About Quinn & Rose I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Patrick Cloonan's news story “Quinn & Rose out as morning talk show hosts” (Nov. 19 and TribLIVE.com) was very interesting and informative. I was glad to see that this show had a very devoted and loyal audience. I add my congratulations and kudos to the hosts as well for their great work in Pittsburgh radio.
However, this removal was nothing new. Politics and ratings were not a factor. It was solely a “business decision” made by the powers that be at Clear Channel Communications.
Remember another great recent morning radio talk host in this market named Jim Krenn? He also had great popularity and ratings for WPGB-FM 104.7's sister station, WDVE-FM 102.5, during a similar morning drive-time slot. When his contract renewal came up several years ago, just like with Quinn and Rose, that station also decided not to sign him for another deal.
In other words, both cases most likely came down to dollars and cents, or other non-negotiable terms that management refused to honor. This occurs in radio and other marketplaces all the time.
Therefore, whether it's Jim Krenn or Quinn and Rose, being “out as hosts” in whatever form is a reality that will always exist. Heck, with all the competitive forms of broadcasting and disseminating information in our world today, I'm surprised that moves like these do not occur on a regular basis. A marketplace that is global and now web-based makes things lasting for long periods a rare occurrence indeed.
Richard M. Hays Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Slots & property taxes
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Medicaid’s future
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Putin’s actions I
- Beneficial, irreplaceable