Bos. Herald: Where Have You Gone Air America...

[dampier]

When I say "on-air presentation," I mean quality of talent and program production. AAR's problem - as I have said before (the objections of Phil and Baroosk) is AAR is bad radio. Whether a program is entertaining or interesting is an issue apart from whether one agrees or disagrees with views expressed. I don't disagree. It's not that good (although better than it was starting out).

And where we part company is your collective judgment that ALL AAR hosts are bad. Is Randi Rhodes bad at radio? Is Thom Hartmann? I agree there are some hosts on AAR that really don't do a good job as a radio talk show host and seem to fill time, but that's true on the right as well when they hire big names to do conservative talk radio. Let's be honest here. For every Al Franken and Jeaneane Garofalo there is a Bill Bennett or Oliver North. Yet I don't see you dwell on right wing talk failures apart from the occasional criticism of the Salem Witch Trials Network.

The people who run AAR and some of its fans here want to make it about politics. So do those who progressive talk radio (or spend all their time trying to differentiate "liberal" and "progressive"). AAR has not drawn good numbers in the bluest of blue markets. Rush, on the other hand, has gotten very good numbers in markets the GOP hasn't carried in its wildest dreams.

Yeah, it's the AAR FANS that are making this into a political argument. That's why all we heard from conservatives over and over (and as recently as a few days ago with this Boston Herald nonsense) that nobody wants to hear liberal talk radio because the ideas aren't as good, followed by people who failed in their talk radio careers now trying to make a go of it running a right wing blog dedicated to attacking liberal talk radio while celebrating conservative talk show hosts (including the virtual worship of Rush waving the flag), to made up and puffed up scandals, and Fox News devoting significant airtime virtually every month to the story that "blame America first" AAR is bankrupt and going off the air.

From its very outset until today, there are plenty of conservatives who equate the very presence of liberal talk radio as an invasion of "their airwaves" and it must be attacked and stopped at any cost. AAR as a company has made its mistakes. But if are still on many dozens of affiliates, without paid airtime, attracting at times audiences that beat O'Reilly, Ingraham, and other conservative talk shows. They don't own the stations (Salem), pay for placement on many stations (Satellite Sisters), or live on the educational FM band via translators (Focus on the Family, et al.)

AAR has a tough road fighting against its own notions of what successful talk radio is about (and they are slowly learning), as well as the same program directors at stations across the country that have made such bad decisions that radio listenership continues to decline, and often little/no promotion on the second tier outlets that carry them. And we have a crop of hosts from Jones which are setting good examples of entertaining talk radio, Stephanie Miller being a particularly good example.

 

[fred flintstone]

I think Randi has gotten better.
I thought Malloy was good.
I think Franken is uneven; in front of a live audience he can come to life.
Jerry started out OK but somehow slid downhill.

I like Hartmann but I don't consider Hartmann an "AAR host" for purposes of this discussion since he is not on the network feed (except weekend "best of").
Same now for Jerry.

I agree with you about Steph.
Bottom line: The top performers in progressive talk are Steph, Big Ed and Lionel - followed by Randi.
Overall, none of them does radio at Rush's level (even though he has slacked off and sold out).

AAR at its best is OK radio but the quality is uneven and sometimes it's just not very good.
Not so much of a problem in markets where PDs cherry pick shows and by-pass the weaker entries but it is a problem for turnkey stations.

And I have not talked as much about conservative radio - none of us has here.

OK. Worst rightie hosts in my book:

Mike Gallagher - Ignorant and proud of it.
Bill O'Reilly - Nasty and proud of it.
G. Gordon Liddy - The SOB belongs in jail. Convicted felons should not get talk shows.
Bob Grant - A bitter, vicious curmudgeon.
Michael Savage - Nuts.

Medved and Praeger are not that bad. They do their homework, think about their positions and don't get nasty. Not exciting but listenable.

