• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Danny Goldberg explains the AAR Associates Program

NOTE: I am posting the entire article, since it is more or less a statement by Air America's CEO, Danny Goldberg:


Right Wing Media Gets Desperate

Recently, Air America Radio came under attack from the same cast of right wing media characters who have attacked the Network for ideological reasons from day one.

A recent piece in the New York Post by John Mainelli states that “Air America is in...bad financial shape.” On September 20th Bill O’Reilly on Fox News which, like the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation said that Air America “could be on its last legs.”

This is untrue.

Air America is in strong financial shape. Last week we started broadcasting from our new multi-million dollar studios.

Several weeks earlier the Board of Directors of Air America’s parent company accelerated re-payment of a loan from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club of $875,000 two years in advance of a previously agreed upon re-payment plan. In the last several months, Air America has expanded its executive team to augment our efforts on the internet and in affiliate relations.

The pretext for the latest smears is an initiative I launched last week called Air America Associates, in which I asked our listeners to support our programming financially and at various levels offer bumper stickers, tote bags, etc. as a way of thanking them. (We received thousands of responses, far beyond what we projected for the first few days).

Many of our listeners also listen to NPR stations and Pacifica and are used to supporting radio programming they like. I got the idea from the Nation Magazine’s program “The Nation Associates” which helps them fund investigative journalism. Like Air America Radio, The Nation is a for-profit company.

But the conservative propagandists have tried to make it seem like there is something unseemly because Air America Radio is both commercial—and a radio network, as O’Reilly said last night, “I have never seen a commercial enterprise ask their listeners for money—ever” This is also false. The modern model of the broadcasting business involves numerous revenue streams. If anything, Air America has been late in fully building such an infrastructure which the “Associates” is a part of.

For example, Rush Limbaugh’s Web-site offers his fans the “Limbaugh Letter” for $34.95 a year and a totally separate service called Rush 24/7 which includes access to archived programs at the cost of $49.95 a year. The Limbaugh site also features the “EIB Store” which sells such items as $19.95 polo shirt which amusingly says, “My Mullah went to G’itmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

The Sean Hannity Web-site features a “subscription” to something called, “The Hannity Insider” for $5.95 a month.

But no one tops the self proclaimed non-spinner Bill O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly.com offers a “premium membership” for either $4.95 a month or $49.95 a year. He also offers a “Gift certificate” for $14.95. Products for sale on the Web site include:

-- Radio Factor diner coffee mug available in white or navy blue for $14.95
- O’Reilly Factor keychain for $7.95 “while supplies last.”
--Three different “No Spin” tote bags at $14.95 apiece
--Ten different hats at a cost of $16.95 each
--The “no spin” jacket for $79.95
--The “ Unisex Black Fleece” embroidered with “The Spin Stops Here” for $39.95
--Several bumper stickers including one that reads “Boycott France” for $2.50
--License plate frame for $18.95
--Three different “No Spin” tote bags at $14.95 each
--An O’Reilly Factor Gear Bag at $64.95
-- “Mens Garment Bag” for $64.95 (sorry ladies!)
--a “Spin Stops Here” organizer briefcase
--A “Spin Stops Here” pen and pad bundle for $19.95
--Two different designs of “Spin Stops Here” doormats for $49.95 and
--Two different “Rain Stops Here” umbrellas at $24.95(“Show everyone who protects you from the rain”)

Mainelli’s article also repeated another falsehood about Air America saying “More recently the 70 station left network has been suffering lower ratings.” His corporate cousin O’Reilly wishfully stated on August 17th said “Air America—nobody is listening to it,” On Aug 3rd O’Reilly claimed that “Air America cannot support itself because of low ratings” and on July 26th O’Reilly said “The Air America radio network continues to fail with catastrophic ratings here in New York City. ”

In fact, the ratings for the Bill O’Reilly radio show in New York were worse than those on Air America that he described as “catastrophic” In the key 25-54 year demographic which talk radio offers to advertisers, the Spring, 2005 Arbitron ratings showed that Monday-Friday from 2-4 PM when O’Reilly is on WOR-AM and which at Air America’s 1190 WLIB-AM contains the last hour of “The Al Franken Show” and the first hour of “The Randi Rhodes Show,” that O’Reilly had a .3 share and Air America a .4 share. O’Reilly had a cumulative audience of 75,400 and Air America had a cumulative audience of 89,300.

Inevitably ratings go up and down and vary from time slot to time slot and from market to market. Right wing bloggers have had fun cherry picking isolated pieces of ratings reports to distort the enormous enthusiasm Air America’s growing audience has demonstrated. At the vast majority of our affiliates Air America ratings are up. On a nationwide basis the most recent Arbitron ratings Spring 2005 book showed that our affiliates reach over three million people per week each of whom listens for an average of several hours a week. This is more than triple the amount of people who were listening when measured one year earlier in the Spring, 2004 book.

I do not intend to write something every time something like this happens. In the almost six months during which I have been CEO of Air America Radio, I have refrained, for the most part, from responding to the litany of attacks, lies, half-truths and smears from various members of the right-wing media. In general, it seems to me that paying too much attention to these people only encourages them and that we, at Air America, need to get used to the fact that the spirited progressive opinions of our on-air talent and of our audience will attract the kind of mean-spirited smears that are endemic to contemporary political conversation.

After having a near monopoly on talk radio for so many years, some conservative media types are literally freaked out at confronting robust, persistent and passionate opposition. On Sept 26th, O’Reilly desperately claimed that “Air America’s basic flaw is that “Americans do not want to hear that their country sucks 24 hours a day.” Of course the talent and management of Air America have a love of our country which is what animates all passionate debate on political issues form the left, right and center.

