Talk:Metromedia

Edits by User:They call me Mr. Pibb and User:Rollosmokes

I have absolutely no clue what User:Rollosmokes problem is, my edits are proper, Under the section Current Owners it is not necessary to put for example Owned by Clear Channel Communications because the section title has already established that this part is a list of current owners of the stations. Second adding the prefixes AM and FM after the station's call letters are necessary primarily because it distinguishs the differents between an AM and FM in the same broadcast market with the same FCC issued call letters and if applicable two different articles if they exist on Wikipedia. User:Rollosmokes also seems to have a nasty habit of reverting without creating a public discussion and posting a message on my talkpage with the following statement "format here was fine for months until you felt the need to fix what wasn't broken", I don't think the article was broken I think it just needed improvement, My edits were NOT malicious I was simply trying to be a good Wikipedian and contribute. I would like to request that a Wikipedia administrator could look at this and a make a non-bias decision on how this should be handled and that the page be temporarily protected until this dispute can be resolved. They call me Mr. Pibb 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seems ridiculous to put "owned by..." in box that says OWNER. my two cents Jorobeq 06:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents - when the column heading is "Current Owner", putting "Owned by" in the individual cells is redundant. The heading clearly establishes that the entity named in the cell is the owner of the station, and Mr. Pibb's edits improve the table's readability. Nothing personal, Rollo, but that's just how I see it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the words Owned by under the Radio stations Current Ownership, as was discussed previously by other users here it is redundant and should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Bar Sinister (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

I think it is time to settle this, we cannot just have Rollosmokes continously saying this is how it is done. I, for one, and many others out there would agree that putting owned by repeatedly in a column is not only unsightly and extremely redundant. I hope User:Rollosmokes that you can respond to this request in a way in which you do not appear as you did last time, in a manner in which you assert that your opinions are the only ones that are to be taken into consideration. There are now three users that agree with my position, Mr. Pibb, Dhett, and myself and I am sure you can find others out there. Let us try to resolve this in a constructive manner and not in the way in which it has been handled in the past. Jorobeq 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, how about adjectives better left unsaid, such as "ridiculous", "unsightly" and "extremely redundant"? Or accusations, such as "...you assert that your opinions are the only ones that are to be taken into consideration"? These can be inflammatory and in the case "extremely redundant", hyperbole (simply saying "redundant" is sufficient). A flag of truce waved at the end of a bayonet is unconvincing; if you're really serious about resolving this in a constructive manner, a good start would be tone down the rhetoric and accusations. For the record, Rollosmokes is not the only one who has expressed the opinion that "owned by" should be kept; Firsfron has weighed in with that opinion as well. As the Dave Mason song states, "There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree." dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the accusations and hyperbole by all parties need to be left at the door. For the record, I don't believe "owned by... owned by" is really necessary; it does seem redundant (but not redundant enough to start an edit war over it). I was actually referring to adding AM/FM suffixes to stations which don't use them, and bolding CBS Radio and Clear Channel Communications while leaving other corporate entities unbold, here. This seems vaguely POV, and perhaps should be avoided (though, again, not so POV that an edit war should develop over it). It is my hope that a compromise can be reached here. In the meantime, the page is protected (and hopefully will stay protected) so that the editors involved cannot simply just revert to their preferred version. As always, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Firsfron - my mistake. My opinion here is to let the FCC license decide whether or not to include a suffix. If the call letters included the suffix, then include them in the article; if they don't, then don't. There is no need to add (AM), (FM), (TV) or any other advisory; the article includes the stations' broadcast frequencies, so it's easy to differentiate an AM station (WNEW-1130) from an FM station (WNEW-FM-102.7).

As for bolding, it looks like the first reference to a business entity was wikilinked, and subsequent references bolded. Bolding attaches a sense of importance to the text IMO, and so, should be universally applied or not applied at all. If the subsequent references are bolded, then the initial wikilinks should be bolded. However, I recommend not bolding at all. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree that "owned by" under a table column labled "Current Owner" or "Owner" is redundant, but that a call sign should be the actual FCC call sign, so no "-AM", and "-FM" or "-TV" only when part of the FCC call sign. I also think a space would be preferable to a hyphen between the call sign and the frequency (i.e. KMET 94.7 rather than KMET-94.7). I also think none of this is worth edit-warring over. DHowell 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to dhett I apologize that, i was not careful in my choice of words. Jorobeq 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unprotecting this article. Those who have voiced their opinions on this page have indicated their preferences, and it is clear that the consensus on this page is that:

1) "Current owner" in the table with "owned by" on each subsequent entry is redundant and should be avoided.

