Charity that made loan to AAR must repay city; loses city funding

[fred flintstone]

A sound bite in a news story, in which he's talking about Franken who is the focus of the story, hardly constitutes a media appearance. Of course, his name was mentioned and some stories even included a quote. But the stories were not about him. He was very much in the background until the scandal broke. And there is no reference to Evan Cohen making media appearances in the synopsis you cited.

Evan Cohen was a political sleaze. The political activists who set up AAR were stupid to hire him but this kind of hiring is what political types do.

Congratulations on your Google search. Almost all the hits are from blogs after the Gloria Wise story broke (I'd estimate less than one percent from actual news stories). I found the transcript to the CNN story you cite in which Cohen is one of those quoted in a sound bite around hit number 250. FTR: In the first 300 hits, there were two other hits on one AP story about AAR being dropped in Chicago and LA which also quotes Cohen. And that's doing a search specifically for "Evan Cohen" AND "Air America." If I do a search on just "Air America," the proportion of hits mentioning Cohen is infinitesimal.

Your posts about AAR indicate clearly that you have no tolerance for any opinions with which you don't agree on the radio. But I suppose we should be grateful that when AAR did have a turnkey station in Atlanta, there weren't any cross burnings.

 

[evnlee]

A sound bite in a news story, in which he's talking about Franken who is the focus of the story, hardly constitutes a media appearance. Of course, his name was mentioned and some stories even included a quote. But the stories were not about him. He was very much in the background until the scandal broke. And there is no reference to Evan Cohen making media appearances in the synopsis you cited.

Your posts about AAR indicate clearly that you have no tolerance for any opinions with which you don't agree on the radio. But I suppose we should be grateful that when AAR did have a turnkey station in Atlanta, there weren't any cross burnings.

uh huh. Typical.


Fred, I'm sorry you cant see reality clearly. Evan Cohen was put out there in the media by AAR before the launch. You ask for proof, I send you an HBO documentary synopsis AND a CNN transcript. I didn't send you anything from Talkers Magazine, and I found the CNN story after searching " Evan Cohen ,Talkers Magazine " and it popped right up. Let's see, NYTimes magazine, CNN,Talkers Magazine AND and HBO documentary taped live before,during,and after the lauch all prove you wrong.He was not, as you say 'in the background'.

Another point you missed: the CNN story was not about Franken, it was about the new AAR network, that's why Cohen was featured, as well as the editor of Talkers magazine, who has nothing to do with Franken OR AAR. But nobody expects you to 'fess up when you are incorrect.

You claim I don't like AAR because of it's 'opinions', when I have repeatedly praised Stephanie Miller. And your 'cross burning' remark only shows everyone who is full of hatred and intolerant. Get some help.

 

[kaufcom]

Good thing Cohen is there to take the fall for these bumbling myrmidons. Here's the most shocking revelation: AAR and it's cheerleading section got suckered by a former GOP-like politico from Guam. What a crew of foolish clowns

Not foolish at all. Without Evan Cohen, Mark Walsh, and David Goodfriend, AAR would have possibly died on the vine. Sheldon Drobny was basically unsuccessful in his efforts to raise enough money to launch AAR. He was able to put together just under $10 million and his frustrated efforts at raising cash are well-documented (even in his own book.) So it is not surprising that when Cohen et al came forward and claimed to have $40 million, Drobny jumped at the opportunity. So did Arthur Liu, who owned Multi-Cultural Broadcasting who committed his stations in Los Angeles and Chicago assuring a successful launch. By the time the scam was figured out, AAR was up and running and because of ratings successes on Clear Channel stations in San Diego and Portland was AAR owners were able to steal victory out of the jaws of defeat. So like it or not, Evan Cohen was instrumental in the successful launch of AAR.

 

[fred flintstone]

Good thing Cohen is there to take the fall for these bumbling myrmidons. Here's the most shocking revelation: AAR and it's cheerleading section got suckered by a former GOP-like politico from Guam. What a crew of foolish clowns

Not foolish at all. Without Evan Cohen, Mark Walsh, and David Goodfriend, AAR would have possibly died on the vine. Sheldon Drobny was basically unsuccessful in his efforts to raise enough money to launch AAR. He was able to put together just under $10 million and his frustrated efforts at raising cash are well-documented (even in his own book.) So it is not surprising that when Cohen et al came forward and claimed to have $40 million, Drobny jumped at the opportunity. So did Arthur Liu, who owned Multi-Cultural Broadcasting who committed his stations in Los Angeles and Chicago assuring a successful launch. By the time the scam was figured out, AAR was up and running and because of ratings successes on Clear Channel stations in San Diego and Portland was AAR owners were able to steal victory out of the jaws of defeat. So like it or not, Evan Cohen was instrumental in the successful launch of AAR.

