BREAKING NEWS: AAR Has Just Declared Chapter 11 - Staying On Air-Will Reorganize

[mr_arbitron]

Last question? What radio network has filed for re-org... I can see the Airlines doing it because they have assets and federal protections.

I think Damp and Doc are hoping to hold out for next year and get a censorship, i mean fairness law in effect before Err Amerika gets bought out by Hugo Chavez

 

[thebroker]

I never once said there was anything with furthering your political agenda through radio. However, I do believe you should pay your bills while doing so, whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

AAR may in fact be a private corporation, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have stockholders. ALL corporations, public and private, have stockholders...SOMEBODY has to own them, whether they are publically traded or not. If you are meaning to imply that AAR doesn't have stockholders just because it's a private company, then you obviously don't know much about business.

Call me old-fashioned, by I'm still of the school of thought that bankruptcy is a BAD thing, not a "very common corporate tool". It means you can't pay your bills, whether you file Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. It doesn't matter which kind of bankruptcy AAR filed for...people are going to get shafted. Think about it...there are four million dollars in assets and twenty million dollars in liabilities. A little quick math brings us to the figure of sixteen million dollars worth of shafting. That's a whole lot of money. And yes, it's first-class shafting...AAR should never have run up those bills knowing they weren't in the financial position to pay them. To me, that's just morally wrong. I mean, if we were talking about being two or three million in the hole here, I could understand it...but SIXTEEN MILLION DOLLARS?? Give me a break. And, in my opinion, this happened simply because the idiots in charge at AAR were too busy furthering their political agenda to care about the creditors they had to know were going to get shafted.

You asked for my evidence that the Chapter 11 filing was a stall tactic? Let's look no further than your characterization that AAR will continue to operate tomorrow just as it did Thursday. If AAR filed for Chapter 7, it would cease operations immediately. So yes, by filing Chapter 11, they ARE stalling. And, in my opinion, simply delaying the inevitable.

Comparing AAR to a restructuring airline is franky laughable. The difference? Airlines have actually proven over the years that they can be profitable, and they are essential to the very survival of the United States, literally. People all over the world get on airplanes every day. Thousands of airplanes are in the air at any given time. The result? Income to pay the bills while they restructure. The fact remains, AAR has NEVER been a successful business venture. You can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic all you want, but it's still going to sink.

And just for the record, I don't fly on bankrupt airlines...I fly in my own plane. Why? Because I understand the radio business well enough to make a good living, unlike the assorted morons who have been running AAR.

 

[FightingIrish]

Been gone awhile, so I guess I'll play catch-up

AAR Press Release on Bankruptcy--This regrettable action became necessary only recently when good faith efforts to resolve outstanding debt with a creditor from the company's earliest days broke down.

Does anybody have any doubt that the "unnamed creditor" is Arthur Lui, owner of Multicultural Broadcasting

It is.

Raccoon Radio States "And liberals don't really seem to know much about how radio works..."
I see the threads stating prematurely that Air America will disband.
If you want the same ole' B.S. lies and homophobia, and race bating, and generally then continue to listen to those who " know how radio works"
By the way, how does radio work up there at Salem State?
Give props to Limbaugh, OReilly, Hannity, Severin, Bennett and the whole plethora of righty blowhards who do nothing than repeat the talking points that are faxed over from the righty think tanks to Karl Rove and then to Westwood One, ABC and whoever else carries these hosts.
If that is how radio works, then I'll gladly listen to those who don't know how radio works

I can't disagree with any of this.

My personal opinion, after reading the Chapter 11 filing, is that it is shameful and disgraceful for Air America to shaft as many people as they have. The thing is, these people are masquerading as a legitemate corporation while doing nothing apart from furthering their political agenda. Are they a Political Action Committee or a for-profit corporation? It's time to decide. Looking through the bankruptcy filing, a whole lot of people are going to lose money, not the least of which are dozens of employees.

Air America can't even manage to pay an $11.00 MCI bill, or their $134 DirecTV bill. When a company is this distressed, how can any logical person who understands anything about business believe that any amount of restructuring will do any good? It's just a stall tactic, obviously. I think that the past three years or so has proven that Air America is simply NOT a viable business model. Why not go home instead of beg for more money from investors? The officers and board of Air America obviously know NOTHING about the radio business. They should do the honorable thing and just give up instead of continuing to rack up bills that won't be paid.