It is an obsession with stifling debate—even at the cost of using lies and distortions, which is un-American.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-goldberg/right-wing-media-gets-des_b_8029.html



<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
> For example, Rush Limbaugh’s Web-site offers his fans the
> “Limbaugh Letter” for $34.95 a year and a totally separate
> service called Rush 24/7 which includes access to archived
> programs at the cost of $49.95 a year. The Limbaugh site
> also features the “EIB Store” which sells such items as
> $19.95 polo shirt which amusingly says, “My Mullah went to
> G’itmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

Again, a polo shirt has value. I haven't spent less than $19.95 for a regular polo short in quite awhile. The $49.95 a year for Rush 24/7 contains complete archives, including video of the show, parodies from 5 to 15 years ago, clips from Rush's TV show, etc. Sure, not worth it to many people, but there is an expense maintaining these things. And for my $50, I'd rather have all of the above rather than three bumperstickers. The key to putting out an AAR press release (and I wish them and libtalk success, mind you) is to use the phrase "right wing whackos/bloggers/fanatics/socialists/etc" as often as possible to divert attention.
 
> Again, a polo shirt has value. I haven't spent less than
> $19.95 for a regular polo short in quite awhile. The $49.95
> a year for Rush 24/7 contains complete archives, including
> video of the show, parodies from 5 to 15 years ago, clips
> from Rush's TV show, etc. Sure, not worth it to many people,
> but there is an expense maintaining these things. And for my
> $50, I'd rather have all of the above rather than three
> bumperstickers. The key to putting out an AAR press release
> (and I wish them and libtalk success, mind you) is to use
> the phrase "right wing
> whackos/bloggers/fanatics/socialists/etc" as often as
> possible to divert attention.

The terms "whackos," "fanatics" and "socialists" were used a combined zero times, "bloggers" once. Devoted fans already provide complete AAR archives for free, and they do so with AAR's blessing, so they can't really charge $50/yr for that. And AAR already sends out its newsletter for free, so they can't really charge $35/yr for that, either. The concept for the branded goods is that they are thank-you gifts for contributions.

Among your criticisms, however, I didn't see anything regarding AAR's financial situation, which has been the thrust of the accusations until now. Do you have any of those charges to level?
 
> The key to putting out an AAR press release
> (and I wish them and libtalk success, mind you) is to use
> the phrase "right wing
> whackos/bloggers/fanatics/socialists/etc" as often as
> possible to divert attention.

Kinda like when RW blogs refer to people on the left as commies, socialists, anti-American and traitors.

Read the article next time in full and take a little time to digest it before you throw out generalizations. Then I might think you know what you're talking about.

<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
Back to the article...Rush 24/7 and AAR's apeal for donations is apples and bananas. The websites are commercial ventures, not a model for "making a donation to keep conservative radio on the air". 74,000 in NYC ain't many, either.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
I want to know where the Air America thongs went that they were selling on the Airamericaradio.com site. Now THERES some good radio marketing!


