Talk:WAMC

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Title

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  deletion 

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Seems to me that there is no conesnsus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: only two people weighed in.  I was going to leave it open so more people could vote  --Zr2d2 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result:no consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:WTA lists 'claimed' as a word to avoid Antonrojo 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage Maps

message: do you think we can come up with a shorter, more concise title?  --Zr2d2 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. that may make it bigger than it needs to be  --Zr2d2 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage Maps, Stations, Translators, Wattage, Service Contour Maps 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias tag, criticism section

message: 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)
thread_title: Alan Chartok

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you, it does seem out of proportion. Justinkrivers (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Bias