As Phillip said, Chapter 11 is not a wipe-out of all debts. They filed because Multicultural was being a pain in the ass (or AAR was stupid to pay half a million dollars to lease two weak AM stations for four weeks). Arthur Liu got the court to freeze access to AAR's operating funds. The bankruptcy allows them to operate, while they sort things out with Liu and everyone else.

If they filed Chapter 7, that would be the equivalent of flipping the bird to their creditors. Chapter 11 allows them to reorganize and get their ducks in a row. Hell, all of the major airlines except for American have done the same exact thing.

And in the filing, they are required to itemize all debts. That includes the piddly stuff like $11 on the phone bill. And no, it does not mean they're too cheap to flip $11 to the friggin' phone company! Get real!

If NPR had to compete, they would have been dead years ago.

At least they can bray and whine for pledges all the time.

PBS and NPR are subsidized, you can spin all you want, but they are. And with the world of choices available these days, they should not get another dime and be forced to compete on a level playing field.

If you ever saw the ratings for public radio, you'd crap your pants.

Try this link and play with it for awhile:

http://www.rrconline.org/arbitron/

This one lists overall numbers for non-commercial stations. Arbitron usually releases non-comm numbers only on subscriber reports. They will soon add it to their publicly-released numbers.

Not to mention public radio pulls in great demographics. Often upscale and well-educated. Sure, they don't air commercials, but they do air underwriting messages, which are like commercials, but the ad copy is a bit different.

Anyone who sees commercial barter affidavits is familiar with the phrase "Cannot air on stations that air Air America." If national advertisers want to stay away from AAR in droves, how could they expect to survive?

Advertisers tend to shy away from controversial programming. This includes political talk (even Rush, in some cases) and shock talk (Stern).

One station here in Atlanta dropped its "Air" supply and went "Adult Standards" this past spring....WWAA-AM 1690.

The owner didn't like some of the hosts' take on the whole Israel thing.

Last I checked, they're still carrying Franken.

Don't know the ratings breakdowns, but overall, they've completely disappeared from the ratings charts since dropping AAR. I don't think this was a ratings decision.

I think nobody talks about Salem having crappy ratings for a very simple reason...they aren't having financial problems, and they aren't just about to bilk creditors out of Twenty Million dollars. Plus, a good many of their properties are very profitable despite poor ratings. Nobody ever said you had to have high ratings in order to be profitable...

And I also agree with the assertion that Air America's failure probably has less to do with programming than with management. LibTalk COULD be profitable.

I totally agree. Libtalk stations tend to equal the ratings performance of the Salem conservotalk stations. And Salem's network has been around for, oh what? Ten years or so?

AAR has had some serious management issues. Too many executives with huge egos, and lots of disagreements along the way.

 

[fred flintstone]

I'd say there are plenty of operations on the right, from Salem to the religious stuff that pollutes the FM educational band that could go right under your own category of what constitutes furthering a political agenda.

AAR is a PRIVATE corporation. It does not have stockholders. AAR exists to provide liberal talk radio programming to a network of affiliates around the country. It did that Thursday, it did that today, and it will do that next week as well. If AAR wanted to "shaft" people, they could have declared Chapter 7. Chapter 11 allows a company to restructure without creditors forcing them to liquidate assets. It's become a very common corporate tool. Does the airline you fly on that is under the same Chapter 11 bankruptcy doing it to further their agenda and shaft people? How about a pension plan that went insolvent because a company didn't want to cover it any longer?

Phil, you keep claiming to be a liberal and here you are defending "common" corporate misconduct. And yes, the most common end result is people get shafted. You keep giving AAR a free pass with your standard they-do-it-too defense. Phil, go rob a bank. When you get caught, try basing your defense on how many other people robbed banks and got away with it. I'm starting to wonder if you're really a liberal moved by liberal principles, or a special interest group activist promoting your group's agenda and defending an ally. Politics does make strange bedfellows and the first rule is never publicly admit when a bedfellow screws up and/or gets caught. Your expressed cynicism is reaching the point that maybe you should change your registration to Republican.

