Air America picks up new flagship station: WWRL-AM in NYC

[Radio_Realist]

"The best progressive talk stations are the ones that cherry-pick the best shows (like Miller, Schultz, Rhodes, etc.) and slot in a few local hosts. Any station relying solely on AAR for programming is being lazy. Nowadays, there are a lot of good progressive talk shows to choose from out there. And alot of it isn't even being done by AAR."

From what I've heard their hosts say on the air, I got the impression that Air America was a liberal talk network. I haven't heard any progressive political ideas from any of their hosts, only liberal ideas.

Are they ashamed to be liberals? Is that why they call themselves "progressive"?

As for hiring celebrities with no radio experience and thinking that they can be successful radio talk show hosts, regardless of their political affiliation, can anyone say "David Lee Roth"?

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Ooops...I left some quoted stuff in that message and it's not marked as being quoted. And this board software won't let me go back and edit it.

Anything under this line in my message is quoted material, not mine:

"It is somewhat weird having a radio talk show host go directly to the White House as press secretary."

 

[Scribbler]

evnless wrote:
so the 'newsguy' who could not understand 'sarcasm' or 'satire' now has his tongue firmly planted in cheek. I might respond that you may have your head firmly planted somewhere else, but that 'satire' would get me flagged as an 'hateful' ad-hominem attack

Sigh. The alleged "satire" involved ignoring the fact that the 25-54 ratings are much more important than 12+ and suggesting just the opposite. I understood what you and the rest of the AAR-bashers were trying to do, but it doesn't meet the definition of satire. Look it up. And why the quotes around "newsguy?" Who are you quoting? Not me.

Hey Scribbler, again, provide the quote. If you cannot ( because you read in on some left leaning blog), then it's unverifiable.

Why is this such a huge issue with you? Again, I didn't "claim" he'd said this. I said I'd read it somewhere and it made sense to me. Apparently you think that kicking talk shows hosts off a station because of their opinions would be something to be ashamed of. I don't. If I paid $12 million for a station that featured a bunch of right-wing extremists and one moderate, I'd kick all the right-wing extremists off the station. That would be my right and I'd take great satisfaction in doing so.

From AJC's R Ho on Access Atlanta on 06/09/2006:

Intermart partner Bill Brown said he and two other partners were
willing to promote Air America, but a fourth partner wanted to sell
out. In fact, Intermart was --hiring a sales person-- and implementing a
marketing plan when Weber approached them last fall, Brown said."

But they never did hire a sales person and, as it turned out, "barely marketed" the station, as Ho also reported.

Here's another funny little fact : they ran an ad in Access Atlanta for a sales person , AND NO ONE ANSWERED THE AD!!!

Please don't shout. And please supply complete documentation, including the wording of the ad (sarcasm).

Anyone that has basic reading skills can read the defenders of AAR, and see where the 'hatred' is coming from. Accusing me of being a troll hiding behind his anonymity may not be considered 'hateful', but I doubt it would be considered 'friendly'.

I didn't call you a troll and I'm hardly in a position to accuse anybody of hiding behind his anonymity. You're mistaking me for somebody else.

None of this will change the fact that your precious AAR 24 hr bad programming is no longer on the air in the nations # 10 market.

It's far from "precious" to me. There you go again, putting another word in my mouth (but at least you didn't put quote marks around it this time). On my fantasy station (if I wasn't playing jazz DJ), I'd take a lesson from what CBS is doing in Seattle (Miller, Hartmann, Schultz, Franken, Rhodes, and Malloy) although I'd improve on that lineup by adding a local morning show. I'd also get my network news from a source other than AAR, unless it made big improvements in that area. One of the many mistakes of the previous owners of WWAA was in just plugging into AAR's satellite feed and adding nothing to the mix.

 

[evnlee]

I didn't call you a troll and I'm hardly in a position to accuse anybody of hiding behind his anonymity. You're mistaking me for somebody else.

really? strike three:

BTW, didn't you used to be Fred Flintstone, mwebster, nwebster, merriam webster, skyeye, emacee, and bierkenstock?

"Fred " admitted to being all seven anti-AAR bashers -- and vanished just before you arrived on the scene.

The fervor of your hatred of this little lefty network seems all-too familiar.


« Last Edit: Yesterday at 08:49:13 am by Scribbler »


You are not being truthful, therefore, any further debate is finished.

 

[Scribbler]

I didn't call you a troll and I'm hardly in a position to accuse anybody of hiding behind his anonymity. You're mistaking me for somebody else.

really? strike three:

BTW, didn't you used to be Fred Flintstone, mwebster, nwebster, merriam webster, skyeye, emacee, and bierkenstock?

