• 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

How would you feel if everybody forgot your birthday?

N

nwebster

Guest
I've been waiting for the Air America Radio boosters to mention it, but today marks the second anniversary of AAR's launch. So, a Google News search, show only two published mentions of this event:
(1) Brian Maloney (surprise, surprise)who predicts: "As certain as the presence of a dozen Dunkin' Donuts outlets in every New England town, today's second Air America Radio on-air anniversary is sure to bring mainstream media accolades from every corner of the country."
(2) The New York Daily News, which published an interview with Randi Rhodes about the anniversary yesterday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/404083p-342237c.htm

Maloney called Archie Bunker's favorite newspaper "ultra-liberal." Clearly, this guy has not spent much time in New York. And while Dunkin' Donuts continues to do well in some parts of the country (Krispy Kreme in others - a divide as socially significant as Red and Blue), the torrent of "accolades" has not emerged. Mostly, it seems the mainstream media lost interest in AAR early on. Google indicates AAR gets local ink when a station signs on or drops off - but that's about it.

So how is AAR doing at this milestone?

+ They are still here (despite constant predictions to the contrary).
+ The on-air product has improved.
o Ratings are not as good as boosters hope; not as bad as bashers predict. Overall, their numbers are on a par with Salem News/Talk, ESPN Radio or Fox Sports Radio.
- They did not appear to influence the outcome of the last election.
- They are not yet in the black and continue to require infusions of cash.
- They are on stations with poor signals in many markets.
- Their so-called news (how can I say this charitably) sucks.
- The one station they control does not serve its market of license.
- Their three strongest talents (Rhodes, Malloy and Hartmann) still do not get the corporate recognition and support they deserve.
- Although some recent improvement has been seen, management continues to make questionable business decisions and has failed to control costs.

IMHO: AAR still owes much of its continued existance to Clear Channel, to Jones Radio, to outside syndicated hosts (Schultz and Miller) and to local hosts in the markets in which its affiliates are strongest.
 
This episode brought to you by the number 3

> - Their two strongest talents (Rhodes, Malloy and Hartmann)
> still do not get the corporate recognition and support they
> deserve.

That's three.
 
Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

Since you don't want to initiate, participate or contribute to any of the discussions, maybe you can be designated Official Proofreader.
 
Good summary of the issues. Today is my birthday so you'd think that might help me remember AAR's anniversary, but I completely forgot. I just don't find myself listening to AAR that much anymore. About all I listen to these with talk radio is maybe 20 minutes or so every day of Ed Schultz. I have enjoyed Sam Seder's substituting for Al Franken lately (I caught a few minutes each day). He seems to be the one AAR host without radio experience who has done a great job making the transition.
 
Clarifying a point?

> So how is AAR doing at this milestone?
>
> - The one station they control does not serve its market of
> license.

I assume you mean WLIB?

There is, of course, no such thing as a "market of license." WLIB is licensed to the city of New York. It has a legal main studio within city limits, it covers the city with the appropriate signal level required by federal regulations, and every time I've listened, it's identified itself on the hour, properly, as "WLIB New York."

I would guess that a visit to the WLIB public files would produce a series of properly filed issues lists.

That's all the FCC requires for "service" to a community of license. The ratings would suggest that at least some listeners in that community find the programming of interest, too.

So in what way is WLIB not serving its "market of license"?<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 ON SALE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
Re: Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

> Since you don't want to initiate, participate or contribute
> to any of the discussions, maybe you can be designated
> Official Proofreader.
>

Grammar, punctuation, and syntax are the least of your problems when you post...pulling smelly nuggets out of your wazoo proves to be much more offensive.

Not that anybody'd infringe on your right to be continuously proven wrong.<P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
 
Re: Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

> Since you don't want to initiate, participate or contribute
> to any of the discussions, maybe you can be designated
> Official Proofreader.

Dear Sir:

Official Proofreader works for me. I assume I have unbridled use of "the red pen" without your officious intermeddling?

When were you granted authority to decide, sua sponte, titles for posters?

When did I decide not to "initiate, participate or contribute to any of the discussions"?

Your answers would be greatly appreciated.

Warmest and yours &c.,
JM
 
Re: Clarifying a point?

Scott, I am an admirer of your weekly column.

I am not speaking of FCC regs. I agree with those who have posted "City of License" is an anachronism in practical terms and I offered what I believe to be a more relevant variation. However, I say a station that is automated 19 hours a day and devoid of local programming serves neither the five counties of New York City nor the 20 counties of the New York MSA.

Having read your column and your bio, I am surprised you would be personally satisfied with a station which only meets the minimal technical requirements of current FCC regulations. I also appreciate that as a consultant you can not be openly critical of the current state of the medium and bite the hand that feeds you.
 
Re: Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

I did not decide. I proposed.

I have not read all 1756 posts but in what I have read you essentially pick at the posts of others. Fine if that makes you feel better.
 