And Phil, private corporations do have stockholders. AAR is not a publicly traded corporation.

I think nobody talks about Salem having crappy ratings for a very simple reason...they aren't having financial problems, and they aren't just about to bilk creditors out of Twenty Million dollars. Plus, a good many of their properties are very profitable despite poor ratings. Nobody ever said you had to have high ratings in order to be profitable...

I don't know why Salem decided to get into news-talk programming (and unless someone here is privy to inside information, neither do any of you). They clearly know how to manage their company and how to avoid major screw ups in public. AAR should have studied their playbook. For one thing, they avoided spending money they didn't have. The practiced slow, steady and planned growth. They bought (not leased) stations with good signals in major markets at fire sale prices. They made their foundation their "Christian Teaching and Talk" format - a true cash cow. News-Talk is sold in combination with that format and their Contemporary Christian Music ("The Fish") format, which all together makes an attractive package to advertisers. They know their audience and their niche. They stick to their knitting. Somebody at Salem clearly got a passing grade in marketing and in management.

And when are some of you going to get it: Ratings (especially the ones you can read online) are NOT the be-all and end-all of radio. Ratings are a sales tool, that's all. They are not even very useful as a programming tool.

AAR's problem is NOT - REPEAT NOT - ratings.
Here's everything you need to know about business.
Revenue minus expenditures equals profit.
If expenditures are greater than revenue, profit is a minus number (called a loss).

As already mentioned, these people may have been thinking like a political campaign committee and looking only to the next election. Raise money. Spend money. Raise more money if you spent too much. Ever notice smart operators doing business with campaigns get their money upfront?

And anybody notice AAR owes money to the consulting firm that picked the new CEO, and the guy they picked was another recycled AAR suit? Sounds like more of the same is coming - maybe a slightly different arrangement for the deck chairs.

Meanwhile Darth Liu seems determined to shut them down. AAR picked the wrong guy to stiff.

 

[evnlee]

One station here in Atlanta dropped its "Air" supply and went "Adult Standards" this past spring....WWAA-AM 1690.

The owner didn't like some of the hosts' take on the whole Israel thing.

Last I checked, they're still carrying Franken.

Don't know the ratings breakdowns, but overall, they've completely disappeared from the ratings charts since dropping AAR. I don't think this was a ratings decision.

[/quote]

factually incorrect.

we have been through this before, so let's do it again.

WWAA was not taken off the air because the 'new owner didn't like some of the hosts' take on the whole Israel thing'. That is nothing more then a pathetic non-truth dreamed up by the few dissapointed listeners that lost thier local affiliate.

The new owner acquired the signal, which was stronger then his other signal. Nobody stepped up to raise capital or do anything to try and save AAR here in Atlanta, so it went away. He kept Franken as an olive branch to the former AAR listeners, and look what it got him. 2 left wing blogs accused him of buying the signal just to silence AAR! And guys like FI have to believe it, because otherwise they would have to accept the simple fact that in a major market with a strong signal, some promotion,and a large inner city liberal base, AAR failed.

If FI or anyone can provide proof of Joe Weber's supposed 'Anti-Err Amerika' right wing bias, let's have it. FI doesn't have the ratings info either. WWAA never showed up on the arby's and WMLB ( the new signal ) is pulling the same numbers they did when they aired AAR, they had a slight loss in the early trend, but have remained flat overall.

Interesting that when AAR succeeds ( like in Portland or Miami ) it's because of the message and the model. But when they fail, it's anything but that. It's some 'crazy christians that want to silence them', or some 'opera loving loon' that just couldn't accept the mighty talent of AAR!

"Tom Taylor, editor of the Inside Radio newsletter, says the near extinction of left talk radio coincides with deregulation. "In 15 years, the national limit on ownership has gone from 14 stations to no limit," Taylor says, "while the local limit has gone from two stations to eight in large markets." In other words, a few conservative, corporate honchos decide what's heard."

Here are the facts: AAR had a good signal,promotion by the local weekly and print,and a large base from which to work. But nobody cared. Ther is already NPR and WAOK , an 'urban talk' format in place, as well as some opinion on community based WRFG. AAR could not compete, and nobody tried to save it. :

 

[fred flintstone]

The AAR bankruptcy filing is getting wide-spread newspaper coverage in today's editions - including in newspapers in cities which do not have progressive talk radio stations. Most papers are going with the AP story. And, in general, newspapers are going with this story in the Business section (radio stories usually go in the features or entertainment sections). Coverage in conservative outlets like The New York Post, Fox News and The Washington Times (owned by the Moonies) basically played the story straight (or "fair and balanced") with no gloating.

Non-wire stories quote spokespersons for Clear Channel stations (Clear Channel operates 25 progressive talk stations, according to the newspaper accounts) and for several independent stations in markets such as Chicago and Minneapolis basically say: (1) They expect to continue with the progressive talk format "with or with out" AAR. (2) Much of their programming comes from other sources (meaning they aren't married to AAR). Some stories quote local industry observers or experts as saying they don't expect AAR to keep operating in its present form.

Al Franken, one of AAR's largest creditors, who complained publicly last month about not getting his paychecks, said no comment to the Akron Beacon Journal at a campaign appearance there.

Best Lead:
Claire Hoffman of the LA Times

Red ink finally got the better of the nation's blue-state radio network.

Most thorough story:
Bloomberg News.

 

[fred flintstone]

WWAA was not taken off the air because the 'new owner didn't like some of the hosts' take on the whole Israel thing'. That is nothing more then a pathetic non-truth dreamed up by the few dissapointed listeners that lost thier local affiliate.

Also pathetic: Non-truths dreamed up by angry non-listeners who hate the idea of liberal talk radio.

"Tom Taylor, editor of the Inside Radio newsletter, says the near extinction of left talk radio coincides with deregulation. "In 15 years, the national limit on ownership has gone from 14 stations to no limit," Taylor says, "while the local limit has gone from two stations to eight in large markets." In other words, a few conservative, corporate honchos decide what's heard."

Inside Radio is published by Clear Channel. Apparently you believe Mr. Taylor is biting the hand that signs his checks. Somehow, your interpretation of whatever he said does not add up. Please provide a link to the actual complete article. One aspect of "deregulation" to which Mr. Taylor might have referred is former regulations which had "encouraged" broadcasters to air hosts representing different viewpoints. As an example, when Rush started on WABC, his show aired between Lynn Samuels' program and Joy Behar's show (two liberal hosts). Now, with the exception of one liberal co-host paired with a conservative, the station's weekday line-up is completely conservative. Clear Channel (and others) operate left-right duopolies in some markets. It can be argued that increases in local ownership limits have actually encouraged the development of the progressive talk format as owners look for formats to complement existing formats rather than compete with them.

AAR "failed" in Atlanta as a start up talker against established stations, and as a turnkey station with no local programming or identity and stuck with the weak links in AAR's schedule. Talk radio stations (left or right) take time to establish a listener base, which this station did not have. The station's numbers were on a par with Salem, Urban Talk and two mostly syndicated sports stations (Are you calling them "failures," too?). The format did not "fail" in Atlanta; it had the rug pulled out - just like Phoenix.

 

[1q2w3e]

Lots o stuff snipped......

I totally agree. Libtalk stations tend to equal the ratings performance of the Salem conservotalk stations. And Salem's network has been around for, oh what? Ten years or so?

AAR has had some serious management issues. Too many executives with huge egos, and lots of disagreements along the way.

Funny how the comparison of AAR to Salem keeps coming up.

The only difference is that SALEM IS MAKING A PROFIT! Isnt that what radio companies are in business for??? You dont do radio because you "want to do a show" or to push policital agneda. But that point does seem to be able to get through some of the THICK skulls around here.

If none of the AAR executives cant agree on how to run things (just like most of the DEMS anyways), you are going to have problems. Especially when they do it in public.

No I dont listen to Salem, but you have got to admire their business skills. AR (or whatever liberal company comes along) may want to look at how Salem runs a RADIO business.

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[fred flintstone]

Funny how the comparison of AAR to Salem keeps coming up.

The only difference is that SALEM IS MAKING A PROFIT! Isnt that what radio companies are in business for??? You dont do radio because you "want to do a show" or to push policital agneda. But that point does seem to be able to get through some of the THICK skulls around here.