> NOTE: I am posting the entire article, since it is more or
> less a statement by Air America's CEO, Danny Goldberg:
>
>
> Right Wing Media Gets Desperate
>
> Recently, Air America Radio came under attack from the same
> cast of right wing media characters who have attacked the
> Network for ideological reasons from day one.
>
> A recent piece in the New York Post by John Mainelli states
> that “Air America is in...bad financial shape.” On September
> 20th Bill O’Reilly on Fox News which, like the New York Post
> is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation said that Air
> America “could be on its last legs.”
>
> This is untrue.
>
> Air America is in strong financial shape. Last week we
> started broadcasting from our new multi-million dollar
> studios.
>
> Several weeks earlier the Board of Directors of Air
> America’s parent company accelerated re-payment of a loan
> from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club of $875,000 two
> years in advance of a previously agreed upon re-payment
> plan. In the last several months, Air America has expanded
> its executive team to augment our efforts on the internet
> and in affiliate relations.
>
> The pretext for the latest smears is an initiative I
> launched last week called Air America Associates, in which I
> asked our listeners to support our programming financially
> and at various levels offer bumper stickers, tote bags, etc.
> as a way of thanking them. (We received thousands of
> responses, far beyond what we projected for the first few
> days).
>
> Many of our listeners also listen to NPR stations and
> Pacifica and are used to supporting radio programming they
> like. I got the idea from the Nation Magazine’s program “The
> Nation Associates” which helps them fund investigative
> journalism. Like Air America Radio, The Nation is a
> for-profit company.
>
> But the conservative propagandists have tried to make it
> seem like there is something unseemly because Air America
> Radio is both commercial—and a radio network, as O’Reilly
> said last night, “I have never seen a commercial enterprise
> ask their listeners for money—ever” This is also false. The
> modern model of the broadcasting business involves numerous
> revenue streams. If anything, Air America has been late in
> fully building such an infrastructure which the “Associates”
> is a part of.
>
> For example, Rush Limbaugh’s Web-site offers his fans the
> “Limbaugh Letter” for $34.95 a year and a totally separate
> service called Rush 24/7 which includes access to archived
> programs at the cost of $49.95 a year. The Limbaugh site
> also features the “EIB Store” which sells such items as
> $19.95 polo shirt which amusingly says, “My Mullah went to
> G’itmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”
>
> The Sean Hannity Web-site features a “subscription” to
> something called, “The Hannity Insider” for $5.95 a month.
>
> But no one tops the self proclaimed non-spinner Bill
> O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly.com offers a “premium membership”
> for either $4.95 a month or $49.95 a year. He also offers a
> “Gift certificate” for $14.95. Products for sale on the Web
> site include:
>
> -- Radio Factor diner coffee mug available in white or navy
> blue for $14.95
> - O’Reilly Factor keychain for $7.95 “while supplies last.”
> --Three different “No Spin” tote bags at $14.95 apiece
> --Ten different hats at a cost of $16.95 each
> --The “no spin” jacket for $79.95
> --The “ Unisex Black Fleece” embroidered with “The Spin
> Stops Here” for $39.95
> --Several bumper stickers including one that reads “Boycott
> France” for $2.50
> --License plate frame for $18.95
> --Three different “No Spin” tote bags at $14.95 each
> --An O’Reilly Factor Gear Bag at $64.95
> -- “Mens Garment Bag” for $64.95 (sorry ladies!)
> --a “Spin Stops Here” organizer briefcase
> --A “Spin Stops Here” pen and pad bundle for $19.95
> --Two different designs of “Spin Stops Here” doormats for
> $49.95 and
> --Two different “Rain Stops Here” umbrellas at $24.95(“Show
> everyone who protects you from the rain”)
>
> Mainelli’s article also repeated another falsehood about Air
> America saying “More recently the 70 station left network
> has been suffering lower ratings.” His corporate cousin
> O’Reilly wishfully stated on August 17th said “Air
> America—nobody is listening to it,” On Aug 3rd O’Reilly
> claimed that “Air America cannot support itself because of
> low ratings” and on July 26th O’Reilly said “The Air America
> radio network continues to fail with catastrophic ratings
> here in New York City. ”
>
> In fact, the ratings for the Bill O’Reilly radio show in New
> York were worse than those on Air America that he described
> as “catastrophic” In the key 25-54 year demographic which
> talk radio offers to advertisers, the Spring, 2005 Arbitron
> ratings showed that Monday-Friday from 2-4 PM when O’Reilly
> is on WOR-AM and which at Air America’s 1190 WLIB-AM
> contains the last hour of “The Al Franken Show” and the
> first hour of “The Randi Rhodes Show,” that O’Reilly had a
> .3 share and Air America a .4 share. O’Reilly had a
> cumulative audience of 75,400 and Air America had a
> cumulative audience of 89,300.
>
> Inevitably ratings go up and down and vary from time slot to
> time slot and from market to market. Right wing bloggers
> have had fun cherry picking isolated pieces of ratings
> reports to distort the enormous enthusiasm Air America’s
> growing audience has demonstrated. At the vast majority of
> our affiliates Air America ratings are up. On a nationwide
> basis the most recent Arbitron ratings Spring 2005 book
> showed that our affiliates reach over three million people
> per week each of whom listens for an average of several
> hours a week. This is more than triple the amount of people
> who were listening when measured one year earlier in the
> Spring, 2004 book.
>
> I do not intend to write something every time something like
> this happens. In the almost six months during which I have
> been CEO of Air America Radio, I have refrained, for the
> most part, from responding to the litany of attacks, lies,
> half-truths and smears from various members of the
> right-wing media. In general, it seems to me that paying too
> much attention to these people only encourages them and that
> we, at Air America, need to get used to the fact that the
> spirited progressive opinions of our on-air talent and of
> our audience will attract the kind of mean-spirited smears
> that are endemic to contemporary political conversation.
>
> After having a near monopoly on talk radio for so many
> years, some conservative media types are literally freaked
> out at confronting robust, persistent and passionate
> opposition. On Sept 26th, O’Reilly desperately claimed that
> “Air America’s basic flaw is that “Americans do not want to
> hear that their country sucks 24 hours a day.” Of course the
> talent and management of Air America have a love of our
> country which is what animates all passionate debate on
> political issues form the left, right and center.
>
> It is an obsession with stifling debate—even at the cost of
> using lies and distortions, which is un-American.
>
http://www.huffingtonp> ost.com/danny-goldberg/right-wing-media-gets-des_b_8029.html
>
 
Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

He must, because the argument of his "post"/press release via Huffington Post was a verbatim re-posting of the website nonsense.

Once again, website premiums are for WEBSITES and their content. They are separate ventures from the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. radio programs.

Air America is actively seeking listener contributions for programming and content. This is unprecedented in commercial radio. And for those who wished, in the past threads here to pin this down to contributions for expanded business operations (an argument I failed to accept), see this quote and admission from CEO Goldberg:

"...in which I asked our listeners to support our programming financially."

There--this is for PROGRAMMING CONTENT.

There in lies the difference, Goldberg and others here. Websites are one thing. But Rush, and Hannity, and O'Reilly have NEVER petitioned their listeners to contribute money to their radio shows (keep us and our ideas on the air).

I don't know if it means money problems at Air America. A statement by the CEO that they are fine means nothing--look at how many CEO's put on a brave face before lopping off thousands of jobs, or before their stock takes a hit.

Nor do I care whether AAR is making or losing money. The argument I made was that this money was for programming content--and argument which was furiously and vehemently denied here. It turns out I was right.

And because the money is for programming, it is not analogous to premium websites ancillary to radio shows hosted by Rush, et al. which are separate from the radio programming.

So, talking point #1 should stop.
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> He must, because the argument of his "post"/press release
> via Huffington Post was a verbatim re-posting of the website
> nonsense.
>
> Once again, website premiums are for WEBSITES and their
> content. They are separate ventures from the Limbaugh,
> Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. radio programs.

And once again, you can claim that but you can't prove it. Factor Gear is not only paying for O'Reilly's websites and content. A website actually doesn't cost that much to set up and run.

> There--this is for PROGRAMMING CONTENT.

He said programming, not programming content. Programming can be far broader than that.

> I don't know if it means money problems at Air America.

A lot of right wing blogs seem to think so.

> Nor do I care whether AAR is making or losing money. The
> argument I made was that this money was for programming
> content--and argument which was furiously and vehemently
> denied here. It turns out I was right.