"Fred " admitted to being all seven anti-AAR bashers -- and vanished just before you arrived on the scene.

The fervor of your hatred of this little lefty network seems all-too familiar.

You are not being truthful, therefore, any further debate is finished.

Almost all of us on this board are "hiding" behind screen names, usually for good reasons. My point was that this other guy has used at least seven screen names, which isn't exactly kosher. At first I thought you might be him, but as your angry insults escalated I realized that my suspicionswere unfounded. Sorry, Fred!

 

[kaufcom]

From what I've heard their hosts say on the air, I got the impression that Air America was a liberal talk network. I haven't heard any progressive political ideas from any of their hosts, only liberal ideas.

Are they ashamed to be liberals? Is that why they call themselves "progressive"?

There you go again. That's fifteen times you've made the point of "liberal" versus "progressive" talk radio. We know how you feel about this issue. Can you please move on or move off.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Can you please move on or move off."

I'll make you a proposition. You convince people to use the word "liberal" when they mean "liberal" and "progressive" when they mean "progressive", and I won't make an issue of using "progressive" when they mean "liberal".

Or here's an alternate proposition. When you start counting how many times individual posters use "progressive" when they mean "liberal", I'll stop making an issue of it.

 

[FightingIrish]

"Can you please move on or move off."

I'll make you a proposition. You convince people to use the word "liberal" when they mean "liberal" and "progressive" when they mean "progressive", and I won't make an issue of using "progressive" when they mean "liberal".

Or here's an alternate proposition. When you start counting how many times individual posters use "progressive" when they mean "liberal", I'll stop making an issue of it.

I certainly hope you don't lose sleep at night obsessing about this stuff.

Let's all just ignore this guy, stop responding to his posts, and let him continue to make a fool of himself in his own echo chamber.

Oh, by the way...

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE

PROGRESSIVE!!!​

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE

 

[kaufcom]

When you start counting how many times individual posters use "progressive" when they mean "liberal", I'll stop making an issue of it.

You've got a deal!

 

[fred flintstone]

Progressive

The standard industry term for the format which includes the Air America Radio and the Jones Radio hosts (among others) is "progressive talk radio." Clear Channel introduced the term and it has been generally adopted by other station operators.

Stations with conservative hosts are mostly referred to as "talk" or "news/talk" without any ideological modifier. That pretty much says something about the industry's mind-set.

To my ears, AAR's and Jones' hosts do not represent Progressive Democrats but mostly reflect the party line of Centrists in the Democratic Party and the DLC. However, Progressive Democrats are a distrinct political faction.

If you'd like to find out more about "progressives" - instead of just flaming those who use the term - go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Factions

In the meantime, the correct and standard name for the format is "progressive talk." If you don't like that, call Clear Channel and get them to come up with something else.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Clear Channel introduced the term"

Ah yes, Clear Channel. The company that elevated voice-tracking to a fine art, the company responsible for more unemployment among radio professionals than the invention of television. The company that turns all radio in the markets they "serve" (to use the term loosely) into homogenized pablum. The company that is turning terrestrial broadcast radio into an even bigger wasteland than it used to be. The company that executives at Sirius and XM offer thanks to on a daily basis for driving listeners away from terrestrial radio over to satellite.

As the 500 pound gorilla of radio, they can pretty much do whatever they please.

But that doesn't change reality any. You can call your dog a fish if you want to, that doesn't mean he can live underwater.

 

[kaufcom]

Ah yes, Clear Channel. The company that elevated voice-tracking to a fine art, the company responsible for more unemployment among radio professionals than the invention of television. The company that turns all radio in the markets they "serve" (to use the term loosely) into homogenized pablum. The company that is turning terrestrial broadcast radio into an even bigger wasteland than it used to be. The company that executives at Sirius and XM offer thanks to on a daily basis for driving listeners away from terrestrial radio over to satellite.

As the 500 pound gorilla of radio, they can pretty much do whatever they please.

But that doesn't change reality any. You can call your dog a fish if you want to, that doesn't mean he can live underwater.

You are obviously not looking for a job in the radio business.

 

[fred flintstone]

But that doesn't change reality any. You can call your dog a fish if you want to, that doesn't mean he can live underwater.

You are not talking about reality. You are talking about words. Words are symbols. Symbols get meanings from agreement. You must not have been a communications major - or a political science or history major for that matter.

