Air America spinning....

[geek on caffeine]

With reference to the article that no bankruptcy has been filed, that article has changed since my original post. Air America is doing what it typically does, simply lying throught their collective teeth. What's their motivation? Simple. They're never going to raise the capital they need if they are honest about their financial situation.

That being said, here's some reality about this "network" that cannot be refuted.

1) They accepted an illegal loan from one of their cronies working at the NYC Boys and Girls Club to the tune of $750,000. It hasn't helped their ratings.

2) Despite all of the money that has been dumped into their coffers by liberal activists like George Soros, they have never made a dent in any market they broadcast in. Here in the ATL, they were a distant third behind the other three talk stations, and even the new Business Talk Radio 1160 station is drawing almost the same audience they had, AND THEY'VE ONLY BEEN ON THE AIR A COUPLE OF MONTHS!

3) They used a backward radio model to push their agenda. All talk show hosts that are broadcast receive a portion of the advertising dollars from the stations that carry them. Air America paid every station that ran their programming. So what you have is nothing more than an infomercial disguised as commercial radio that's beholden to its financeers to push their agenda!

4) They misrepresent their "network" in their own publications. In Atlanta, they call 1690 an affiliate even though they're running only Franken. In other cities, they name affiliates that aren't even broadcasting their programming!

And finally...

5) Their on-air personalities suck. Bottom line. Randi Rhodes is a lunitic, Jerry Springer (Jettisoned from their lineup today, though I'm sure he'll say it's because he's running for office) is a joke, Franken is boring and the rest of their talent is less than second rate. If any one of them had a product that was commercially viable, the network would not be in the state its in. PERIOD.

That's my take on it kids, and to be honest with you, I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner.

 

[jerrydcore]

Air America is doing what it typically does, simply lying throught their collective teeth. What's their motivation?

Lying through their teeth? Maybe I could get a job there, with their sorry performance you'd think I was ALREADY running the place. Oh I forgot, I'm still a "consultant" for Clear Channel. Yeah right, I guess that's why they disconnected my extension and disabled my email account!

 

[smedge2006]

Air America paid every station that ran their programming.

Air America did not pay every station that ran them.

2) Despite all of the money that has been dumped into their coffers by liberal activists like George Soros, they have never made a dent in any market they broadcast in.

This is easily refutable. See Seattle and Portland Arbitrons. San Diego, Denver and Miami while you're at it.
Despite a crummy signal, WCPT in Chicago is just behind the Salem talker which has one of the better non-50kW signals in that market.

The Soros item is questionable. Think about it, if Soros was pouring big bucks into the network, would they be having financial problems?

even the new Business Talk Radio 1160 station is drawing almost the same audience they had, AND THEY'VE ONLY BEEN ON THE AIR A COUPLE OF MONTHS!

1160 doesn't have any numbers yet. How can you say they have "the same audience" or "almost the same audience"?  1690 did make the book every once in a while, despite no promotion and an ownership that was clearly interested in nothing other than a quick turnaround.

You can have any take you want, but spare us the urban legends and talking points.

 

[toodelum]

[

2) Despite all of the money that has been dumped into their coffers by liberal activists like George Soros, they have never made a dent in any market they broadcast in.

This is easily refutable. See Seattle and Portland Arbitrons. San Diego, Denver and Miami while you're at it.
Despite a crummy signal, WCPT in Chicago is just behind the Salem talker which has one of the better non-50kW signals in that market.


Seattle and Portland are two very liberal larger markets where AA would be successful. But regardless of the political climate of the market, the success of the station depends on billing. Saying that any given AA affiliate might be at best the second best AM talker in the market translates to what? Top 10? Top 20? There's a lot of format in between to capture ad dollars. Ranking second best in a few left markets does not sustain a national format that, for the most part, trasmits on 1k sticks.

 

[geek on caffeine]

I find it interesting that smedge decides to attack my premise in the post I did about Air America spinning. Let's examine his points shall we?

Air America did not pay every station that ran them.

Maybe so, but true talk radio doesn't pay ANY station to run their shows. The stations give them a cut of tha ad $. Nice nitpicking on that one smedge.