He didn't say "content." When NPR does a pledge drive, they say they are raising the money to keep programming on the air. What that really means is programming, salaries, money for equipment, utility bills, etc. I think AAR would be smart to qualify what they mean, if only to cut the wind out of the blowhards who are using it as yet another predictor of imminent AAR failure.

> And because the money is for programming, it is not
> analogous to premium websites ancillary to radio shows
> hosted by Rush, et al. which are separate from the radio
> programming.

So the better position is the one that sells premium gear to make Rush richer instead of investing the money into expanding the network?

I still think this is another huge non-issue. I probably wouldn't have put out this kind of "associates" thing like this only because it would look bad to the usual suspects. If you want to raise money to buy some stations, create a fund for that. If you want to sell bumper stickers, that's grand too. This NPR model probably sounded good to them in the board room, but considering the anti AAR agenda crowd, it was a stupid thing to do.
 
> Back to the article...Rush 24/7 and AAR's apeal for
> donations is apples and bananas. The websites are commercial
> ventures, not a model for "making a donation to keep
> conservative radio on the air". 74,000 in NYC ain't many,
> either.
>


Exactly, Mr. Goldberg can spin it any way he wants, and tell the world that they are in great shape, but none of us can see his balance sheet.

At the very least, its an awfully shabby thing to do, asking for dough to keep the network going.
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> > He must, because the argument of his "post"/press release
> > via Huffington Post was a verbatim re-posting of the
> website
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Once again, website premiums are for WEBSITES and their
> > content. They are separate ventures from the Limbaugh,
> > Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. radio programs.
>
> And once again, you can claim that but you can't prove it.
> Factor Gear is not only paying for O'Reilly's websites and
> content. A website actually doesn't cost that much to set
> up and run.

Ok, fine. We'll debate this to the end of time. Latch onto that idea and you can't get it out, huh?

> > There--this is for PROGRAMMING CONTENT.
>
> He said programming, not programming content. Programming
> can be far broader than that.

Now this is really cutting straws razor thin. Do you really believe your statement that "programming" and "programming content" are different? Please. And get out of that pretzel you've twisted yourself into.

> > I don't know if it means money problems at Air America.
>
> A lot of right wing blogs seem to think so.

Which is why I said it. Right-wing blog, I am not.

> > Nor do I care whether AAR is making or losing money. The
> > argument I made was that this money was for programming
> > content--and argument which was furiously and vehemently
> > denied here. It turns out I was right.
>
> He didn't say "content."

See above. Programming is accepted in radio as content on the air. That's your lesson for today.

> When NPR does a pledge drive, they
> say they are raising the money to keep programming on the
> air. What that really means is programming, salaries, money
> for equipment, utility bills, etc.

In other words, all sorts of stuff that keeps the PROGRAMMING CONTENT on the air. Look, I emphasized the programming bit (previously and now) in part to assuage your comments in a previous thread about this and how it could be for expanded operations, etc. Now, in the face of statements from the CEO that the money will be for programming, if you really want to twist and turn to make this fit your decidedly narrow view of what the whole endeavor is about, be my guest. But don't call me when you strain your back.

Goldberg said "programming". We all know what that means, whether you want to accept it or not.

> I think AAR would be
> smart to qualify what they mean, if only to cut the wind out
> of the blowhards who are using it as yet another predictor
> of imminent AAR failure.

They should have done that before. The impression was negative from the start.

> > And because the money is for programming, it is not
> > analogous to premium websites ancillary to radio shows
> > hosted by Rush, et al. which are separate from the radio
> > programming.
>
> So the better position is the one that sells premium gear to
> make Rush richer instead of investing the money into
> expanding the network?

No. Again, Rush radio and Rush website are different. He actively seeks subscribers to the wesbite. He has never sought listeners to contribute money to the radio show. Please stop using this analogy--it is false.

> I still think this is another huge non-issue. I probably
> wouldn't have put out this kind of "associates" thing like
> this only because it would look bad to the usual suspects.
> If you want to raise money to buy some stations, create a
> fund for that. If you want to sell bumper stickers, that's
> grand too. This NPR model probably sounded good to them in
> the board room, but considering the anti AAR agenda crowd,
> it was a stupid thing to do.

No, it was stupid not because of anti-AAR factions, but because it smells of trouble, even if unintended. Again, the impression was of impending disaster--like PBS stations use when their pledge drive hasn't brought in enough before the FY runs out. (WVIZ in Cleveland is running just such a promo, saying how much they need to meet the FY budget.)

They should have been precise in their language. Saying now that it's for programming reeks of desperation, even if unwarranted.

And it's not a goddamned website!
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

All correct. No one on this board has seen AAR's books, and very few of us are privy to daypart and demographic breakdowns. Those who say AAR is a failure ad those who say its an overwhelming success may be wrong. One way, IMO, to know if AAR or an AAR host is "succeeding" is when you start seeing AAR hosts replaceing established talk shows on traditional news/talkers. If Rush gets replaced by AL Franken on, say, WKRC in Cincinnati..then he's "made it". It ain't about the ideology, people.<P ID="signature">______________
Greetings from Ohio-where the governor wants everyone to know he's sorry.</P>
 
> Among your criticisms, however, I didn't see anything
> regarding AAR's financial situation, which has been the
> thrust of the accusations until now. Do you have any of
> those charges to level?

You are used to partisan hackery, because that is what everyone here engages in. I am approaching this from a business/image perspective. AAR is trying to merge Premiere and NPR. I've never said they will fail, and view those who post such nonsense at every miniscule move as idiots. So please don't confuse me with right-wing partisans who are here to make a political statement. The fact that I didn't mention their alleged financial collapse should indicate that to you, although I'm sure you're just being cute.
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> Now this is really cutting straws razor thin. Do you really
> believe your statement that "programming" and "programming
> content" are different? Please. And get out of that
> pretzel you've twisted yourself into.