And I agree, a lot of conservatives don't want viewpoints with which they don't agree to be heard. In fairness, 954 has a point. When Rush first took off, a lot of liberals were tying to squelch him. A lot intolerance in the US political discourse. Which is why so many of these guys don't have to work for a living.

 

[1q2w3e]

• [
  It should also be noted that the on-air presentation at the Atlanta station had some issues. I've heard many stories about bad automation, where multiple sound feeds and files would air at the same time, and sometimes for quite a while. WCKY in Cincy had the same problem, and there was a whole thread on the Cincy board about it (Ed Schultz bitched about it on the air). On that station, I'd often hear the wrong show being aired, ABC news feeds and actualities airing over shows, and the highlight - the battle of the late-night talk show hosts which featured Lionel and Mike Malloy airing over each other at the same time. Now tell me this - who would listen to this noise? There are good-sounding affiliates out there, and there are some that sound like pure hell.
  
  Being a turnkey operation is one thing, but at least have some good automation set up. I worked at one station cluster years ago that had a little AM station with a satellite oldies format. The whole thing was run with the ancient Smartcaster system. Very few problems, and the AM studio was located in the room next door to the two FM stations. On air, a jock could easily monitor the AM station from the FM board, or just look in the AM studio once in a while. I would often pass through that studio whenever I went anywhere in the building, just to keep an eye on things. If Smartcaster crapped out, a simple push of the button straightened everything out.
  
  Of course, with multiple networks and their feeds, time-shifted programs and the like, more sophisticated software is probably needed (without someone in the studio pushing buttons). But it's important to make sure the automation software is completely updated and glitch-free.

• 
  
  
  I have delt with a number of engineers that run AAR. AAR is very well known for not being a technical giant. Most of the bad automation shold be placed on AAR sending out bad triggers or no triggers at all. There were weekly complaints about AAR dropping the ball.

 

[1q2w3e]

I think Randi has gotten better.
I thought Malloy was good.
I think Franken is uneven; in front of a live audience he can come to life.
Jerry started out OK but somehow slid downhill.

I like Hartmann but I don't consider Hartmann an "AAR host" for purposes of this discussion since he is not on the network feed (except weekend "best of").
Same now for Jerry.

I agree with you about Steph.
Bottom line: The top performers in progressive talk are Steph, Big Ed and Lionel - followed by Randi.
Overall, none of them does radio at Rush's level (even though he has slacked off and sold out).

AAR at its best is OK radio but the quality is uneven and sometimes it's just not very good.
Not so much of a problem in markets where PDs cherry pick shows and by-pass the weaker entries but it is a problem for turnkey stations.

And I have not talked as much about conservative radio - none of us has here.

OK. Worst rightie hosts in my book:

Mike Gallagher - Ignorant and proud of it.
Bill O'Reilly - Nasty and proud of it.
G. Gordon Liddy - The SOB belongs in jail. Convicted felons should not get talk shows.
Bob Grant - A bitter, vicious curmudgeon.
Michael Savage - Nuts.

Medved and Praeger are not that bad. They do their homework, think about their positions and don't get nasty. Not exciting but listenable.

And I agree, a lot of conservatives don't want viewpoints with which they don't agree to be heard. In fairness, 954 has a point. When Rush first took off, a lot of liberals were tying to squelch him. A lot intolerance in the US political discourse. Which is why so many of these guys don't have to work for a living.

WOW VERY broad brush stroke, NO? As a conservative, I like to hear other opinions. Many of the conservative talkers I listen to offer both sides on air.

When I did listen to AAR I rarely heard any conservative input.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"And where we part company is your collective judgment that ALL AAR hosts are bad."

When a syndication company handles multiple hosts, but treats each one as a separately marketed entity, then it is fair and proper to judge each host individually. One wouldn't lump all of a theatrical talent agent's actors together. It's just as wrong to lump all the hosts handled by a single syndication company as a group, and judge them all collectively.

But (and that's a big but) when a company attempts to present itself to the world as a network that listeners can tune into at any hour of the day for the best in liberal talk radio, if the company handling the hosts presents itself to the world as a single, unified team, then it is fair to judge the entire team collectively. AAR has chosen to present itself to the world as a unified chain. Therefore, AAR must bear the burden of being judged on its weakest links.

 

[fred flintstone]

WOW VERY broad brush stroke, NO? As a conservative, I like to hear other opinions. Many of the conservative talkers I listen to offer both sides on air.

When I did listen to AAR I rarely heard any conservative input.

Exactly which conservative talkers are those which offer both sides?
They set up their version of another viewpoint as straw man they can shoot down. That's it.
Most people do not want to hear other opinions.
Decades of research confirm this.
People seek confirmation not information:
Selective attention - people only listen to content they agree with.
Selective perception - people filter information to fit their viewpoints.
Selective recall - people remember what supports their viewpoints.

 

[evnlee]

"And where we part company is your collective judgment that ALL AAR hosts are bad."

When a syndication company handles multiple hosts, but treats each one as a separately marketed entity, then it is fair and proper to judge each host individually. One wouldn't lump all of a theatrical talent agent's actors together. It's just as wrong to lump all the hosts handled by a single syndication company as a group, and judge them all collectively.

But (and that's a big but) when a company attempts to present itself to the world as a network that listeners can tune into at any hour of the day for the best in liberal talk radio, if the company handling the hosts presents itself to the world as a single, unified team, then it is fair to judge the entire team collectively. AAR has chosen to present itself to the world as a unified chain. Therefore, AAR must bear the burden of being judged on its weakest links.

RR nails it again!

However, I part company on the 'theatrical agents' analogy. If a TA had a stable of 'b' list celebs, think Hollywood Squares material, then that TA gets' judged by thier collective, even if the TA manages to snag an 'A' lister, which is rare.

The biggest and best agents ( in sports Boros,in entertainment CAA or William Morris ) are definitely judged by thier client list. That's why you don't see Tom Hanks agent schilling for Bruce Vilanch

These agents and organization go after the biggest and the best. AAR did not follow that model. Why didn't they try to get the good existing, tried and true radio talents ( Rhodes being the exception here ) Miller,Schultz,Lionel? Instead, they did most everything wrong. Hiring inexperienced TV talent, technical innefficency ,bad money management, poor talent oversight, bad imaging, lame promotion, weak placement, the list goes on and on.....

Now, whenever they fail, expect to see thier apologists pull from the goodie bag above, rather then just say 'damn,our networks hosts stink on ice.Why can't they get it together and get Miller or Lionel or Schultz on board before it's too late?'

 

[Radio_Realist]

Why didn't they try to get the good existing, tried and true radio talents ( Rhodes being the exception here ) Miller,Schultz,Lionel?

Simple. The founders of AAR were not radio people looking to make a buck in a selected radio market niche, they were political activists with a political agenda. They made the mistaken assumption that the conservative hosts succeeded because they were celebrities, instead of realizing that the conservative hosts became celebrities because they succeeded.

 

[kaufcom]

AAR at its best is OK radio but the quality is uneven and sometimes it's just not very good.
Not so much of a problem in markets where PDs cherry pick shows and by-pass the weaker entries but it is a problem for turnkey stations.

What's the big deal. The so-called turnkey stations account for less than 5% of AAR's audience.

 

[evnlee]

AAR at its best is OK radio but the quality is uneven and sometimes it's just not very good.
Not so much of a problem in markets where PDs cherry pick shows and by-pass the weaker entries but it is a problem for turnkey stations.

What's the big deal. The so-called turnkey stations account for less than 5% of AAR's audience.

You have to be careful when AAR or one of thier crew starts spouting numbers....They still list the Atlanta 'affiliate' even though it's been dead for months, and olny because the new owner kept Franken's show as a peace offering to the local 'paper, not plastic' crowd

 

[kaufcom]

AAR at its best is OK radio but the quality is uneven and sometimes it's just not very good.
Not so much of a problem in markets where PDs cherry pick shows and by-pass the weaker entries but it is a problem for turnkey stations.