No, it really was "foolish."
The launch was less than a success with egg on AAR's face and the loss of half their original markets after two weeks.
As often happens with political types, they were seduced by activity: The idea that we-need-to-do-SOMETHING....now. They could have taken a little more time - checked things out, dotted Is and crossed Ts. The could have moved more slowly - like Democracy Radio, which had already launched Big Ed (four months earlier).
But, no! They had to launch a half-baked "network" not ready for prime time (and although it has shown improvement in many ways, it's still not ready for prime time).
Some snake oil salesman told them what they wanted to hear and they bought it.
People in politics seem to do that a lot.
Of course, people in radio to that, too. That's how consultants make a living.

However, the people behind AAR were political types. They also should have known they were in a "campaign." That they would be subject to opposition scrutiny. And the operation needed to be clean.

 

[evnlee]

Good thing Cohen is there to take the fall for these bumbling myrmidons. Here's the most shocking revelation: AAR and it's cheerleading section got suckered by a former GOP-like politico from Guam. What a crew of foolish clowns

Not foolish at all. Without Evan Cohen, Mark Walsh, and David Goodfriend, AAR would have possibly died on the vine.

another example of doublespeak! Baroosk, you claim without Cohen, AAR would have 'died on the vine'. Then you say that because of his scam, Arthur Liu committed his 2 powerhouse major market station, in other words, the 'vine'. Chicken or the Egg?

Fred is right about the Egg being on the face of AAR. But he is incorrect about Cohen being a 'behind the scenes, unheard of Executive. I will give credit where it's due, and admit if I have been proven wrong, or swayed by a decent argument.You guys should really give it a try!

 

[fred flintstone]

Fred is right about the Egg being on the face of AAR. But he is incorrect about Cohen being a 'behind the scenes, unheard of Executive. I will give credit where it's due, and admit if I have been proven wrong, or swayed by a decent argument.You guys should really give it a try!

OK, he got some mentions and was quoted in some stories.
Frankly, I don't recall any emphasis on him at the time; just Franken and Garofolo.
This is turning into a liberal or progressive thread.
He was not the focus of media coverage.
Ted Turner got most of the media attention when CNN launched.
Roger Ailes got some attention when Fox launched but not as much as Ted.
Cohen got mentioned but he was never "the story" - until the loan thing broke.
And if not for the loan thing, if AAR had come off smoothly and with no egg on anyone's face, none of us would recognize his name now.
Sort of like Ed McLaughlin.
Or Phil Boyce.

Except for a few executive types who make good copy (like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett) nobody pays attention to suits unless there's a scandal (but after the scandal, you can go back and see they did get their name in paper before).

 

[kaufcom]

Not foolish at all. Without Evan Cohen, Mark Walsh, and David Goodfriend, AAR would have possibly died on the vine. Sheldon Drobny was basically unsuccessful in his efforts to raise enough money to launch AAR. He was able to put together just under $10 million and his frustrated efforts at raising cash are well-documented (even in his own book.) So it is not surprising that when Cohen et al came forward and claimed to have $40 million, Drobny jumped at the opportunity. So did Arthur Liu, who owned Multi-Cultural Broadcasting who committed his stations in Los Angeles and Chicago assuring a successful launch. By the time the scam was figured out, AAR was up and running and because of ratings successes on Clear Channel stations in San Diego and Portland was AAR owners were able to steal victory out of the jaws of defeat. So like it or not, Evan Cohen was instrumental in the successful launch of AAR.

No, it really was "foolish."
The launch was less than a success with egg on AAR's face and the loss of half their original markets after two weeks.
As often happens with political types, they were seduced by activity: The idea that we-need-to-do-SOMETHING....now. They could have taken a little more time - checked things out, dotted Is and crossed Ts.

Fred, You missed my point. Without Evan Cohen et al and their phantom $40 million investment, AAR would have probably never launched. Drobny was about to fold before the "new investors" arrived. Without a launch there would have been no Clear Channel stations and no success like San Diego and Portland to build on. It would have been another false start for liberal talk radio. Remember Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo.

