-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Classic Hits on AM
- Thread starter MarioMania
- Start date
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I will remember this next time I fill out my census form. What do I want to be? I never knew I had this choice!
If politicians didn't think that they could somehow capture wholesale blocks of votes from "Hispanics", the category would never have been invented! It might come in handy if you're applying for a job and would like special consideration to fill an affirmative action minority slot. Just change your name to Tuna Tierra.
Signed,
ávido oyente
Last edited:
The "category" was created because the civil rights legislation of the 60's and 70's required equal treatment for Latinos and African Americans. However, there was no Census data for "Latinos" because they had been counted as "white" up to and through the 1970 Census; there was no way to insure compliance with existing legislation.
At some point, it was realized that "Latinos" included groups not part of the objectives of the legislation, as "Latin" covers the French, the Italians and even Romanians... those from nations where Latin had been spoken. So it was decided to look for a term that represented the intent of the law in the view of the folks in government.
For many, either term was considered unpopular. One of my daughters had several T-shirts that said "I am not Hispanic. I am not Latina. I am Puerto Rican". But the term stuck as a compromise for a group that actually covered widely if not wildly different subsets.
Actually, it is "Oyente Ávido" as the adjective in Spanish (and all Romance languages) generally goes after the noun, not before it.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
You posted the public excuse and rationale, I posted the true reason. The simple truth is there is still no way to ensure compliance with existing legislation for affirmative action quotas for Hispanics because there is no legal definition of what "Hispanic" is. If I check the block on a job application claiming to be Hispanic, then I'm Hispanic. There's no legal standard to prove otherwise. I simply have to claim that at one point in my ancestry, there was a Mexican milkman making deliveries.
I never saw evidence of any motivation for creating the USA-specific definition of "Hispanic" other than the need to separate one group of people from the "white" category for compliance with new laws.
At the time this was going on, I was manager of a group of stations in Puerto Rico which was going to buy facilities in Miami, New York, Hartford and other places and we had even contracted a demographer to see how changes in the Census might affect ratings, public recognition of the newly - named "Hispanic Market" and other related matters.
The obvious response to your position is that giving a voting bloc one name or another is not going to change its size. Did naming the increasingly important "Unattached single women" group change its size or impact on elections?
In fact, initially, until the 1980 Census first defined the group, most politicians believed it to be smaller and mostly made up of non-voting non-citizens.
For one segment of radio, it was a blessing. Having more precise figures for the market segment allowed Spanish language broadcasters to push Arbitron to do DST for Hispanics as well as for Blacks. This propelled the growth of the segment in the 80's.
The same issue you point out is also true for every other question on the Census questionnaire. People can put in anything they want. And as to fraudulently claiming to be Hispanic, one would ask for examples of this actually occurring. I would guess that it is not common, as evidenced by the only prominent case of "ethnic heritage exaggeration" in the Massachusetts race where one candidate allegedly got college entrance quota preference by claiming to be one-sixteenth Native American.
I know this will come as a shock, but the real background on the designation of various ethnic groups in the census isn't political, but financial.
The Department of the Census is under the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department keeps all these statistics primarily for businesses in the US, as well as for marketing the United State to other countries. So the real reason isn't about politics, but rather money. This is not to say that some political candidates aren't going to target certain ethnic groups by speaking in foreign languages, or demonstrating their own personal ethnic heritage. A lot was made about the President's race and ethnicity during the last two elections. But if we're talking about the TRUE reason for the designation, it's money. And whenever I see residents of an area ask why their favorite format (such as classic hits) isn't on the radio, the first thing I look at is the market's ethnic make-up, and the answer is obvious.
The Department of the Census is under the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department keeps all these statistics primarily for businesses in the US, as well as for marketing the United State to other countries. So the real reason isn't about politics, but rather money. This is not to say that some political candidates aren't going to target certain ethnic groups by speaking in foreign languages, or demonstrating their own personal ethnic heritage. A lot was made about the President's race and ethnicity during the last two elections. But if we're talking about the TRUE reason for the designation, it's money. And whenever I see residents of an area ask why their favorite format (such as classic hits) isn't on the radio, the first thing I look at is the market's ethnic make-up, and the answer is obvious.
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
Como esta frijoli caballo?
Juan Gigante (thee beeg Juan)
Here I agree in part with Avid. The creation of the "Hispanic" term and the consequent available breakouts in Census data came as a direct result of the civil rights legislation that passed in the 60's and 70's. The OMB was charged with directing the Census Bureau to come up with a solution to the problem that existed from not having any "official" quantifications of the Latin / Latino / Spanish / Hispanic population which suddenly had to be included in all the quantifications of EEO, educational opportunity programs and such.
I get all that. But the purpose wasn't for politicians to "capture wholesale blocks of votes." That came later. In fact some politicians have only very recently become aware of this strategy.
Certainly true, also. Putting a label on a group of previously unlabeled people does not make them a larger voting bloc.
Politicians have become aware of the Hispanic bloc in proportion to the growth of eligible voters within it, particularly since, decades ago, there were to few of them to tip the scales and the participation in the process by Hispanics was generally low (except in South Florida where it was the opposite).
Last edited:
The discussion moved to a discussion of the potential for ethnic / foreign language music formats on AM when Avid said, "I realize that AM has a special place for catering to minorities who prefer languages other than English. I was referring to mainstream broadcasting, not niche broadcasting for foreigners."
But addressing WMID and its format... the station is a no-show in 25-54, and only averages 800 listeners, all of whom are over 55. 75% are over 65. That is likely not a viable station except to use to provide bonus spots to advertisers on the "big" stations in the Equity cluster there.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
In that case, I think I'm going to "latinoize" my own name to Kah Emme Ricardos. (Stop laughing, David.)
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No, but recognizing that capturing most of the votes in ethnic neighborhoods, include the barrio, is a good way to boost vote totals was something politicians learned over a century ago. Pandering to blocs of voters is a process, not an event. Politicians pandered to ethnic blocs of voters since the first blocs of ethnic voters existed. Recognizing that a large voting bloc exists precedes labeling it, especially if the labeling assists in handing out pork to buy votes. And make no mistake, programs like Affirmative Action are as much vote-buying pork as awarding contracts to big employers or funding bridges in a Congressman's district is.
Now you're sounding like Fred...
In that case, I think I'm going to "latinoize" my own name to Kah Emme Ricardos. (Stop laughing, David.)
Any relation to Ricky Ricardo?
A century ago most Latinos in the US were disenfranchised, save in the places where they had always been a majority such as San Antonio and Albuquerque. In most other areas, they were discouraged from registering to vote and not particularly encouraged to become citizens, either.
Well into the 60's, even Puerto Ricans in New York were quite ignored in the political process, despite the fact that they were all US Citizens.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Again, read the entire post. Skimming through searching for nits to pick causes you to miss a lot.
- Status