The only twisting here is your interpretation of the Associates membership as some sort of bailout plan, and you've been narrowing your definitions with comments like "website costs" in order to draw a line between Factor Gear being somehow fine and AAR Associates memberships as some sort of last ditch effort to keep the lights on.

> See above. Programming is accepted in radio as content on
> the air. That's your lesson for today.

By you. That isn't necessarily what Goldberg is saying though.

> In other words, all sorts of stuff that keeps the
> PROGRAMMING CONTENT on the air. Look, I emphasized the
> programming bit (previously and now) in part to assuage your
> comments in a previous thread about this and how it could be
> for expanded operations, etc. Now, in the face of
> statements from the CEO that the money will be for
> programming, if you really want to twist and turn to make
> this fit your decidedly narrow view of what the whole
> endeavor is about, be my guest. But don't call me when you
> strain your back.

This is yet another one of those "AAR is Failing" jigsaw puzzles you are trying to put together. I've noticed they are now talking about using some of the money they are raising to cover the costs of remotes, paying for air travel for hosts who want to do them, the costs of outfitting their Washington DC studio space XM is giving them, etc. So now the definition of programming has just expanded somewhat. Randi Rhodes was complaining about not being able to hop on a plane and do a remote from Crawford when Cindy Sheehan was there and now she thinks such things could become possible now. She is still making side remarks about the Associates thing, so I guess she doesn't like the concept.

Now to the right wing attack crowd, this will be some sort of coverup - Goldberg wanted some change in terms after the bloggers went after him. Or, it just might be what some of us were suggesting all along.

> They should have done that before. The impression was
> negative from the start.

By those who already had a negative view about AAR.

> No. Again, Rush radio and Rush website are different. He
> actively seeks subscribers to the wesbite. He has never
> sought listeners to contribute money to the radio show.
> Please stop using this analogy--it is false.

This is an argument you constructed out of nothing to justify your position. Nobody but you cares at all about whether Rush pockets his cash and AAR uses their money for something else. It ultimately means nothing.

> No, it was stupid not because of anti-AAR factions, but
> because it smells of trouble, even if unintended. Again,
> the impression was of impending disaster--like PBS stations
> use when their pledge drive hasn't brought in enough before
> the FY runs out. (WVIZ in Cleveland is running just such a
> promo, saying how much they need to meet the FY budget.)

Please, anyone who has seen a lot of public broadcasting offices up front never give another cent. Our local PBS outfit has the plushest studios and buildings in town. They threaten to pull the plug, but somehow there is always enough. AAR has never implied that if people don't send money, they are pulling the plug, which is a major difference between a PBS begathon and AAR cashing in on people who want to give them money.

> They should have been precise in their language. Saying now
> that it's for programming reeks of desperation, even if
> unwarranted.

Only for you and the attack AAR crowd. Nobody else cares. Mr. Goldberg didn't write his Associates membership plan for right wing bloggers and those who don't care for the network.

You need to reset and find something else.
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> > Now this is really cutting straws razor thin. Do you
> really
> > believe your statement that "programming" and "programming
>
> > content" are different? Please. And get out of that
> > pretzel you've twisted yourself into.
>
> The only twisting here is your interpretation of the
> Associates membership as some sort of bailout plan, and
> you've been narrowing your definitions with comments like
> "website costs" in order to draw a line between Factor Gear
> being somehow fine and AAR Associates memberships as some
> sort of last ditch effort to keep the lights on.

I have done no such narrowing. My argument has been the same throughout thsi whole ordeal--there's a difference between what Rush does with subscribers to his website's exclusive content and Air America seeking listener contributions for programming.

The former is widely accepted in commerce (Playboy, Arbitron, some radio prep services); the latter is unheard of for a commercial enterprise.

I never said nor interpreted that the Associates thing was a bailout. I only mentioned that it was weird and wasn't heard of for a commercial radio operation to seek contributions from its listeners to support its programming.

> > See above. Programming is accepted in radio as content on
>
> > the air. That's your lesson for today.
>
> By you. That isn't necessarily what Goldberg is saying
> though.

Come on. Goldberg is a CEO of a radio operation; he knows what programming means and he knows that any reasonable person will equate that to on-air presentation and content.

> > In other words, all sorts of stuff that keeps the
> > PROGRAMMING CONTENT on the air. Look, I emphasized the
> > programming bit (previously and now) in part to assuage
> your
> > comments in a previous thread about this and how it could
> be
> > for expanded operations, etc. Now, in the face of
> > statements from the CEO that the money will be for
> > programming, if you really want to twist and turn to make
> > this fit your decidedly narrow view of what the whole
> > endeavor is about, be my guest. But don't call me when
> you
> > strain your back.
>
> This is yet another one of those "AAR is Failing" jigsaw
> puzzles you are trying to put together.

I don't care whether Air America falls or not. I have no agenda one way or the other, other than to find out what this Associates thing is all about and to correct your misguided and twisted ideas about it.

> I've noticed they
> are now talking about using some of the money they are
> raising to cover the costs of remotes, paying for air travel
> for hosts who want to do them, the costs of outfitting their
> Washington DC studio space XM is giving them, etc. So now
> the definition of programming has just expanded somewhat.

Remotes and whatnot are considered programming. Yes it is beyond content. But Goldberg never said that, and that's what this thread was based on.

It still doesn't change my point--you do a remote to get your host "out there" so more people listen to the show.

Where did you see this, by the way?

> Randi Rhodes was complaining about not being able to hop on
> a plane and do a remote from Crawford when Cindy Sheehan was
> there and now she thinks such things could become possible
> now. She is still making side remarks about the Associates
> thing, so I guess she doesn't like the concept.