2) Adding AM/FM/TV suffixes is unnecessary (because the frequency is already listed for radio stations, and TV stations are already listed seperately), and should be avoided unless that is the actual FCC call sign.

3) Edit warring over either version is silly, and only harms this article.

I will unprotect this article in a few minutes. I would strongly urge those who warred over this article to keep away from this article or at the very least, refrain from reverting to your preferred version, respecting the consensus of the several editors who have commented here. Those who choose to continue the edit war for a third time may be blocked from editing. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Firsfron of Ronchester I am now a happy camper, All of the points you have made is what I was looking for. Hopefully we (Meaning you me and other Wikipedians) can now all work in harmony with each other on this and other articles. They call me Mr. Pibb 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Radio station addition

Please add WOMC 104.3 FM in Detroit as a former Metromedia station. It's now owned by CBS Radio. Steelbeard1 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, with ref added. Thanks! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Television stations

Why don't we split the columnn "current affiliation and owner" in the TV stations table into 2 seperate columns "Current Affiliation" and "Current Owner" Jorobeq 08:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good idea which I've taken care of, Unfortunately though User:Rollosmokes has come in and reverted my edits without properly discussing it. Apparently he still thinks that this is his article and that he has the final say on what can and cannot be put on the page and he doesn't even openly discuss it on the Talk page like he should. 66.208.237.200 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard the phrase "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it"? This format for the table has been the standard for most other articles, and the changes made aren't really necessary. If this format has been working there is no need to change it now. And, unlike the BANNED IP user above who believes as such, this has nothing to do with an "ownership" claim on this article. For the record, there should not be another column added to this or any other chart, for the reasons I have already stated above.

BTW, this change was first made without a discussion, BANNED IP user. Rollosmokes 05:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted my suggestion so that a discussion would follow but there seemed to have been no interest on anyone's part until the IP user (which doesn't appear to be banned - i could be wrong) made changes to the article. How about we discuss now instead of just going back and forth and having users insist that the status quo remain without discussion. Jorobeq 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original opinion. Works for both simplicity and space concerns. There isn't any need to add additional columns for network affiliation when only three characters will fill a large space. Rollosmokes 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed by administrator Firsfron. By the way that IP user was NEVER banned. They call me Mr. Pibb 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote of personal attack previously removed by Firsfron removed by Rollosmokes. Be careful. Incivility can get you blocked again. And if you have a problem with me, take it off here and onto our respective comment pages. Rollosmokes 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollosmokes editing over my changes

About a month ago, I tried to cleanup the Metromedia page by seperating the article in brackets. The brackets were based on decades. This was done in hopes of making the article easier to read/follow. Unfortunately, Rollosmokes took great offense to this, and completely reverted things back to the way he saw fit. And to make matters worse, it practically does this without consulting with me first to explain his rationale. He did virtually, the same thing with my edits of the Soul Train page. It's really pity and self-serving to be brutally honest. TMC1982 12:29 a.m., 13 August 2007 (2007)

My reasons for making the revertion were summed up in the edit summary: There is really no reason why the article should be sub-sectioned in that manner. There isn't enough text to warrant separate sub-headings based on decade. When and if the article is expanded to a manner similar to, for example Westinghouse Broadcasting, then I'll agree with you.

This is stricly a professional critique of your work. To quote Jermaine Jackson, don't take it personal. Rollosmokes 04:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Metromedia in the early years

While the name Metromedia, Inc. came into being in 1961, its broadcasting properties continued to use the "Metropolitan Broadcasting" moniker for about five more years afterwards. In fact, a 1964 sign-off of WNEW-TV (by announcer Tom Gregory) specified the station's owner as "Metropolitan Broadcasting, Division of Metromedia, Inc." And as late as 1966, WTTG's letterheads continued to mention "Metropolitan Broadcasting" in the text. It was about 1967 that the TV stations, in their advertising, first listed "Metromedia Television" (while its radio outlets were under the "Metromedia Radio" banner). I'm just asking where in this entry this factoid would go. –Wbwn 07:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Open End/David Susskind Show

This series has been removed from the list of Metromedia programs. IMDb, this site, and this site all agree it was a Metromedia program. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the culprit, I'll explain why. From my research, I concluded the following: Open End was first a local New York show, starting on WNTA-TV (1958-61), then WNEW-TV ('62-'63), and WPIX ('63-'66). In 1966 David Susskind moved the show back to WNEW-TV, named it after himself, and it went national. Though Metromedia in New York may have housed the show's facilities, I believe Susskind (who owned his own production company) produced and syndicated it himself. I can provide sources to back up part of my claim. Rollosmokes 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Brooks and Marsh Complete Directory (1983) confirm the local-only dates from 1958-1961. They state the program was syndicated after 1961. They also claim the series was largely seen on PBS stations, though it was seen on commercial stations as well. I would like a reliable source that states it was not a Metromedia program, because the only sources I've seen state nothing at all or state that it was. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have three articles from the New York Times archive which I'll cite as sources.

July 16, 1961: Open End moves from soon-to-be-sold WNTA-TV to WNEW-TV, effective that September. This article states that Susskind and Metromedia would co-produce the program, and will be taped at Metromedia; outgoing channel 13 owner National Telefilm Associates will handle syndication.

July 24, 1963: WPIX announces it will pick up Open End in the Fall; also mentions that the program was seen in "18 or 19 cities" during the previous season (no mention of syndicator), as well as new production facilities in Manhattan.

July 13, 1966: Open End is retitled The David Susskind Show and moves back to WNEW-TV that Fall. The show retains its then-current production facilities in Manhattan, and there is no mention of a syndicator.

Also of note: Talent Associates, a production company of which Susskind was a partner, was sold in 1968 (and was later acquired by Time-Life in '77). A report in the New York Times (from 8-20-1968) does not mention the Susskind program among those produced by Talent Associates.

So, I will conclude this: Open End was syndicated after 1961. (I missed that in my original research.) The program was recorded at WNEW-TV/Metromedia until 1963. Whether or not it was either syndicated and/or co-produced by Metromedia Producers Corp. is still unclear. Rollosmokes 07:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the section is titled "TV series produced and/or distributed by MPC"; if your first source states the program was co-produced by Metromedia, it could still be included in the list, and a number of other sources also make the Metromedia link. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is where this gets sketchy. Susskind left WNEW-TV in '63 because of editorial differences with the station's management. It centered around a program which had scheduled Harry Belafonte and James Baldwin as the only guests. Apparently, the station felt both guests -- especially Belafonte -- were too controversial and asked (or tried to force) Susskind to drop one of them or include others to surround them. Susskind refused to bow, and accused WNEW-TV with harassment and censorship. In moving to WPIX, the Times article mentioned that, along with Susskind keeping complete creative/editorial freedom, Talent Associates "would present the series in association with the Videotape Center (the New York facility where the show was moved)."

Susskind apparently kept of his program when he moved it back to channel 5. Given what happened only three years earlier, I doubt he would have ceded any content control. Long story short, I'm not doubting the Metromedia link, but I think it was limited to only the program's first stint on WNEW-TV. Rollosmokes 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Metromedia didn't end in 1986

There seems to be a little confusion in Metromedia's disestablishment. I might be wrong. But after John Kluge sold Metromedia Producers Corporation to 20th Century Fox/News Corp. in 1986, all of Metromedia's television stations were incorporated as the Fox Television Stations and MPC was folded into 20th Century Fox Television, Metromedia stayed alive, but unless it was spun-off and became Metromedia International Group and they did acquire a stake in Orion Pictures Corporation and years later they took full control. I think Metromedia was disestablished in 1997 instead after selling Orion/Goldwyn to MGM. The information of how Metromedia acquired Orion should be included in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong in this. King Shadeed 17:19, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in Radio ownership saying Owned by

Ok, so somebody has put back the Owned by underneath the Current Ownership category which is just redundant, clearly it says Current Ownership you don't need to put Owned by next to each of the radio stations. I am removing this again so we can avoid an editing war which was originally started by two other Wikipedians. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

MPC logo

any reason for its not being shown here? Shotguntony (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metromedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605071915/http://www.mmt.com/about_us.php to http://www.mmt.com/about_us.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Bring back Independent Stations owned by Metromedia

FOX television stations will go on sale. And it's the end of an era of Rupert Murdoch's business empire and the hostile takeovers. FOX, FOX News, FOX Business, and FOX Sports, and MY Network is going off the air and sign off. We will make a transition to turn back into Independent Stations owned by Metromedia with sign-ons and sign-offs followed by the National Anthem of the United States of America. 100.2.149.243 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)