What's the big deal. The so-called turnkey stations account for less than 5% of AAR's audience.

You have to be careful when AAR or one of thier crew starts spouting numbers....They still list the Atlanta 'affiliate' even though it's been dead for months, and olny because the new owner kept Franken's show as a peace offering to the local 'paper, not plastic' crowd

Okay less than 3%

 

[fred flintstone]

What's Next Air America?

What's the big deal. The so-called turnkey stations account for less than 5% of AAR's audience.

Baroosk: You say the turnkey stations are five percent of the AAR audience. And you said earlier that XM Radio and Internet audio are 20 percent.
AAR has viable entries in two of six day-parts: Franken and Randi.
This means that the rest of the time AAR (two-thirds of the broadcast day) AAR is programming for only a quarter of the progressive talk potential audience.
Given likely higher salaries and other production costs for Franken and Rhodes, more than one-third of operating expenses probably goes to their shows (as it should).
Still, they are spending a a fair amount of money (which apparently they can't well afford) to fill time on the network feed when they don't have many listeners or advertisers.
This suggests that AAR should seriously consider the syndication model.
IMHO: They should merge the network and syndication division and concentrate on the three shows which have some potential: Franken, Randi and Hartmann. Drop the rest (they don't produce Jerry and probably have to carry that until the current contract with Clear Channel runs out).
If some turnkey stations pick up another turnkey network, so be it. However, among the various providers, progressive talk programming would still be available in every day-part.
They might even let Jones Radio handle syndication sales (as it does for P1 and WYD Media). I have read on this board that Jones already does ad sales and provides the satellite facilities for AAR (you would know that for sure).
Progressive talk programming needs to focus now on developing new - better - programming and upgrading the station list.

 

[kaufcom]

Re: What's Next Air America?

They should merge the network and syndication division and concentrate on the three shows which have some potential: Franken, Randi and Hartmann. Drop the rest (they don't produce Jerry and probably have to carry that until the current contract with Clear Channel runs out).
If some turnkey stations pick up another turnkey network, so be it.

This appears to be what they are doing. My understanding is that cost was the primary reason why they dropped Malloy and it appears that they have given up up on that time period. The deal to distribute the Young Turks also has some cost savings. i.e. they are picking up an existing show rather than creating a new one. Expect more cut backs in the coming weeks.

I have read on this board that Jones already does ad sales and provides the satellite facilities for AAR (you would know that for sure).

That's correct. Jones does AAR ad sales. All AAR does is local sales for New York.

 

[raccoonradio]

Interesting comment by an AAR listener (Eric) on RadioEqualizer blog:
"I turned on AA today for the first time in weeks specifically to see if they had any other topic to talk about except "Bush sucks." I think it was a nanosecond after commerical break when Randi Rhodes presented Sidney Blumenthal plugging his new book: "Bush sucks" (something like that).My God, don't these people EVER talk about anything else?"

Could this be why their ratings suffer?

 

[fred flintstone]

Interesting comment by an AAR listener (Eric) on RadioEqualizer blog:
"I turned on AA today for the first time in weeks specifically to see if they had any other topic to talk about except "Bush sucks." I think it was a nanosecond after commerical break when Randi Rhodes presented Sidney Blumenthal plugging his new book: "Bush sucks" (something like that).My God, don't these people EVER talk about anything else?"

Could this be why their ratings suffer?

OK, Raccoon and how do you explain Salem's ratings? About the same or worse than AAR despite better signals.

PS: The title of Mr. Blumenthal's current book is "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. And, don't forget, all the talk radio Clinton bashing in the last decade (didn't they EVER talk about anything else?).

You are entitled to your opinions but you should know better than to believe anything on Maloney's blog.