The could have moved more slowly - like Democracy Radio, which had already launched Big Ed (four months earlier).
But, no! They had to launch a half-baked "network" not ready for prime time (and although it has shown improvement in many ways, it's still not ready for prime time).

Without AAR, Big Ed would probably have two affiliates today --Fargo and Needles, CA. Democracy Radio was sham. There was no money there -- just a lot of political operatives looking for OPM. Schultz and Jones achieved their distribution by latching on the AAR affils.

 

[evnlee]

Fred is right about the Egg being on the face of AAR. But he is incorrect about Cohen being a 'behind the scenes, unheard of Executive. I will give credit where it's due, and admit if I have been proven wrong, or swayed by a decent argument.You guys should really give it a try!

OK, he got some mentions and was quoted in some stories.
Frankly, I don't recall any emphasis on him at the time; just Franken and Garofolo.
This is turning into a liberal or progressive thread.
He was not the focus of media coverage.
Ted Turner got most of the media attention when CNN launched.
Roger Ailes got some attention when Fox launched but not as much as Ted.
Cohen got mentioned but he was never "the story" - until the loan thing broke.
And if not for the loan thing, if AAR had come off smoothly and with no egg on anyone's face, none of us would recognize his name now.
Sort of like Ed McLaughlin.
Or Phil Boyce.

I never said Cohen was the 'focus' of the story, only that he was showered with praise from the get-go and was touted as 'an efficient and knowledgeable radio and media executive'. As a matter of fact that last quote was from the Washington Post in thier story about the launch of AAR.

Ted Turner had made a name for himself with TBS and the Braves aquisition before he started CNN, and Roger Ailes had a empire of foreign media before he began Fox News. Both were put out there by the media as 'renagades' who were changing the face of thier media counterparts. Cohen hoped to be in thier league, which is why if you watch 'Left of the Dial', you will see him inserting himself in front of every camera and microphone he could get to. Watch ot again, and you will agree.

Glad to see you came around

 

[evnlee]

Fred, You missed my point. Without Evan Cohen et al and their phantom $40 million investment, AAR would have probably never launched. Drobny was about to fold before the "new investors" arrived. Without a launch there would have been no Clear Channel stations and no success like San Diego and Portland to build on. It would have been another false start for liberal talk radio. Remember Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo.

That seems more reasonable.I would agree with that statement.

 

[fred flintstone]

Fred, You missed my point. Without Evan Cohen et al and their phantom $40 million investment, AAR would have probably never launched. Drobny was about to fold before the "new investors" arrived. Without a launch there would have been no Clear Channel stations and no success like San Diego and Portland to build on. It would have been another false start for liberal talk radio. Remember Jerry Brown and Mario Cuomo.

That seems more reasonable.I would agree with that statement.

Yes, I'm afraid I would, too. Although I don't much like the idea of progressive talk radio being launched with a scam. It really goes against what progressives stand for. The problem with being the good guys is you have to act like the good guys. Too often Democratic politicians let pragmatism trump principle and condone sleazy behavior.

 

[keys2]

I don't much like the idea of progressive talk radio being launched with a scam. It really goes against what progressives stand for. The problem with being the good guys is you have to act like the good guys. Too often Democratic politicians let pragmatism trump principle and condone sleazy behavior.

So maybe they're not the good guys, as you automatically presume.

 

[fred flintstone]

They are human beings.

But liberalism, despite its flaws (mainly trusting the government to solve problems) appeals to the best in people. While neo-conservatism (aka facism) appeals to the worst. Anger. Greed. Envy. Pride. (Gee, four of seven deadly sins). Add to that the basic qualities of hate and fear:

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. - Yoda

Most so-called "conservatives" are dupes; the people to whom you listen are evil.

 

[kaufcom]

Once again you guys missed my point. While the some of backers of AAR might have been pulling off some kind of scam, the initial success of the liberal network was based on ratings performance on stations owned by the largest radio operator -- Clear Channel. To this day 2/3 of the terrestrial radio listeners listening to AAR are listening on a Clear Channel station. As long as the 2,000 lb gorilla is happy, AAR or at least liberal radio stays in business.

 

[fred flintstone]

Once again you guys missed my point. While the some of backers of AAR might have been pulling off some kind of scam, the initial success of the liberal network was based on ratings performance on stations owned by the largest radio operator -- Clear Channel. To this day 2/3 of the terrestrial radio listeners listening to AAR are listening on a Clear Channel station. As long as the 2,000 lb gorilla is happy, AAR or at least liberal radio stays in business.