I'm glad remotes for Air America are possible now. That will be good for them. But a remote is a basic for any radio operation (hell, in college we could set one up in less than an hour--using the Hotline), and to think that they couldn't do them before is a bit shocking. I mean, it's a phone line and a microphone essentially. What shape were they in that they couldn't do that? Was it finances or logistics (i.e., we have idiots in our promotions department--entirely possible).

> Now to the right wing attack crowd, this will be some sort
> of coverup - Goldberg wanted some change in terms after the
> bloggers went after him. Or, it just might be what some of
> us were suggesting all along.

No, Goldberg is supporting what I thought it was all about before. It seems you, Mr. Equipment and Expanded Business Operations not Programming, is the one who has changed his terms.

> > They should have done that before. The impression was
> > negative from the start.
>
> By those who already had a negative view about AAR.

Come on--the first thought when reading that, even by AAR supporters and other liberals on this board was that it seemed like a PBS pledge drive.

> > No. Again, Rush radio and Rush website are different. He
>
> > actively seeks subscribers to the wesbite. He has never
> > sought listeners to contribute money to the radio show.
> > Please stop using this analogy--it is false.
>
> This is an argument you constructed out of nothing to
> justify your position. Nobody but you cares at all about
> whether Rush pockets his cash and AAR uses their money for
> something else. It ultimately means nothing.

Whoa nelly. I didn't construct anything. You and others were the ones intent on using the Rush website as an analogy. I have pointed out--again and again--that Rush's website seeks subscribers; his radio show doesn't. Therein lies the difference between website and radio programming.

Apples to apples, how bout it from now on?

And I don't care whether Rush pockets his money or AAR spends theirs on Brazilian male strippers. I do care that you make a valid analogous argument.

> > No, it was stupid not because of anti-AAR factions, but
> > because it smells of trouble, even if unintended. Again,
> > the impression was of impending disaster--like PBS
> stations
> > use when their pledge drive hasn't brought in enough
> before
> > the FY runs out. (WVIZ in Cleveland is running just such a
>
> > promo, saying how much they need to meet the FY budget.)
>
> Please, anyone who has seen a lot of public broadcasting
> offices up front never give another cent.

I have. And don't.

> Our local PBS
> outfit has the plushest studios and buildings in town. They
> threaten to pull the plug, but somehow there is always
> enough.

$750,000 was the FY 2005 budget for WVIZ, according to their deathknell promotion. They were supposedly still under it as of last week, when I last saw the promo. That's just the TV station--forget the NPR affiliate and the educational programs as part of "ideastream".

> AAR has never implied that if people don't send
> money, they are pulling the plug, which is a major
> difference between a PBS begathon and AAR cashing in on
> people who want to give them money.

No, AAR didn't STATE that. It was implied, by the anecdotal use of "right-wing" things in the email (things like the talk radio monopoly). When you need to drum up support, nothing better than bringing out the "underdog" scenario.

> > They should have been precise in their language. Saying
> now
> > that it's for programming reeks of desperation, even if
> > unwarranted.
>
> Only for you and the attack AAR crowd.

I'm hardly part of the AAR attack crowd. As I said, I don't care. I don't listen to AAR because I find it to be bad, uninteresting radio. I criticize AAR because of what it does--not because I'm partisan.

> Nobody else cares.

Seems you do, judging by your responses.

> Mr. Goldberg didn't write his Associates membership plan for
> right wing bloggers and those who don't care for the
> network.

I'm well aware of that. He wrote it so scared leftists would donate money to keep AAR programming coming.

> You need to reset and find something else.

I'm fine, how are you?
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> > Nor do I care whether AAR is making or losing money. The
> > argument I made was that this money was for programming
> > content--and argument which was furiously and vehemently
> > denied here. It turns out I was right.
>
> He didn't say "content." When NPR does a pledge drive, they
> say they are raising the money to keep programming on the
> air. What that really means is programming, salaries, money
> for equipment, utility bills, etc. I think AAR would be
> smart to qualify what they mean, if only to cut the wind out
> of the blowhards who are using it as yet another predictor
> of imminent AAR failure.

I read both posts of Johnny and dampier and ive been thinking hard about this response....outside of opinion and rants on the right, no one has provided any proof or supporting fact that AAR is in actual trouble. I think many of those who revile the way public broadcasting gathers additional revenue have spread their anger to this program. The real stretch comes from the idea that adding a new revenue stream automatically moves to "the network is trouble". The linking of the Gloria Wise "scandal" and the associates program is simply beyond the pale. Im disappointed with Johnny and this very obvious stretch to support a point that lacks weight or may even be non-existant.

I do like that Goldberg did respond strongly to the rants on the right.....I agree strongly with this part of his statement:

"I do not intend to write something every time something like this happens. In the almost six months during which I have been CEO of Air America Radio, I have refrained, for the most part, from responding to the litany of attacks, lies, half-truths and smears from various members of the right-wing media."

Unlike Kerry in 2004, Goldberg knows when to step up and respond to the rants and taffy-pulls on the right. Goldberg for years has been a wealthy liberal who assists in causes he believe in. This is not the first attack for him and it won't be the last...hes right in the idea if he spent so much time on the defensive from the thousands of smears about AAR...he would never be able to move forward with AAR business...but in this case, its a very good time to refute the rants and distortions. I think Goldberg and AAR is simply performing ideological marketing versus normal marketing. Using his example of the nation (successful at this for 117 years), Goldberg may be offering those who really support AAR to contribute.....he may be using the same appeal as the Nation does that no one owns the magazine...and it can be ideologically good to do so.

I don't hear the right complaining about the Bush Administration's begging for more reconstruction money on the Iraq reconstruction website ($600 so far pledged - not a windfall)Despite wasting over $30 billion of taxpayer money, the administration is "begging for more". This is also a form of ideological marketing....but unless your name is Goldberg, Soros, or some other active wealthy liberal this is acceptable. Rupert Murdoch is given a pass though he wastes millions on his "agenda" (Fox - now profitable, Weekly Standard, and of course the NY Post)while liberals who provide venture capital to causes or organizations they have a strong interest in are villified. I wonder what Johnny and others think of Richard Mellon Scaife and others who prop up another conservative money loser, the National Review.


So lets look at what we have....outside of personal opinion or anger depending on how one feels as well of a lack of dammable evidence...the Air America Associates plan is:

1) a different way to gain revenue (has roots in public broadcasting/Nation marketing ideas)
2) appealing to "true believers" who may find idological marketing convincing enough to give funds
3) voluntary
4) completely legal
5) no different from "premiums" offered by other talk show hosts....


> I still think this is another huge non-issue. I probably
> wouldn't have put out this kind of "associates" thing like
> this only because it would look bad to the usual suspects.
> If you want to raise money to buy some stations, create a
> fund for that. If you want to sell bumper stickers, that's
> grand too. This NPR model probably sounded good to them in
> the board room, but considering the anti AAR agenda crowd,
> it was a stupid thing to do.

Dampier is right that this is a non-issue. I think further clarfication might make it clear to reasonable people but once again Goldberg has it right in one more part of his statement:

"In general, it seems to me that paying too much attention to these people only encourages them and that we, at Air America, need to get used to the fact that the spirited progressive opinions of our on-air talent and of our audience will attract the kind of mean-spirited smears that are endemic to contemporary political conversation."

Goldberg could spend every waking minute "clarifying" the plans for AAR but none of it will discourage the right who do want to stifle debate. By first saying AAR won't succeed, trashing its content without really listening, showing glee when the financial mishaps occurred, accusing AAR of crimes when no evidence supports this, and now criticising their efforts to gain more revenue....the right has shown that a fair debate is not possible unless you buy into whey they believe. A simple google search will show where most of the attacks come from....those on the right who can get a keyboard and access to the net...
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> > > Nor do I care whether AAR is making or losing money.
> The
> > > argument I made was that this money was for programming
> > > content--and argument which was furiously and vehemently
>
> > > denied here. It turns out I was right.
> >
> > He didn't say "content." When NPR does a pledge drive,
> they
> > say they are raising the money to keep programming on the
> > air. What that really means is programming, salaries,
> money
> > for equipment, utility bills, etc. I think AAR would be
> > smart to qualify what they mean, if only to cut the wind
> out
> > of the blowhards who are using it as yet another predictor
>
> > of imminent AAR failure.
>
> I read both posts of Johnny and dampier and ive been
> thinking hard about this response....outside of opinion and
> rants on the right, no one has provided any proof or
> supporting fact that AAR is in actual trouble. I think many
> of those who revile the way public broadcasting gathers
> additional revenue have spread their anger to this program.
> The real stretch comes from the idea that adding a new
> revenue stream automatically moves to "the network is
> trouble". The linking of the Gloria Wise "scandal" and the
> associates program is simply beyond the pale. Im
> disappointed with Johnny and this very obvious stretch to
> support a point that lacks weight or may even be
> non-existant.

Whoa, slow down. I made no such connection, ever, in this thread or the other one on the Associates program.

Does it strike me as odd that they're seeking money--sure it does. But I never pinned it down to the Gloria Wise thing. I don't have a clue if AAR is losing money. But the negative impression of their finances is encouraged by a thing such as the Associates program. It just looks odd.

> I do like that Goldberg did respond strongly to the rants on
> the right.....I agree strongly with this part of his
> statement:
>
> "I do not intend to write something every time something
> like this happens. In the almost six months during which I
> have been CEO of Air America Radio, I have refrained, for
> the most part, from responding to the litany of attacks,
> lies, half-truths and smears from various members of the
> right-wing media."
>
> Unlike Kerry in 2004, Goldberg knows when to step up and
> respond to the rants and taffy-pulls on the right. Goldberg
> for years has been a wealthy liberal who assists in causes
> he believe in. This is not the first attack for him and it
> won't be the last...hes right in the idea if he spent so
> much time on the defensive from the thousands of smears
> about AAR...he would never be able to move forward with AAR
> business...but in this case, its a very good time to refute
> the rants and distortions. I think Goldberg and AAR is
> simply performing ideological marketing versus normal
> marketing. Using his example of the nation (successful at
> this for 117 years), Goldberg may be offering those who
> really support AAR to contribute.....he may be using the
> same appeal as the Nation does that no one owns the
> magazine...and it can be ideologically good to do so.
>
> I don't hear the right complaining about the Bush
> Administration's begging for more reconstruction money on
> the Iraq reconstruction website ($600 so far pledged - not a
> windfall)Despite wasting over $30 billion of taxpayer money,
> the administration is "begging for more". This is also a
> form of ideological marketing....but unless your name is
> Goldberg, Soros, or some other active wealthy liberal this
> is acceptable. Rupert Murdoch is given a pass though he
> wastes millions on his "agenda" (Fox - now profitable,
> Weekly Standard, and of course the NY Post)while liberals
> who provide venture capital to causes or organizations they
> have a strong interest in are villified. I wonder what
> Johnny and others think of Richard Mellon Scaife and others
> who prop up another conservative money loser, the National
> Review.

Scaife has nothing to do with NR. But that's a fair point, albeit a different medium. NR does seek contributions and hosts fundraisers all the time. But it does say that without the fundraisers, it's possible thatNR wouldn't exist. The NR reserves are not very big.

My point, however, from the start, has been that it was unprecedented for a commercial radio network or show to seek listener money for its programming.

Radio only.

> So lets look at what we have....outside of personal opinion
> or anger depending on how one feels as well of a lack of
> dammable evidence...the Air America Associates plan is:
>
> 1) a different way to gain revenue (has roots in public
> broadcasting/Nation marketing ideas)

But a first for commercial radio.

> 2) appealing to "true believers" who may find idological
> marketing convincing enough to give funds

True.

> 3) voluntary

True.

> 4) completely legal

No one, to my knowledge, has argued otherwise. I sure haven't.

> 5) no different from "premiums" offered by other talk show
> hosts....

Don't buy that line, doc. You're better than that. No commercial radio host has offered a premium for giving money to the program. They get premiums for buying a subscription to a separate website.

>
> > I still think this is another huge non-issue. I probably
> > wouldn't have put out this kind of "associates" thing like
>
> > this only because it would look bad to the usual suspects.
>
> > If you want to raise money to buy some stations, create a
> > fund for that. If you want to sell bumper stickers,
> that's
> > grand too. This NPR model probably sounded good to them
> in
> > the board room, but considering the anti AAR agenda crowd,
>
> > it was a stupid thing to do.
>
> Dampier is right that this is a non-issue. I think further
> clarfication might make it clear to reasonable people but
> once again Goldberg has it right in one more part of his
> statement:
>
> "In general, it seems to me that paying too much attention
> to these people only encourages them and that we, at Air
> America, need to get used to the fact that the spirited
> progressive opinions of our on-air talent and of our
> audience will attract the kind of mean-spirited smears that
> are endemic to contemporary political conversation."
>
> Goldberg could spend every waking minute "clarifying" the
> plans for AAR but none of it will discourage the right who
> do want to stifle debate. By first saying AAR won't succeed,
> trashing its content without really listening, showing glee
> when the financial mishaps occurred, accusing AAR of crimes
> when no evidence supports this, and now criticising their
> efforts to gain more revenue....the right has shown that a
> fair debate is not possible unless you buy into whey they
> believe. A simple google search will show where most of the
> attacks come from....those on the right who can get a
> keyboard and access to the net...

I'll let this slide because I'm too tired now to combat it. Just let it suffice that I'm not part of that. I'm too busy here for any blog of my own.
:)
 
Re: Does Danny Goldberg read Radio-Info?

> Whoa, slow down. I made no such connection, ever, in this
> thread or the other one on the Associates program.
>
> Does it strike me as odd that they're seeking money--sure it
> does.

Ok, so the timing is not the best if you only look at what has been coming from the right on the accusations of criminal activity by the RW bloggers, Michelle Malkin, and the unequalizer... otherwise, even if you look at it that way the evidence only says that Goldberg might be tone-deaf in a PR way not to stretch to "AAR is in financial trouble". If they were in trouble, wouldn't you think there would be more agressive efforts to stem the tide from a possible failure....than an associates plan that has no guarantee of significant revenue...depending on this for needed income would be odd or bad business sense.....Johnny you are a reasonable conservative..so i ask whats the issue here unless more evidence is on the table...?

But I never pinned it down to the Gloria Wise thing.

>> I probably should have said it more generally than word my post so it directly points at you (not intentional) but several people here and the blogs and pundits (O'Reilly the most loudly as of late) who are trying to "pile on". But come on johnny, your question is a stretch and a reasonable person like you should see that...one more thought here, AAR sped up their payment (which they still really so far didn't have to pay to Gloria wise but chose to - my opinion still is was a good thing to do even If they didnt have to), would a company that is "in trouble" speed this kind of transaction or would they fight tooth and nail to hold on to "needed cash"...?

> I don't have a clue if AAR is losing money.

No evidence for or against right now..but AAR seems to be moving ahead with projects, new capital expenditures,etc ...so that would seem that things are Ok at least.

But the
> negative impression of their finances is encouraged by a
> thing such as the Associates program. It just looks odd.

Again, look at where the "negative impression" is being created and broadcast by...only on the right wing...no one else is really biting at the effort to stir this event into a scandal....and its not because of a cover up....theres nothing there to bite at...and if there was many of us liberals here would agree that punishments have to be offered if real lawbreaking was going on....but there isn't...only Evan Cohen and the Gloria Wise board clearly have real problems here by their actions.


> Scaife has nothing to do with NR.

I clearly remember Kate O'Beirne from the Capital Gang about 2 years ago mentioning (or celebrating) his involvement on the show as an investor/contributor. Has that changed in recent times? If so, he does have his fingers in many a conservative effort, not including his efforts in the 90's with the "Arkansas project".

But that's a fair point,
> albeit a different medium. NR does seek contributions and
> hosts fundraisers all the time. But it does say that
> without the fundraisers, it's possible thatNR wouldn't
> exist. The NR reserves are not very big.

Different medium or not, the point's the same. Goldberg just told everyone where he got his idea, a print magazine, the Nation. Don't understand why the medium makes the difference here, Johnny. AAR may be on to something or not...who knows...and its not a big deal. If it was a huge success, many business possibly would join right in. Successful ideas always find imitators. If not, then the only loss is a e-mail newsletter to listeners. The assaults from the right will still be just the same....its a non-issue.


> > 5) no different from "premiums" offered by other talk show
>
> > hosts....
>
> Don't buy that line, doc. You're better than that. No
> commercial radio host has offered a premium for giving money
> to the program. They get premiums for buying a subscription
> to a separate website.

I diagree with you and I believe Dampier said it best in his post. I can't make the point any clearer than he did....



> I'll let this slide because I'm too tired now to combat it.
> Just let it suffice that I'm not part of that. I'm too busy
> here for any blog of my own.
> :)

Didnt say your were Johnny :) but it is true...you may not be the one ranting but take that walk on Google...you will see for yourself where most of the debate crushing is coming from.....not the left my friend
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom