Tonight I was listening to CHUM and, at around 7:30pm, a great little “new music” stinger over part of the song (akin to a sung intro) came on.

Immediately, my ears perked up.  “Have I heard this yet,” I thought to myself.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I identified the song in question:

Mackenzie Porter - These Days

A great, upbeat pop song with a catchy hook - no doubt.  But to describe it as “New”?  Seems a bit odd, in my opinion. 

After all, the song was released in 2019 and has been in active rotation on the CHR and AC charts since at least the beginning of the summer.

So my question to those in the know:  how long can a station realistically get away with calling something “new”?

AspectRatio wrote:

What's amusing is that although they did fix the headline, the URL still reads "2019" ( https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2020/01/01/resolutions-wed-like-to-see-in-2019.html ) - I assume to keep compatibility with links internally elsewhere on Thestar.com and externally. Most content management systems will maintain a static URL as an option - years ago many would have it rewritten when a story's headline is updated which for a "breaking news" story meant throughout the day any links to it would break.

...and the amateur show continues on full display over at the Star. A simple URL redirection for that particular article could have pushed folks to the correctly-labeled URL while maintaining the relevancy of existing links placed elsewhere.

It's amazing that even with the taxpayer-paid "bailout" (aka buy-off) from Trudeau, the Star still can't seem to get its act together.  Just look at the stock price!

Muffaraw Joe wrote:

Time will tell, but this could be a game changer...

I doubt it.  The culture at Rogers is so stale, corporate, and seemingly "anti-customer" that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that can turn that ship around.  (And I say this not as someone who has ever worked for Rogers - but as a frustrated consumer of its various services...)
 

I tried Crave a fews years back (specifically to watch The Wire).  Unfortunately, I kept having streaming issues and both Crave (the content provider) and Bell (my ISP at the time) couldn't figure it out.  Hours and hours wasted "blaming" the the other guy (which, ironically, is them!)
Just another example why content creators and infrastructure providers should be broken up...

Gotta love the marketing...

I was quite concerned to hear Newstalk 1010 use their "newscast" to promote partisan corporate activities by parent company Bell Canada.  On both the 5:30pm and 6:00pm newscasts earlier today (January 18th), stories about Bell Canada's "investment in infrastructure" were promoted as if they were legitimate news stories.

One has to seriously question the influence of Bell corporate on CFRB's news reporting based upon the preferential coverage this story is being afforded.  I recall Bell executive Kevin Crull was taken to task over this very type of undue influence over sister property, CTV:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/reports-of-bell-meddling-with-news-coverage-disturbing-crtc-chief-says/article23615500/

Is it really worth destroying the credibility of a heritage brand like CFRB for cheap and "free" advertising?   Do they honestly think listeners are too stupid to realize this is simply a public relations exercise by head office?

"It's going to be restored and hopefully by the end of summer," he said. "It had to go through all kinds of tests, wind tests, engineering studies and what else but it will go on top of a city owned building in Dundas Square and will be prominently visible and light up again, both spinning discs."

http://exclaim.ca/music/article/sam_the_record_man_sign_set_to_light_up_toronto_this_summer