 

[1q2w3e]

Interesting comment by an AAR listener (Eric) on RadioEqualizer blog:
"I turned on AA today for the first time in weeks specifically to see if they had any other topic to talk about except "Bush sucks." I think it was a nanosecond after commerical break when Randi Rhodes presented Sidney Blumenthal plugging his new book: "Bush sucks" (something like that).My God, don't these people EVER talk about anything else?"

Could this be why their ratings suffer?

OK, Raccoon and how do you explain Salem's ratings? About the same or worse than AAR despite better signals.

PS: The title of Mr. Blumenthal's current book is "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. And, don't forget, all the talk radio Clinton bashing in the last decade (didn't they EVER talk about anything else?).

You are entitled to your opinions but you should know better than to believe anything on Maloney's blog.

I really dont think that Salem is expecting high ratings. One thing I have to say for Salem, they are making money. Can AAR say that?

No I do not listen to Salem.

 

[fred flintstone]

SALEM IS OFF THE ARBITRON RADAR

I really dont think that Salem is expecting high ratings. One thing I have to say for Salem, they are making money. Can AAR say that?

No I do not listen to Salem.

Salem operates three formats/networks:
1. Christian Teaching and Talk (brokered preachers)
2. The Fish (Contemporary Christian Music)
3. News/Talk.

News/talk is not making money. The other two formats subsidize it.
Salem doesn't get ratings but that's OK, you say. AAR doesn't get ratings and you claim that means something.
Turnkey networks don't get ratings.
Not Radio Disney. Not ESPN. Not Scott Shannon. Not Music of Your Life. Not anybody.

And not only does Salem not get high ratings; they don't get ratings at all.
More stations - better signals - and two other networks to subsidize and cross-promote and they still don't get ratings.
You seem to think talk radio ratings have some political significance. OK. Salem news-talk gets zilch ratings. How do you neo-cons explain that?

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: SALEM IS OFF THE ARBITRON RADAR

I really dont think that Salem is expecting high ratings. One thing I have to say for Salem, they are making money. Can AAR say that?

No I do not listen to Salem.

Salem operates three formats/networks:
1. Christian Teaching and Talk (brokered preachers)
2. The Fish (Contemporary Christian Music)
3. News/Talk.

News/talk is not making money. The other two formats subsidize it.
Salem doesn't get ratings but that's OK, you say. AAR doesn't get ratings and you claim that means something.
Turnkey networks don't get ratings.
Not Radio Disney. Not ESPN. Not Scott Shannon. Not Music of Your Life. Not anybody.

And not only does Salem not get high ratings; they don't get ratings at all.
More stations - better signals - and two other networks to subsidize and cross-promote and they still don't get ratings.
You seem to think talk radio ratings have some political significance. OK. Salem news-talk gets zilch ratings. How do you neo-cons explain that?

And then there's the 24-hour conservative radio networks that make so little money, they'll even take your crappy car in as a donation:

http://www.radioamerica.org/support.htm

The jokes just write themselves.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: SALEM IS OFF THE ARBITRON RADAR

And then there's the 24-hour conservative radio networks that make so little money, they'll even take your crappy car in as a donation:

http://www.radioamerica.org/support.htm

The jokes just write themselves.

Now, that is pathetic! I had missed that one, Irish.
That's far more cheesy than AAR's bumper stickers - and on a level with Rush's gift subscriptions to his premium audio stream for the troops. :

Radio America are the people who bring you (1) Jane Wyman and Ronnie's adopted son; (2) Convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy and (3) Doug Stephan (who, amazingly enough, shows up on a few progressive talk stations - including WWRL, New York). They also had Blaquita Cullum but she's no longer listed on their schedule.

It's amazing how some pick at AAR and cast a blind eye to Salem and Radio America.

 

[evnlee]

Re: SALEM IS OFF THE ARBITRON RADAR

It's amazing how some pick at AAR and cast a blind eye to Salem and Radio America.

okay in the spirit of fairness, BOTH Radio America and Air America stink on ice

Feel better?