Drobnys may buy out Air America (Radio Eq.)

[raccoonradio]

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/

"Poised to announce their takeover imminently, the Drobnys are said to be acquiring the long- suffering operation for mere pennies on the dollar, the Radio Equalizer has learned."

Maloney guesses the attempt to keep AAR afloat is based more on driving votes to the Democrats rather than
profit.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos talks about the exit of AAR in Dallas (for "religious propaganda"; aka the station
was sold to a Catholic radio group...to be fair one could call any political talk station "political
propaganda", I guess...)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/2/91228/0764

 

[dampier]

Maloney Guesses....

That's all you need to know.

 

[Herb999]

It was nice to see the libs attempt the right thing and counter conservative talk radio with their own programming. However, it seems that most libs have resorted back to trying to censor conservative radio again.

 

[raccoonradio]

Yup they want to bring back the (un)Fairness Doctrine. Talk radio should compete in the marketplace of
ideas. The shows that people want to hear succeed, and those that don't, fail. Liberals have success in
other media but other than maybe mild success for some progressive talkers (mild compared to Rush, etc.),
radio just isn't their medium. Except maybe for NON-commercial: "This is NPR. National PUBLIC Radio"
(and I guess Howie Kurtz of the Washington comPost is admitting NPR leans left, now....)

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061002113634.aspx

 

[zumahans]

.. which outrates Limbaugh and Faux News in most markets....

 

[kaufcom]

Talk radio should compete in the marketplace of
ideas. The shows that people want to hear succeed, and those that don't, fail.

If it was a "market place of ideas", talk shows would reflect the dichotomy in the political arena, which is split about 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. The primary losers in the conservative takeover of talk radio are not liberals, but rather local talk hosts. Twenty years ago 80% of talk radio hosts, were local. Today 80% are syndicated and 80% of them are conservatives.

Liberals have success in
other media but other than maybe mild success for some progressive talkers (mild compared to Rush, etc.),
radio just isn't their medium.

Not exactly, in two and half years liberal talk radio has grown very nicely from zero stations to almost 100. Nationally syndicated hosts from 0 to about 20 and local hosts from about a dozen to five dozen. During the past year when station growth has slowed liberal talk stations have increased their ratings share by over 8% while ratings in conservative stations have remained flat.

(and I guess Howie Kurtz of the Washington comPost is admitting NPR leans left, now....)

Since when is Howie Kurtz a liberal?

 

[fred flintstone]

The syndicated hosts represent an expansion of talk radio, which 20 years ago was confined to major markets. Local-live talk is an expensive format - especially when done well.

Conservative talk radio has almost all of the best real estate on the AM band. Right wing talkers are often on clear channel blow-torches (with sometimes a second regional station in the market, as well). Mostly progressive talk gets flea-bites. All AAR's stations together don't equal the audience of a WABC or KFI. And AAR's "growth" is a percentage of a minuscule base. Major conservative talkers are getting shares of four-six-eight per cent (or more). Most progressive talk stations get fractional shares.

For all their crowing about the "liberal media," radio is a conservative medium - and always has been. Radio managers are almost always conservative. And people who work in radio are generally conservative, too. For the people who work in radio, this mostly goes against self-interest. Maybe the strident nastiness of righties appeals to them. Maybe they want to identify with the establishment. Somehow conservatism appeals to the personality types drawn to radio. And those people, like most, think they are typical and what appeals to them will appeal to others: They like conservative talk radio, so liberal talk can never work. You should hear most radio people talk in the break room - or in the bar. They are like Rush, only God never loaned them that much talent.

If it was a "market place of ideas", talk shows would reflect the dichotomy in the political arena, which is split about 50-50 between liberals and conservatives. The primary losers in the conservative takeover of talk radio are not liberals, but rather local talk hosts. Twenty years ago 80% of talk radio hosts, were local. Today 80% are syndicated and 80% of them are conservatives.

Liberals have success in
other media but other than maybe mild success for some progressive talkers (mild compared to Rush, etc.),
radio just isn't their medium.

Not exactly, in two and half years liberal talk radio has grown very nicely from zero stations to almost 100. Nationally syndicated hosts from 0 to about 20 and local hosts from about a dozen to five dozen. During the past year when station growth has slowed liberal talk stations have increased their ratings share by over 8% while ratings in conservative stations have remained flat.

 

[Herb999]

"For the people who work in radio, this mostly goes against self-interest."

Well if they are WORKING then they are not voting against self-interest by voting against liberal democrats.

When people are not ruled by hate and anger they think rationally, but the problem is that people who think rationally just make liberals more angry and more hateful.

 

[dampier]

When people are not ruled by hate and anger they think rationally, but the problem is that people who think rationally just make liberals more angry and more hateful.

Pot to kettle, particularly on your posts around this site. Ask your doctor if anger management classes are right for you.

 

[Herb999]

You are a slave to an ideology of hate and lies, I wouldn't say that makes me angry but I certainly would like to outline just where you went wrong in life.

 

[fred flintstone]

Righties are so special!

Rich Republicans control most of the media outlets in this country but they keep saying "left wing media" is biased against them and get the suckers to buy it.

Now proponents of an ideology based on greed and anger are trying to assign their attributes to their opponents. This is the pot calling the dishes black.

 

[kaufcom]

The syndicated hosts represent an expansion of talk radio, which 20 years ago was confined to major markets. Local-live talk is an expensive format - especially when done well.

This is not completely correct. Yes, talk radio has grown significantly in the past 20 years, but local talk was quite extensive in 80's and early 90's. There were talk stations stations in most of the top 100 markets and these stations featured mostly local talkers. It wasn't until Limbaugh and the Limbaugh clones moved in that syndicated talk replaced local talk.

 

[kaufcom]

All AAR's stations together don't equal the audience of a WABC or KFI. And AAR's "growth" is a percentage of a minuscule base. Major conservative talkers are getting shares of four-six-eight per cent (or more). Most progressive talk stations get fractional shares.

That's a bit of stretch. KFI (the number one talk station in the country) reaches 8% US homes. About 75% these homes of are in the primary coverage area. Air America Stations are reaching 65% of US homes. (Not including satellite and internet listeners.) Even if KFI's talkers are getting ratings three time higher than AAR, they are still reaching a much smaller audience. Also how many people across the counry have heard about John and Ken and their rants on illegal immigration.

 

[Herb999]

"Now proponents of an ideology based on greed and anger are trying to assign their attributes to their opponents. "

Nothing new here, liberals have been doing this forever. Funny to see you say this about the ideology of greed and anger, every post before this you were supporting the left.

 

[bigtalkradiofan]

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/

"Poised to announce their takeover imminently, the Drobnys are said to be acquiring the long- suffering operation for mere pennies on the dollar, the Radio Equalizer has learned."

Maloney guesses the attempt to keep AAR afloat is based more on driving votes to the Democrats rather than
profit.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos talks about the exit of AAR in Dallas (for "religious propaganda"; aka the station
was sold to a Catholic radio group...to be fair one could call any political talk station "political
propaganda", I guess...)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/2/91228/0764

IF (and that may be a BIG "IF") this just happens to be somewhat true - what are the implications for AAR, and progressive/liberal talk more generally?

 

[fred flintstone]

IF (and that may be a BIG "IF") this just happens to be somewhat true - what are the implications for AAR, and progressive/liberal talk more generally?

It's true the Dallas station is being sold and will flip to religious programs. The implications are no progressive talk on terrestrial radio, at least for the time being, in the number five market. As in Phoenix, a group is trying to raise money to lease/buy another outlet. Sheldon Drobny may or may not get involved (as he did in Phoenix).

Sheldon Drobny has expressed dissatisfaction with the direction AAR has taken. If he does take over, he would probably make changes. So far, no clear indication what kinds of changes.

And anybody who thinks AAR is "driving votes" is an idiot. AAR does not reach that big a proportion of the electorate. Those they do reach are almost all votes they already have. Whether Drobny would try to "drive votes" or make money if he took over AAR remains to be seen.