Very true.

And there's a pattern that occurs in many fields.
Somebody breaks new ground and then the 2000 pound gorilla comes in and takes over.
In software....Microsoft is the big gorilla.
In mainframes ... IBM was King Kong.
In cars.... GM took the biggest bunch of bananas away from Henry Ford (for six decades).

Now we have progressive talk...
The 2000 pound gorilla in station operations, and in radio syndication.
If/when progressive talk grows to a certain point, guess who is going to want all the bananas.

 

[evnlee]

Once again you guys missed my point. While the some of backers of AAR might have been pulling off some kind of scam, the initial success of the liberal network was based on ratings performance on stations owned by the largest radio operator -- Clear Channel. To this day 2/3 of the terrestrial radio listeners listening to AAR are listening on a Clear Channel station. As long as the 2,000 lb gorilla is happy, AAR or at least liberal radio stays in business.

I agree with Baroosk on this. Question though: when I worked for Cumulus in 2003-2004, I had a friend that worked for CC and I asked him about the AAR stations on Clear Channel. He told me that CC was getting heat for being a 'tool of the GOP' and that they gave AAR poorly performing franchises in other markets to draw away criticism that they were slanted 'conservative'. Now this is just one guy, middle managements take on it, but what do you think? If it's true ( which I doubt ) it was a perfect way to deflect attention from CC before the 2004 election, and they didn't sacrifice any top performing stations in any major clusters in the beginning. ???

 

[fred flintstone]

It's All About the Money

I agree with Baroosk on this. Question though: when I worked for Cumulus in 2003-2004, I had a friend that worked for CC and I asked him about the AAR stations on Clear Channel. He told me that CC was getting heat for being a 'tool of the GOP' and that they gave AAR poorly performing franchises in other markets to draw away criticism that they were slanted 'conservative'. Now this is just one guy, middle managements take on it, but what do you think? If it's true ( which I doubt ) it was a perfect way to deflect attention from CC before the 2004 election, and they didn't sacrifice any top performing stations in any major clusters in the beginning. ???

I don't think politics is as important to the Mays family as money. Political influence (lobbying and giving money) is one tool they use to protect and promote their business. But it's about money, not politics. Politics doesn't drive them as it does talk radio listeners (including many who post here). They flipped stations to conservative talk - and bought an established syndicator of conservative talk shows (Jacor) - to make money, because conservative talk was popular and profitable.

I don't get any indication in the company's actions that they are much concerned with corporate image either. Outside of people in radio and people who follow radio, most people have never heard of Clear Channel. They know the stations to which they listen but are not concerned with who owns what.

Clear Channel has bigger problems than any criticism they get for being conservative (which seems to be more about the Dixie Chicks than the company's conservative talk show hosts and local news-talk stations). Here again, most of the public makes no association between Rush (or Beck and the rest) and Clear Channel. Clear Channel's problems are: A falling stock price. The heavy debt they incurred to buy all those stations. A weak radio advertising market.

Why did Clear Channel flip stations to progressive talk? They have a surplus of stations and many of them are not performing well. They have an incentive to try out new formats and they have enough stations to be able to try out new formats. Early on, progressive talk offered the possibility of attracting younger demos than traditional news-talk. That made it worth trying. Mostly, Clear Channel took AM Standards and Oldies stations (reaching older demos) to flip to progressive talk (or to sports talk - which attracts younger males - using their Fox Radio Sports network). Clear Channel has backed off on flipping stations to progressive talk. They haven't introduced any new progressive talk stations lately and they've flipped a few to other formats. This does not say to me they have given up on the format. Instead, they are concentrating on the stations and markets which represent the best opportunity for progressive talk radio. They are going for quality more than quantity, which is an approach AAR should adopt, as well.

And if/when there is a demonstrated opportunity in progressive talk, Clear Channel will move in to program syndication - maybe launching new shows, maybe taking over AAR, maybe raiding AAR or Jones talent.

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: It's All About the Money

I agree with Baroosk on this. Question though: when I worked for Cumulus in 2003-2004, I had a friend that worked for CC and I asked him about the AAR stations on Clear Channel. He told me that CC was getting heat for being a 'tool of the GOP' and that they gave AAR poorly performing franchises in other markets to draw away criticism that they were slanted 'conservative'. Now this is just one guy, middle managements take on it, but what do you think? If it's true ( which I doubt ) it was a perfect way to deflect attention from CC before the 2004 election, and they didn't sacrifice any top performing stations in any major clusters in the beginning. ???