Secondly, you want to refute that George Soros is dumping money into this dog. Well he is. And despite your contention that this couldn't be so otherwise AA wouldn't be failing is based on the premise that at some point even George realizes that AA is a dog and decided to quit flushing money down the tubes for it. Whatever. What you CANNOT REFUTE is that AA got busted taking illegal loans! THAT'S the biggest issue regarding their financing and one you cannot defend on any level!

Finally, the numbers regarding 1160...pretty simple. Based on listenership from previous format, and what could be expected from a market of this size. In addition, take a look at the numbers from John Adams and Gene Henssler from when they were on 640am. Pretty safe to assume the audience followed them to 1160. And you know what? That's pretty much what Arbitron does too. I've seen market share for stations in a 100,000+ market determined on 17 responses to their survey. But yes, if hairs you must split, I am merely postulating based on a logical premise, not on urban legend.

[EDIT]. I take talking points from no one. Your use of that term shows that you obviously are a leftie and must use a dig when you cannot defend your position. Face it dude, AA is lousy radio. Produce some more left wing talk show shows like Ed Shultz and you may actually make a dent in commercial radio and be able to forego the "infomercial of the left" format!

I'm out!


[EDIT-vulgar content]

 

[99XWatch.org]

As for the talking points, stick that in your nether regions. I take talking points from no one. Your use of that term shows that you obviously are a leftie and must use a dig when you cannot defend your position.

Sorry, some of us misinterpreted your point by point regurgitation of Michele Malkin and other right wing blogs, as talking points. Oops. Here's another dig from a "leftie."

Clearly the fact that Air America continues to be on the air bothers you, as evidenced by the the fact that have written so many posts about it. At the end of the day, you can come up with all of the "facts" you want, but Air America, in one form or another, will be broadcasting years from now. The reason this irritates you and your ilk, is that you would prefer to live in a country where the only voices on the airwaves are conservative.

 

[geek on caffeine]

Hey 99x,

More bad news for you. Here's the newest info out of NYC about AA.

http://www.nypost.com/business/whiff_of_bankruptcy_jolts_air_america_business_john_mainelli.htm

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/air-america-stiffs-franken.php


As to why I don't like AA, that's simple. I'm busting my butt in this business and I resent a pack of no-talent hacks paying their way to air time. Let the market place decide. That's all I ask.

 

[LaGrangeRadio]

As to why I don't like AA, that's simple. I'm busting my butt in this business and I resent a pack of no-talent hacks paying their way to air time. Let the market place decide. That's all I ask.

Hardcore liberals don't believe in a free and open market. Because of AA's potential bankruptcy, look for the left to start begging for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[smedge2006]

Maybe so, but true talk radio doesn't pay ANY station to run their shows.

I'm no fan of brokering time, either. But by that definition. 1160 is also brokered radio. Business radio, a format that has been around since 1989, survives mainly because it allows businesses to broker time to tout various stock software, financial services, etc. Even the Business Talk Radio network brokers timeslots.

The stations give them a cut of tha ad $. Nice nitpicking on that one smedge.

Aahhh, no. It's called barter syndication. The stations keep what they make on local commercial sales,
the network keeps what it makes selling its minutes in each hour.

Finally, the numbers regarding 1160...pretty simple. Based on listenership from previous format, and what could be expected from a market of this size.

So in other words, you took a guess, and extrapolated that to "numbers", as in ratings.

In addition, take a look at the numbers from John Adams and Gene Henssler from when they were on 640am. Pretty safe to assume the audience followed them to 1160.

Actually, not safe at all. How many of Dr. Laura's listeners followed her when she moved from 750 to 640 in the late 90's? Not all that many, as a percentage.

And you know what? That's pretty much what Arbitron does too. I've seen market share for stations in a 100,000+ market determined on 17 responses to their survey. But yes, if hairs you must split, I am merely postulating based on a logical premise, not on urban legend.

Arbitron doesn't assume that when talent changes stations, they automatically carry over all the audience they had at the (bigger) station.

Hardcore liberals don't believe in a free and open market. Because of AA's potential bankruptcy, look for the left to start begging for the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Judging from the vitriol that has been hurled at Air America from day one, I'd say it's the right who doesn't
believe in a free and open marketplace of ideas. "We own talk radio -- we stole it fair and square!"

As to why I don't like AA, that's simple. I'm busting my butt in this business and I resent a pack of no-talent hacks paying their way to air time. Let the market place decide. That's all I ask.

Then surely you oppose all of the conservative hosts who got on the air thanks to "promotional bonuses"
-- as (according to the trades) Bill O' Reilly got on WOR, New York, and Sean Hannity got onto WPHT, Philadelphia.

 

[evnlee]

Air America, in one form or another, will be broadcasting years from now.

Just like 99X. :

 

[geek on caffeine]

Oh Smedge,

Then surely you oppose all of the conservative hosts who got on the air thanks to "promotional bonuses"
-- as (according to the trades) Bill O' Reilly got on WOR, New York, and Sean Hannity got onto WPHT, Philadelphia.

Yes I do oppose it. I am at least intellectually honest about that. You however are devoid of both intellectualism and honesty.

Judging from the vitriol that has been hurled at Air America from day one, I'd say it's the right who doesn't
believe in a free and open marketplace of ideas. "We own talk radio -- we stole it fair and square!"

STOLE IT? Why must every success of conservatives be labelad as theft with liberals? Pathetic comeback. Just because liberal talk radio, for the most part, is a dismal failure, you say that conservatives "stole" the airwaves. The problem is that your message sucks, your talent sucks and you "progressives" are nothing more than 60's anachronisms playing catch-up to the rest of the world.

Using your logic, Hank Johnson stole Cynthia McKinney's house seat.

This is where I end my participation in this discussion. You're simply not worth my time anymore.

 

[smedge2006]

"We stole it fair and square" is a historical reference.

The late senator S.I. Hayakawa used it in a debate about giving the Panama Canal Zone (back) to Panama.
What it's saying, essentially, is might makes right. We (conservatives) took this public resource -- the most powerful AM radio stations -- for our own use and we own it and you can't have it, even though the airwaves supposedly belong to all of us collectively. Essentially the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine privatized the public airwaves. Sort of like giving parkland, free of charge, to a conservative think tank.

 

[atlradiofan3]

"We stole it fair and square" is a historical reference.

The late senator S.I. Hayakawa used it in a debate about giving the Panama Canal Zone (back) to Panama.
What it's saying, essentially, is might makes right. We (conservatives) took this public resource -- the most powerful AM radio stations -- for our own use and we own it and you can't have it, even though the airwaves supposedly belong to all of us collectively. Essentially the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine privatized the public airwaves. Sort of like giving parkland, free of charge, to a conservative think tank.

Funny but not very accurate.

The "fairness doctrine" didn't do anything but allow broadcast freedom. The ability to broadcast what 'we the people' are interested in without the need to loss lead it with an opposing view that no one was interested in. It essentially made am radio commercially viable because the broadcaster could broadcast shows that could sell advertising without the need for broadcasting propoganda that they could not.

Parkland is all of us buying property that we all can use.

 

[jhead]

The fairness docterine allowed both sides to sound off on taboo and touchy subjects.

 

[sduncan]

Last week I heard a caller on the Denny Schafer show called in referring to the ABC 9-11
movie that the Democrats were trying to censor the press. The guy that was subbing for
Schafer basically said that if Democrats got back in power they would bring back the Fairness Doctrine
and talk station like GST would not exist. I think the Fairness Doctrine should be back in place. Simply,
if one listens to just Air America of GST, GKA, WSB, then one becomes ingnorant. Atleast, if a station
has to present both sides of an issue then one can be more informed about two sides of an issue and then the station or network has to work to inform listeners rather than entertain them and basically, from what
I can tell, talk stations as well as news television are there to entertain.

 

[evnlee]

I think the Fairness Doctrine should be back in place. .

When it was in use, the 'Fairness Doctrine' was used by politicians on both sides to stifle opposition, not to bring in new voices. Imagine 'Don the Atlanta liberal' having to go head to head with a seasoned pro like Hannity or Rush. Hardly 'Fair'. That's the kind of stuff Nixon did with the 'FD'.

It 'inhibits' free speech.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ws-dan_rather.htm


The market will provide both voices a forum, whether it be radio,written word, or tv. Some may 'fail' in one of the mediums, and make up for it in another.

Plus, how can you trust something called the 'Fairness Doctrine'? That's almost as bad as the 'Patroit Act'.