If none of the AAR executives cant agree on how to run things (just like most of the DEMS anyways), you are going to have problems. Especially when they do it in public.

No I dont listen to Salem, but you have got to admire their business skills. AR (or whatever liberal company comes along) may want to look at how Salem runs a RADIO business.

Just my 2 cents worth

Yes and no.

Let's see. AAR is a branded, turnkey political talk network. And Salem operates a branded, turnkey political talk network.

Salem Communications makes money. Don't be so sure Salem's news-talk format makes money.

What is being compared is AAR's network (it's primary operation) and Salem's news-talk format. Comparisons between Salem Communication and Piquant LLC are less meaningful. Salem operates three formats (or networks) and 104 local stations. According to their 2005 annual report, 45.5 per cent of company revenue came from local advertising on the company's stations. In addition, one-third of the company's revenue (32.9%) came from Block Programming Revenue (paid religious programming on Salem's Christian Teaching and Talk format). Network revenue (from all three networks) was 7.5 per cent of the total ($211.8 Million). Salem's news-talk format serves (1) To provide programming to its stations and (2) to compliment what Salem calls its "core format" (Christian Teaching and Talk). What that means is to improve the reach, cume, TSL and share for Salem's market clusters and to make the sales package more attractive to advertisers.

AAR, in contrast, is a stand-alone operation with no cash cow (except donors, lenders and unpaid employees, contractors and suppliers).

The other major radio format distributors and syndicators (Clear Channel/Premiere, CBS Radio/Westwood One, ABC/Citadel, Jones...) have multiple revenue streams.

One part of AAR's mistake was thinking they could go it alone. Another was not realizing that most of the money in radio goes to stations, not syndicators or format providers. A third was not noticing that turnkey stations (which is how AAR envisioned its entire "network" of LMAs originally) always - always - hover around a one share (if that). Radio Disney. ESPN Radio. Scott Shannon's Oldies. Music of Your Life. And Salem. Low rated but cheap to operate.

Big problem is AAR's debts are far more than the company would be worth to a potential purchaser.

 

[fred flintstone]

Thought I'd see what they were saying about this over on Lance and Sam's new board.

The AAR bankruptcy is the number one thread in news-talk with six posts. Three of them are from moderators talking to each other. One is from RacoonRadio duplicating the post he made here with a link to the bankruptcy court documents in Smoking Gun. One is from 954. And one from Joseph Gallant, who used to post on this site but apparently has stayed loyal to Lance. Six posts.

The number two thread is also about AAR and bankruptcy: AAR denying they would declare bankruptcy last month. It got bumped when a moderator posted a link to yesterday's news story not realizing the thread was a month old. :
Otherwise nothing since September 27 has happened in news-talk. Except when they come over to spam this site.

 

[fred flintstone]

That was the headline for radio columnist David Hinckley's column in this morning's New York Daily News.

From Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers Magazine:

"They seem to be saying they're on a higher mission that's somehow more important than paying their bills, and even though they have some good hosts, I haven't heard anything that suggests they've reached that level."

From El Rushbo:

"I don't even know if they can make it to the election." "They've never had any idea how radio works."

 

[Frasier]

Smoking Gun
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html

Liberal network lists $20.2 million in debts, assets of $4.3 million

(They owe Al Franken $360,000. Rob Glaser of Real Networks is owed nearly $10 million.)

Anyone find it ironic that they owe money to a Sanitation company? Listed right underneath ICBC on page 17...

 

[fred flintstone]

Anyone find it ironic that they owe money to a Sanitation company? Listed right underneath ICBC on page 17...

No. This is New York. Businesses pay commercial haulers to empty dumpsters and take away the trash.

If you watch The Sopranos, you may have an idea who often owns these "waste management" companies. This is one bill AAR better pay right away. Or the next time somebody says, "break a leg" to Al Franken, it might happen.

 

[HHH]

Excellent points regarding the Salem Conservative-Talk network vs. AA.

As I said before, Salem Communications is fronting the Conservative-Talk network through their profits from their other formats and divisions, and their ability to sell (in many markets) a combo buy with The Fish, their "Christian instructional station", and the "conservative talk" as a three-way.