OK, you don't like the name "progressive talk." You don't like Clear Channel. You don't like terrestrial radio. Anything else you want to b*tch about?

Did you even both to look at the article to which I linked in my prior post? No, of course not. Facts can get in the way of a good rant - not matter how ill-informed.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"You are obviously not looking for a job in the radio business."

My business is advising clients on the best way to spend their marketing and advertising dollars to get the best return on their investment. I wish I could advise more of them to buy airtime on the radio, but I cannot. As a cost-effective means of advertising products and services for sale that generates measurable, positive results, most terrestrial radio has been turned into a non-player.

"Did you even both to look at the article to which I linked in my prior post?"

The link to Wikipedia? Get real!

No matter what anyone believes, there is a website somewhere in which some "expert" supports that belief. I've even found a website in which some expert declares that eating your own boogers is good for you. Any fool can cut and paste a link.

"Anything else you want to b*tch about?"

You picked a silly nickname.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Did you even both to look at the article to which I linked in my prior post?"

OK, After I typed that reply, I did look up the Wikipedia article. It lists the farthest left of the lefties, like George McGovern, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders as examples of the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party. So maybe I am mistaken. "Progressive" isn't a new label that the liberals are hiding behind, it's a disguise that the ultra-liberals are hiding behind.

After all, Dean and Kuchinich are the kind of liberals that even other liberals shake their heads at in amazement.

I especially liked this quote from the article that you cited:

"The Progressive Democrats of America lends itself to the progressive ideology within the party. Founded by members of Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, it does not hold much sway in the Democratic Party, being considered more radically liberal than other factions."

Even the article that you used as proof that "progressive" isn't the same as "liberal" included the above notation that indicates that "progressive" is a term that means "liberal".

 

[evnlee]

I didn't call you a troll and I'm hardly in a position to accuse anybody of hiding behind his anonymity. You're mistaking me for somebody else.

really? strike three:

BTW, didn't you used to be Fred Flintstone, mwebster, nwebster, merriam webster, skyeye, emacee, and bierkenstock?

"Fred " admitted to being all seven anti-AAR bashers -- and vanished just before you arrived on the scene.

The fervor of your hatred of this little lefty network seems all-too familiar.

You are not being truthful, therefore, any further debate is finished.

Almost all of us on this board are "hiding" behind screen names, usually for good reasons. My point was that this other guy has used at least seven screen names, which isn't exactly kosher. At first I thought you might be him, but as your angry insults escalated I realized that my suspicionswere unfounded. Sorry, Fred!

Yes, I guess if you make false claims, and lie, then I completely understand why you would want to 'hide' behind your screen name. It's too bad you cannot win a debate without doing so. Apology accepted. 8)

 

[fred flintstone]

"Did you even both to look at the article to which I linked in my prior post?"

OK, After I typed that reply, I did look up the Wikipedia article. It lists the farthest left of the lefties, like George McGovern, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders as examples of the "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party. So maybe I am mistaken. "Progressive" isn't a new label that the liberals are hiding behind, it's a disguise that the ultra-liberals are hiding behind.

After all, Dean and Kuchinich are the kind of liberals that even other liberals shake their heads at in amazement.

I especially liked this quote from the article that you cited:

"The Progressive Democrats of America lends itself to the progressive ideology within the party. Founded by members of Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, it does not hold much sway in the Democratic Party, being considered more radically liberal than other factions."

Even the article that you used as proof that "progressive" isn't the same as "liberal" included the above notation that indicates that "progressive" is a term that means "liberal".

Well, some people also argue that "libertarian" is the same as "conservative."
You might find the Wikipedia article on Factions in the Republican Party interesting, as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

The term "conservative" has been co-opted by the neo-cons, who used to be so-called "moderate" Republicans (back when people like Barry Goldwater called themselves "conservatives").

When Rush first went into national syndication, he spoke like a "paleoconservative" (or Old Right) along the lines of Pat Buchanan. Then Daddy Bush invited him to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom and Rush came out a died-in-the-wool neo-con RNC flack. It did not take much to turn El Rushbo.
Reportedly, in the middle of the night that Mr. Excellence-in-Broadcasting spent in the White House, Daddy Bush got up to answer nature's call and discovered Rush top-toeing out of Barbara's bedroom. George went over to Rush and said, "Now, I don't want any more of that." "Me, neither," replied Rush.
:

However, truth-be-told: I don't consider AAR to be "progressive" talk (as defined in the Wikipedia article) - as much as "DLC talk" or "Centrist Democrat" talk. Maybe they should call it Lieberman-liberal talk.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"You might find the Wikipedia article"

I find Wikipedia about as reliable as the website I mentioned about eating your own boogers. It is, however, fun to read.

