
ReplyDeletePreach!
"If the Warriors were to win the NBA championship the idea of where the parade would be held--SF or Oakland?"
ReplyDeleteNot to worry. The Spurs will rid them of that quandary.
Care to take back your prediction?
Delete