> Stop complaining about the signals. I get them just fine,
> all over the boston area.
Do you live in either Everett or Framingham?
Otherwise, the signals cover only these areas at nighttime. The daytime signals are considerably better, but the South Shore coverage is mediocre on both stations during much of the day.
After the 1200 upgrade, the signal of progressive talk will be equal to that of WRKO, with some exceptions. Then, the signal complaints will stop.
> The key to AA is getting people
> who are rabid libs and feel desperately under-respresented
> on the radio to tune in. They haven't learned to do talk
> radio properly, so they have no hope of attracting anyone
> else. The signal is plenty good for these folks to listen.
> They just aren't.
I'm not trying to prove that Air America is a great operation. I don't really think that it is.
But the failure of Air America does not accurately describe the presence that liberal-targetting talk radio can have on the Arbitrons if
A) Liberals can hear it
B) It is programmed correctly with decent signals, a good blend of (decent) national hosts, and decent scheduling.
> Down in Providence, you got your wish. In one year, WHJJ's
> ratings were cut in half. It had been in the top 6 or 7
> stations in the city just like wrko is here, and it went
> into the dumper. And Rhode Island is a much more liberal
> area than Boston.
Air America was a horrible direction to take WHJJ, and clearly shows the misdirection of the station following the departure of John DePetro.
Combining cheap off-the-bird talk from Air America with two not necessarily liberal hosts (Arlene Violet and Imus) doesn't exactly scream ratings success to me.
And Providence more liberal than Boston? I'm not really sure about that one, aren't they pretty much the same?
> > > Perhaps Al Franken put it best, when one person
> > > commented how much of the election map was red.
> > > "Great, vast deserts... are red".
> >
> > An offensively snobbish comment. And, immaterial to this
> > discussion - except that this "fly-over country"-style
> > comment provides a nice example of how out of touch Franken
> > is.
> >
> > And, it may help to explain why he does not garner much
> > in the way of popularity. Franken is hardly a "man of the
> > people". Yet, Limbaugh successfully markets himself as just
> > that (his mansion in Palm Beach not withstanding!).
And DePetro is "The Independent Man". But who buys any of these lines anyhow.
Isn't it true that large urban areas, where the majority of the country's population resides, are far more liberal than rural areas? If so, then Franken's comment holds water, even if it is disrespectful to those who aren't listening to his show anyhow.
If you call this disrespectful, I know that Rush has said considerably worse. (one example: claiming that Al Gore was starting the "BJ" channel, when he announced the launch of Current).
> > And, the comment about WRKO "finally" dumping Limbaugh
> > surely has more to do with political opinion than it does
> > with radio reality. Even WRKO's PD was recently quoted as
>
> > stating that the station is strong from 12-9...it was the
> > morning and Depetro shows that are weak. Limbaugh does
> just
> > fine for 'RKO.
If Limbaugh is doing well on WRKO, then obviously why he would be switched out. The post was based upon the first post, which claimed that Limbaugh was not doing well.
> > > 1530-WCKY in Cincinnati has that signal, and it's located
> > > in a market that's not very liberal. Yet it's ratings are
> > > beginning to grow.
> >
> > Beginning to grow, but still tiny compared with Rush and
> > his ilk on WLW.
Rush isn't on WLW, he's on WKRC.
But it's better than the oldies outlet that used to be on that frequency. That's clearly Clear Channel's plan for the stations that have Air America: I don't really think CCU wants AAR to compete with Rush & friends, but rather to provide better billing than the bottom-duellers like WSAI, Frank & Friends on WXKS-AM, the leased portuguese religion on WKOX, etc.
> > It's still a niche format, that's why. Even in liberal
> > Massachusetts, the format isn't setting the world on fire.
>
> > This is because the conservative audience is more apt to
> > listen to talk radio. The liberal audience tends to be
> > younger and more likely to listen to music. Of those
> > liberals who ARE interested in talk, many listen to
> > NPR....and have for a long time. Also, these are not the
> > tyoes of folks who would ever listen to an AM station -
> > even a 50 kw one.
Here, the Air America concept shows it's faults.
Exactly as you are saying, Air America is essentially the model of conservative talk changed into targetting a different political audience. While this may work in some markets, the liberal audience, tending to be more into new technologies and the like, are finding such technologies as podcasting as the future to spread their views. For older liberals, much like 101.1-WCBS listeners, they do not want to change their habits and will likely keep listening to NPR.
Even if these older listeners were to flip to the AM dial, they would find talent like Al Franken and Jerry Springer to be lousy examples of their views, and would just go back to NPR. Plus, with all of the bad press about Air America and the Boys and Girls Club incident, the network is not exactly giving a good face to liberal media.
I see Air America as a lousy operation, but I do not see Air America as the failure of the Democratic party and liberal ideals, as many do on this board. Perhaps the listeners who have migrated to podcasting aren't coming back. Perhaps the Air America model is just too little, too late.