"However, truth-be-told: I don't consider AAR to be "progressive" talk (as defined in the Wikipedia article) - as much as "DLC talk" or "Centrist Democrat" talk. Maybe they should call it Lieberman-liberal talk."

Why not just call it "an attempt at taking a short cut to broadcasting business success that failed", and be done with it.

Everyone gets all caught up in me talking about "progressive" versus "liberal", they overlook what a lot of us have been saying aobut the fact that regardless of the political opinions involved, too many of AAR's hosts are simply boring.

 

[fred flintstone]

Everyone gets all caught up in me talking about "progressive" versus "liberal", they overlook what a lot of us have been saying aobut the fact that regardless of the political opinions involved, too many of AAR's hosts are simply boring.

I don't think "everyone" is caught up in whether the format should be called "liberal" or "progressive" talk, but I get that you are.

I agree that it is difficult for some to differentiate criticism of AAR's on-air product from agreement/disagreement with the political views expressed.

Bottom line: Stations that just plug into the AAR feed do poorly (especially those with poor signals). Stations with good signals that selectively take programming from AAR, Jones and other syndicators AND go local-live in at least one day-part do OK with liberal/progressive talk.

Across various markets, dominants talker have strong local hosts and those hosts are positioned more by personality than ideology. Dominant talk stations also function more as "full service" stations with news and play by play sports important components of their schedules. Turn-key conservative talk stations using 2nd string syndicated hosts from TRN, Salem, Westwood One, Jones, Fox, Radio America generally don't do any better than LT/PT stations.

AAR's biggest mistakes were: (1) Thinking local doesn't matter. (2) Thinking 2nd and 3rd string liberal hosts would do any better than 2nd and 3rd string conservatives - and better than a 1st string host like Rush. (3) Thinking ideology is enough to keep listeners.

Public radio's (NPR, PRI) news and information format continues to do a better job appealing to and reaching liberals and liberal-leaning independents than commercial progressive/liberal talk (see Arbitron's "Public Radio Today 2006").

 

[FightingIrish]

Everyone gets all caught up in me talking about "progressive" versus "liberal", they overlook what a lot of us have been saying aobut the fact that regardless of the political opinions involved, too many of AAR's hosts are simply boring.

I don't think "everyone" is caught up in whether the format should be called "liberal" or "progressive" talk, but I get that you are.

I agree that it is difficult for some to differentiate criticism of AAR's on-air product from agreement/disagreement with the political views expressed.

Bottom line: Stations that just plug into the AAR feed do poorly (especially those with poor signals). Stations with good signals that selectively take programming from AAR, Jones and other syndicators AND go local-live in at least one day-part do OK with liberal/progressive talk.

Across various markets, dominants talker have strong local hosts and those hosts are positioned more by personality than ideology. Dominant talk stations also function more as "full service" stations with news and play by play sports important components of their schedules. Turn-key conservative talk stations using 2nd string syndicated hosts from TRN, Salem, Westwood One, Jones, Fox, Radio America generally don't do any better than LT/PT stations.

AAR's biggest mistakes were: (1) Thinking local doesn't matter. (2) Thinking 2nd and 3rd string liberal hosts would do any better than 2nd and 3rd string conservatives - and better than a 1st string host like Rush. (3) Thinking ideology is enough to keep listeners.

Public radio's (NPR, PRI) news and information format continues to do a better job appealing to and reaching liberals and liberal-leaning independents than commercial progressive/liberal talk (see Arbitron's "Public Radio Today 2006").

Why does AAR have to be conerned about local shows? Last I checked, they're a syndicated network. They don't program local stations. Quite a few affiliates do carry local shows, and quite a few rely on syndicated stuff from AAR, Jones, P1, WOR, etc. And some of the turnkey operations are planning local programming in the future.

As far as 'third-rate hosts', like I said, ya gotta start somewhere.

Again, AAR is not the be-all, end-all in progressive ;D talk. There are other syndicators doing it as well.

I have nothing against any political/ideological groups that want to be on the radio (as long as it's not religious groups cluttering the dial with obnoxious out-of-town translators). That's why I have no problem with a group like Salem, who pops up secular talk affiliates all over the country that have relatively few listeners (although I think their hosts suck). They own the stations. That's their prerogative. I choose not to listen.

I don't understand why the cons are so uptight about anything that conflicts with their narrow-minded opinions. Insecurity, perhaps?

I guess they hate them for their freedom.