Well I checked wikipedia and it says that KFXM was a radio station. Which means they are not coming back. That makes me think 98.3 would be open for a nonprofit to come on board with another format. Maybe even KMEN. That would be great if it does happen. I'm just putting it out there as an idea not fact though. What are your guys thoughts on this?
-
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
KFXM officially gone from the airwaves forever
- Thread starter 34james
- Start date
The KFXM license is still active, according to FCC records.
Someone probably prematurely updated Wikipedia.
Someone probably prematurely updated Wikipedia.
All their is, is static. They don't have a website either. What's going on frequencies 1. Have you talked to Chris lately?
The KMET calls are in use in Redlands, AM and FM. KMEN is licensed to an FM in Mendota (Fresno County).
As for using Wikipedia to determine if KFXM is officially gone from the airwaves forever, I could go to Wikipedia and change "was" to "is" right now.
And I could follow you a few minutes later and change "is" to "will be", or "isn't". Nobody's really doing rigorous checking of every edit. So unless a moderator happens to spot your (or my) edit and questions it, other people will be relying on the veracity of the last person to hold the eraser and pencil. Wikipedia *can* be a great resource, but it's only as good as the people who try keeping any particular entry on the straight and narrow.
(As an aside: "ChatGPT" has gotten a ton of press in the last few weeks, so I decided to try it the other night. I asked it to generate a few paragraphs on WOR-FM, shich hasn't been around in 50 years, and which I've got a bit of first-hand knowledge of. ChatGPT did an amazing job of quickly kicking out a mini-essay that was (1) literate, (2) on target, and (3) wrong. Lots of factual errors. I feel for any student who tries to slip a ChatGPT generated essay in for a class assignment, unless they've checked the facts really carefully and edited it within an inch of its life. Try it some time with a topic that you're already an expert on and see what results.)
To your point, Weiserguy:
https://futurism.com/the-byte/cnet-publishing-articles-by-ai
Articles fact-checked by a human editor, but generated by AI and published under the byline of "CNET staff".
(shudder)
News outlets have been doing this for a while, mostly for stories that are primarily data-driven such as routine sports results or financial market reports. It's been pretty easy for a long time for a computer to take a bunch of stock prices and market moves and turn them into prose - ChatGPT takes it to the next level with what looks more like natural language processing (but is just a much more complex version of what's already been done for years).
The linked article mentions AP, but I've observed this same phenomenon with a lot of financial articles. The kind you find towards the bottom of a Yahoo Finance portfolio or stock summary page. Articles from publishers like Zacks, Reuters, Marketwatch, Investors Business Daily. I'm not accusing any particular article of being AI generated, but if you read enough of these recaps, you start recognizing some of the language to be near-identical to similar articles, with just the company/stock specifics and market movements plugged in from recent market activity or Newswire releases.
There are no moderators. We all check the articles. There is a group that monitors "recent changes", which are shown to those who want to do that.
- Status