If Hugh Hewitt, Prager, Medved and all of the others on the "Salem Talk" network had to stand on their own two feet like AA, they would be in pretty much the exact same situation.

AA's organizational mistake, among many, was to try to to this whole thing all by themselves. Hell, it is the rare stand alone radio station in a major city that can compete with the cluster stations and their ability to sell attractive, multi-station package deals, and tap operating capital from each other. A totally stand alone network--with no O & O stations and only one offering---is insanity unless they have like a billion dollars in float money.

Again, AA's management were naive and approached the whole thing with a totally impossible business model.

Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly and others say that this illustrates that "Liberals don't know anything about business" (you mean like Jan Wenner, David Geffen, etc??) or that "not enough of the the mainstream agrees with their point of view" (the polls differ on this), or that
"AA was too strident" (ha! I suppose Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage make their points in a quiet, refined way devoid of vitrol).

This is just more of the reason why I really hate just about all forms of talk radio, right or left.

The object of most talk radio is not the pursuit of truth and the goal of sparking meaningful dialog in order to find a solution to complicated problems.

No. The object is to ape TV's "Big Time Wrestling". Good guys and bad guys. In this corner, "The Patriot" from Washington DC! In this corner, from parts unknown, "The Traitor"! TV wrestling is done for entertainment value, presented to the public as an actual sport. Most talkradio is done for entertainment value, presented to the public as actual information. Most know its over the top and contrived, but some actually think that it is real.

And the cynical hosts know full well that they can manipulate the people who think that this stuff is real, by throwing red meat to them and making sure that the gap between the left and right remains spread as wide as possible so that they can stay in business, get ratings on their shows, hawk their junk on their websites, and market their books, which are usually written on about a fifth grade level.

Oh, well. That's America. What did old H. L. say many years ago......"nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".

 

[gr8oldies]

"The object of most talk radio is not the pursuit of truth and the goal of sparking meaningful dialog in order to find a solution to complicated problems."

No, it's the pursuit of ratings and revenue. If the object was as described, you'd have a talk show that no one would listen to. AAR's mistake was looking at talk radio as a "cause".

 

[fred flintstone]

The thing is, Baloney didn't really say anything that hasn't already been reported by the news media. Just shilling the same ol' ------ with a bunch of crappy Photoshop stuff.

I think he's just trying to stay relevant.

Perhaps Brian Maloney should examine why his own radio career failed.

The Maloney-haters are no better - or different. They seem as obsessed with Maloney - and with putting an unfavorable spin on anything remotely related to the guy - as Maloney is with AAR.

Maloney didn't say anything that hasn't been reported? The same could be said of your blog and your posts here. Actually, Maloney did add a few pieces to the puzzle. Maybe not big pieces but he did add.

Maloney's radio career: This one is old, tired and very petty. Can't the Maloney-haters do any better than this. When they can't come up with anything to discredit something Maloney said or did, they drag this one out. And it's an especially nasty shot. Do you Maloney-haters propose to cancel the vote of anybody who ever had an on-air gig in radio and got fired? At least he gave talk radio a shot? How many Maloney-haters can say the same? How many people get fired from a part-time weekend gig at a local station and get national attention? How many have a column in a leading trade publication? How many make regular guest appearances on cable talk shows? If Maloney failed, he still is doing better than anybody who comes on this board to bash him.

PS: Google Page Rank gives the Radio Equalizer blog a 6 and the Liberal Talk Radio blog a 3.

 

[FightingIrish]

The thing is, Baloney didn't really say anything that hasn't already been reported by the news media. Just shilling the same ol' ------ with a bunch of crappy Photoshop stuff.

I think he's just trying to stay relevant.

Perhaps Brian Maloney should examine why his own radio career failed.

The Maloney-haters are no better - or different. They seem as obsessed with Maloney - and with putting an unfavorable spin on anything remotely related to the guy - as Maloney is with AAR.

Maloney didn't say anything that hasn't been reported? The same could be said of your blog and your posts here. Actually, Maloney did add a few pieces to the puzzle. Maybe not big pieces but he did add.

