> this whole discussion is about am radio specifically
I don't know what alternate reality thread you're in.
The article is about switching-off analog radio, not specifically AM.
Then you said 'people don't buy standalone radio receivers' which I mean is just verifiable nonsense - go to any supermarket, electronics store, department store, and there's a huge range for different budgets, tastes, ages. Many of them cost hundreds of pounds.
You might be bringing a more American perspective to this. Note it's a British article and issue. In the UK, very high-quality 'talk radio' is much more part of mainstream daily family life for all kinds of people and it's pretty normal to for example have a kitchen radio to have on during breakfast. Also note that 'talk radio' here is more often an FM thing, not an AM thing.
About a quarter of the population listens to the top 'talk radio' station here.
> Analogue radio station licences will be extended for another 10 years, the UK government has said – entirely reversing plans to shut off FM and AM radio stations in favour of DAB digital radio.
First comment in this subthread: "digital radio just can't compete". No distinction AM vs FM
Your response to that claims that "all modern cars have digital" and that "people don't buy standalone radio receivers, and haven't in decades." Doesn't mention AM vs FM.
/u/chrisseaton comments about dedicated radios clearly being widely sold. No mention of AM vs FM.
You claim that's an anomaly. You then also introduce AM for the first time in your claim about people <40 not knowing about it.
I comment that's wrong. And it is: AM very much was a relevant thing for a large part of the lives of many people under 40. It happens to have been shut off a few years ago where I live, with FM going strong.
So where is the strawman? In that I dared to mentioned analog radio in general, which was part of most of the discussion in this subthread, in my last response? What "whole discussion" is about AM specifically?