I don't think politics is as important to the Mays family as money. Political influence (lobbying and giving money) is one tool they use to protect and promote their business. But it's about money, not politics. Politics doesn't drive them as it does talk radio listeners (including many who post here). They flipped stations to conservative talk - and bought an established syndicator of conservative talk shows (Jacor) - to make money, because conservative talk was popular and profitable.

I don't get any indication in the company's actions that they are much concerned with corporate image either. Outside of people in radio and people who follow radio, most people have never heard of Clear Channel. They know the stations to which they listen but are not concerned with who owns what.

Clear Channel has bigger problems than any criticism they get for being conservative (which seems to be more about the Dixie Chicks than the company's conservative talk show hosts and local news-talk stations). Here again, most of the public makes no association between Rush (or Beck and the rest) and Clear Channel. Clear Channel's problems are: A falling stock price. The heavy debt they incurred to buy all those stations. A weak radio advertising market.

Why did Clear Channel flip stations to progressive talk? They have a surplus of stations and many of them are not performing well. They have an incentive to try out new formats and they have enough stations to be able to try out new formats. Early on, progressive talk offered the possibility of attracting younger demos than traditional news-talk. That made it worth trying. Mostly, Clear Channel took AM Standards and Oldies stations (reaching older demos) to flip to progressive talk (or to sports talk - which attracts younger males - using their Fox Radio Sports network). Clear Channel has backed off on flipping stations to progressive talk. They haven't introduced any new progressive talk stations lately and they've flipped a few to other formats. This does not say to me they have given up on the format. Instead, they are concentrating on the stations and markets which represent the best opportunity for progressive talk radio. They are going for quality more than quantity, which is an approach AAR should adopt, as well.

And if/when there is a demonstrated opportunity in progressive talk, Clear Channel will move in to program syndication - maybe launching new shows, maybe taking over AAR, maybe raiding AAR or Jones talent.

Keep in mind that CC has already flipped to progressive talk in most of the markets they want to. Meaning that there aren't as many markets left to do it in.

Also, CC seems to be divesting of some of their smaller markets clusters. They just exited Fargo and Ann Arbor, and are rumored to be looking for buyers in other small markets. The rest of their bigger market groups seem to have AM stations that they're satisfied with, so no need to flip to any other formats.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: It's All About the Money

Keep in mind that CC has already flipped to progressive talk in most of the markets they want to. Meaning that there aren't as many markets left to do it in.

Also, CC seems to be divesting of some of their smaller markets clusters. They just exited Fargo and Ann Arbor, and are rumored to be looking for buyers in other small markets. The rest of their bigger market groups seem to have AM stations that they're satisfied with, so no need to flip to any other formats.

I hadn't seen the item about Ann Arbor.
I believe this is the first market they are selling in which one of their progressive talk stations is located.
It will be interesting to see what the new owners do.

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: It's All About the Money

Keep in mind that CC has already flipped to progressive talk in most of the markets they want to. Meaning that there aren't as many markets left to do it in.

Also, CC seems to be divesting of some of their smaller markets clusters. They just exited Fargo and Ann Arbor, and are rumored to be looking for buyers in other small markets. The rest of their bigger market groups seem to have AM stations that they're satisfied with, so no need to flip to any other formats.

I hadn't seen the item about Ann Arbor.
I believe this is the first market they are selling in which one of their progressive talk stations is located.
It will be interesting to see what the new owners do.

Cumulus is going to acquire the Ann Arbor cluster, in exchange for a Canton FM station:

http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com/2006/08/and-it-trickles-out.html

CC already has sizeable clusters in the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area, so this allows them to build it up.

As far as WLBY, I'd be surprised if Cumulus makes any changes. It's a weaker daytime station (though with limited night service). Its ratings with liberal talk are as good as or better than any format will get on that frequency.

And, going a bit off-topic, Ingstad is reacquiring the Fargo cluster, which it sold to CC a few years ago. Having worked for Ingstad myself, I can say that Ingstad stations are operated and programmed much like CC, but with a far lower budget. Lots of voicetracking and bland programming.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: It's All About the Money

And, going a bit off-topic, Ingstad is reacquiring the Fargo cluster, which it sold to CC a few years ago. Having worked for Ingstad myself, I can say that Ingstad stations are operated and programmed much like CC, but with a far lower budget. Lots of voicetracking and bland programming.

Did Ingstad buy it back for less than they sold it? :