Talk:KNRK

Edits to the Marconi/Nick Berg Controversy section
Please refrain from removing verfiable encyclopedic information from this article. If you feel that the information is presented in a biased or incorrect manner, please address your concerns here on the article's talk page so that everybody can work together and come to a consensus. --Billdorr 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there proof that Marconi is now the most popular afternoon show in Portland? IE: ratings?

--I can't find the Arbitron ratings to back that up although I heard the disc jockeys themselves make the claim that they are number one in Portland.

I think the use of the word "bantering" and that entire last sentence in the "Nicholas Berg Controversy" section is biased and not based on any facts. I worked at KNRK during the Nicholas Berg issue and I can tell you while the firing of Marconi for his actions was very bad press for the station, this was not the sole reason for KNRK deciding to switch formats. There were a variety of factors including not garnering enough advertising revenue from the millennial market, dealing with rowdy disc jockeys like Marconi, dealing with dissatisfied listeners and a variety of other internal considerations that led Entercom and the management staff at KNRK to make their decision.--Bluecraze378 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Using the word snide adds a non-neutral analysis of the commentary that occurred in 2004. I think it should be removed to just say that there was commentary. Thoughts?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps snide isn't the best word to use here but there certainly needs to be some sort of adjective in this spot. Their comments were very cruel, obnoxious and made light of the man's brutal death. I think snide is, perhaps, the most apt. If anything, what they did might even deserve a harsher description. Constablequackers (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)