Maloney's radio career: This one is old, tired and very petty. Can't the Maloney-haters do any better than this. When they can't come up with anything to discredit something Maloney said or did, they drag this one out. And it's an especially nasty shot. Do you Maloney-haters propose to cancel the vote of anybody who ever had an on-air gig in radio and got fired? At least he gave talk radio a shot? How many Maloney-haters can say the same? How many people get fired from a part-time weekend gig at a local station and get national attention? How many have a column in a leading trade publication? How many make regular guest appearances on cable talk shows? If Maloney failed, he still is doing better than anybody who comes on this board to bash him.

PS: Google Page Rank gives the Radio Equalizer blog a 6 and the Liberal Talk Radio blog a 3.

The problem with Maloney is that quite often, his 'reporting' tends to be error-ridden, or completely blown out of proportion (i.e. Gloria Wise). And he does seem to have a rather unhealthy obsession with Al Franken. Of course, the cons just love that Kool-aid, and will often even seek out false information just to prop up their dwindling self-esteem. Ever see the study that FOX News viewers are often less informed than viewers of the competition, including "The Daily Show"? The types of people that like that drivel don't care about information, they just like ego massages. They should listen to Tony Robbins tapes instead.

Maloney's built his 'career' by playing the part of martyr. He claimed he was fired from his last station because he bashed Dan Rather on the air, but the station opted to replace his SUNDAY AFTERNOON-ONLY show with NFL football programming. This basically is a metaphor for what he does - making mountains out of molehills and whining incessantly. Of course, he lucked out and found a ton of people who eat this stuff up. He's more self-promoter than a purveyor of any kind of substance. And I've never trusted anyone who refers to himself in third person.

I'm not in competition with Radio Tranquilizer. My blog is something completely different. When I started it a few years ago, I didn't want to rely on just posting whiny blog entries. And my goal was not investigative research. I wanted to provide a resource, including a ton of oft-updated links, some news reports here and there, the occasional rumor and maybe an occasional opinion piece to spice it up. The Blogger software lent itself to being the best-equipped to suit my needs. And I've gotten a huge response from people that refer to it for information. I do it for fun, I don't make money off it nor is that my goal. I've still got a lot of work to do on it to bring it up to what I originally envisioned, but I'm getting closer.

As I said, opinion-oriented blogs that are more tabloidy in nature will likely draw more readers. I don't have the time for that kind of undertaking, and other blogs tend to do that kind of thing better, so I let them do it. Not saying that I don't do those kinds of posts occasionally, but that's not the focus of what I do.

And I don't even know what Google Page Rank is, nor do I really care. Sounds like a silly popularity contest. I've seen enough of that kind of nonsense dealing with that bogus outfit Technorati and their lame attempts to imitate Google. They don't even answer emails! And I do know that hit measuring services like Alexa are deeply flawed. I do have access to server records, and mostly I'm interested in what links to my page and what they're looking for. I get most of my hits off search engines, where I'm often highly placed.

And you're a fine one to talk. What do you do besides spam message boards anyway? Hell, you even reply to yourself! How's about you design a site and we can critique it. Or maybe you could design five or six for each of your split personalities.

Have at it, don't cost nuthin:

www.blogger.com

 

[fred flintstone]

He's more self-promoter than a purveyor of any kind of substance.

Well, you've just described most everyone in the radio industry.

And I've never trusted anyone who refers to himself in third person.

Does that include Paul Harvey?

I enjoy your site and find it informative. I did before I was aware the writer was a "regular" here. And I think there is much in Maloney's writing to criticize. I agree with the points you just made. However, the "failure" bit earlier is a cheap shot and unworthy of a person who does the kind of writing which appears on your blog. I just meant to point out that this "failure" thing can be a two-edged sword and Maloney's site is one of the more widely-read. Besides, Maloney provides any critic with enough ammunition; calling him a "failure" because he used to have a gig and no longer does is unwarranted. Is Arnie a failure? Malloy?

 

[dampier]

The Maloney-haters are no better - or different. They seem as obsessed with Maloney - and with putting an unfavorable spin on anything remotely related to the guy - as Maloney is with AAR.

Is Keith Olbermann obsessed with Bill O'Reilly, or does he just take great pleasure in deflating the hot air? For me, it's the latter. I am not obsessed about anything, but fact-checking Baloney and posting the list of distortions, guesswork, and outright failures in accuracy is so easy, anyone can play! And he freaks out everytime you do it, and poking him with a fact stick to evoke a reaction is just an extra bonus prize.

Maloney didn't say anything that hasn't been reported? The same could be said of your blog and your posts here. Actually, Maloney did add a few pieces to the puzzle. Maybe not big pieces but he did add.

1+2 = 3. We can all add... or repost portions of publicly available documents (along with his spin on them). But we don't all call ourselves "independent media analysts," claim to be "fair and balanced" dispassionate reporters who just let the facts lead them around, or suggest insider knowledge that frequently turns out to be completely wrong. Anyone with any intelligence on this board should be able to spot pure speculation wrapped in "sources" that are never named. And, frankly, most people do. I don't recall FI ever claiming to be any of the things Baloney claims for himself. Just try and call his site a "blog" over there and enjoy the fireworks display.

Maloney's radio career: This one is old, tired and very petty.

Like his show? The listeners sure thought so. Buh, bye.

The reason that this is a favorite issue is the fact that Baloney works extra hard to hide his career past. His own bio is frosted with claims of independence and straightforward journalism. It's kind of hard to claim this (along with the aforementioned claims of being an independent analyst) when the true history is revealed that his career past involved him being a partisan political talk show host that evidently wasn't credible enough to attract sufficient listeners to keep him employed there. His past is a major inconvenience to his objectivity on the issues he claims to cover "independently."

If he wants to run away from his past, that's fine, but nothing precludes those who have issues with his "reporting" to provide full disclosure for those who may be trying to determine his objectivity and fairness.

When they can't come up with anything to discredit something Maloney said or did, they drag this one out.

Cry me a river. I have done both, repeatedly, and I'm the only guy here who has gotten under his skin to the point where I became a feature of one of his columns. I enjoy your spirited defense of him, while in several other posts taking issue with his paranoid delusions about George Soros, Al Franken, and the many other predictions he's made which turned out not to hold much water. Holding up his appearances on O'Reilly to feed Bill-O's own addiction to AAR bashing as an accomplishment is especially amusing. He's an enabler.

And pardon me (and others) for not thinking that the pinnacle of our careers are achieved by writing a one trick pony blog, instigating an intellectual marriage of convenience with Michelle Malkin, and making regular rounds on Fox News and conservative talk radio. Add that up. A quest for personal greatness this ain't.

 

[evnlee]

I'm not in competition with Radio Tranquilizer. My blog is something completely different. When I started it a few years ago, I didn't want to rely on just posting whiny blog entries. And my goal was not investigative research. I wanted to provide a resource, including a ton of oft-updated links, some news reports here and there, the occasional rumor and maybe an occasional opinion piece to spice it up. The Blogger software lent itself to being the best-equipped to suit my needs. And I've gotten a huge response from people that refer to it for information. I do it for fun, I don't make money off it nor is that my goal. I've still got a lot of work to do on it to bring it up to what I originally envisioned, but I'm getting closer.

As I said, opinion-oriented blogs that are more tabloidy in nature will likely draw more readers. I don't have the time for that kind of undertaking, and other blogs tend to do that kind of thing better, so I let them do it. Not saying that I don't do those kinds of posts occasionally, but that's not the focus of what I do.

wow. such a staggering amount of spin, it's generating it's own gravity field! :

Just peruse if you will, FI's 'non-tabloidy' post from Wednesday, October 04, 2006. Go ahead, follow his link, and find his 'objective' review of the Zwerlings.

Here's a mom and pop that decided to give AAR a chance. Just like here in Atlanta, when the format fails, and they yank it, along comes the hate. Nice, huh? "They didn't promote it enough", or 'they hate the programming'.

Yeah, they hate it enough to give AAR a signal. They gave other liberal talkers a chance, too! They also own a conservative station. But they are in Santa Cruz, so, being business people, they decided to try something new that they thought would work.

No ratings. No advertisers. When they pull the AAR programming, then guys like FI start whining ' they wanted it to fail'
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/10/new_radio_waves.html

FI is exactly the same as Baloney. I'm guessing our friend used to have his own liberal talk show and got shown the door. Fred nailed it again.