Re: Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

>
> Grammar, punctuation, and syntax are the least of your
> problems when you post...pulling smelly nuggets out of your
> wazoo proves to be much more offensive.

I bow to your class and to your eloquence.
 
Re: Clarifying a point?

> Scott, I am an admirer of your weekly column.
>
> I am not speaking of FCC regs. I agree with those who have
> posted "City of License" is an anachronism in practical
> terms and I offered what I believe to be a more relevant
> variation. However, I say a station that is automated 19
> hours a day and devoid of local programming serves neither
> the five counties of New York City nor the 20 counties of
> the New York MSA.

How many 24/7 live and local talk stations are there in the U.S.?
 
> Today is my birthday so you'd
> think that might help me remember AAR's anniversary, but I
> completely forgot.

A belated Happy Birthday to you, I guess you're glad your birthday wasn't April 1st. Mine is February 1st, and I'm SOOOOO glad I wasn't born on February 2nd.

Matt Smith
"The OTHER Matt in NC"
 
Re: Clarifying a point?

There's no requirement for "live and local" programming. I realize if folks on this board could get the government to "make" a station hire them as a DJ or talk host, they would, but its not going to happen under any definition of "public service". If there are folks who want to listen to Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh, and not a local guy interviewing the sewer inspector, that's fine. TV has similar "requirements" but they aren't running the local dinner theatre group in prime time. I would agree the whole "city of license" thing has become a joke..being the "first aural service to West Podunk".<P ID="signature">______________
"Your right to know supersedes your right to exist"..Gary Burbank</P>
 
Re: Clarifying a point?

> Scott, I am an admirer of your weekly column.
>
> I am not speaking of FCC regs. I agree with those who have
> posted "City of License" is an anachronism in practical
> terms and I offered what I believe to be a more relevant
> variation. However, I say a station that is automated 19
> hours a day and devoid of local programming serves neither
> the five counties of New York City nor the 20 counties of
> the New York MSA.
>
> Having read your column and your bio, I am surprised you
> would be personally satisfied with a station which only
> meets the minimal technical requirements of current FCC
> regulations. I also appreciate that as a consultant you can
> not be openly critical of the current state of the medium
> and bite the hand that feeds you.

While I think the FCC or anyone else has no business regulating content on stations (as a slippery slope argument) and would not support the belowmentioned forced hiring of local talent, a lot of the people here seem to have a different opinion about stations that run nothing but snake oil CDs and financial pitchmen who write the station checks. Those stations put a good signal over their COL, run legal IDs, and have studios that conform to FCC guidelines. So what's the difference? I can feel the slope slipping a bit already.
 
Re: Henry VI Part II, Act 4, Scene 2

> I did not decide. I proposed.
>
> I have not read all 1756 posts but in what I have read you
> essentially pick at the posts of others. Fine if that makes
> you feel better.

Why don't you read all 1756 before you state "essentials". My work on the Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Oldies, and Odd-Air board speaks for itself.

Maybe the posts I "pick at" are yours, because, well...they deserve picking.

Or maybe you're just obtuse.
 
> I've been waiting for the Air America Radio boosters to
> mention it, but today marks the second anniversary of AAR's
> launch.

AAR listeners are well aware of the anniversary because show hosts are taking note of it.

But why are you surprised that nobody is bringing it up here? The majority of threads about AAR are not started by the "boosters" but by the people with an anti-AAR agenda trying to slam the network or shovel more made up scandals in our faces.

But you did illustrate a few interesting points:

> So, a Google News search, show only two published
> mentions of this event:

> (1) Brian Maloney (surprise, surprise)who predicts: "As
> certain as the presence of a dozen Dunkin' Donuts outlets in
> every New England town, today's second Air America Radio
> on-air anniversary is sure to bring mainstream media
> accolades from every corner of the country."

You just shot the Unequalizer down for being, surprise, INACCURATE and OBSESSED. Again.

> (2) The New York Daily News, which published an interview
> with Randi Rhodes about the anniversary yesterday.

A local paper doing a story about a network based in NY. Media frenzy it's not.
 
Re: Clarifying a point?

> Scott, I am an admirer of your weekly column.
>
> I am not speaking of FCC regs. I agree with those who have
> posted "City of License" is an anachronism in practical
> terms and I offered what I believe to be a more relevant
> variation. However, I say a station that is automated 19
> hours a day and devoid of local programming serves neither
> the five counties of New York City nor the 20 counties of
> the New York MSA.

And the brokered commercial tape mills and religious polluters of the educational FM band do?
 
Re: This episode brought to you by the number 3

> > - Their two strongest talents (Rhodes, Malloy and
> Hartmann)
> > still do not get the corporate recognition and support
> they
> > deserve.
>
> That's three.

That's because Mwebster is the only big promoter of Hartmann here. To most of the rest of us, he's just another host... adequate. I think Rachel Maddow is probably stronger than Mike Malloy as well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom