LA Times: Progressive Talkers Distancing Themselves from AAR

[fred flintstone]

Experts say big problem was politics was more important than doing good radio.

As Air America Stumbles, What's Radio Got Left?
Local affiliate KTLK sees an audience for programming that's entertaining talk first and liberal second, with a competitive agenda.

With Air America filing for bankruptcy protection last week, and its local affiliate dropping in the most recent ratings, right-wing critics are gleefully writing the epitaph for liberal talk radio — dead at 2 1/2. But other observers say that regardless of whether Air America survives, an audience exists and will remain for left-leaning hosts.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/cl-et-america20oct20,0,1314444.story

The article quotes All Access news-talk editor Perry Simon as saying, ""The problem," Simon said, "is that the entire category of liberal talk is judged by what Air America is doing." The Times reports Simon added there is a market for progressive talk and the key to the format working is "if it's entertaining talk radio first and liberal second."

The Times says that stations such as progressive talk KTLK-AM (1150), in Los Angeles have been doing their best to get "out from under AAR's shadow" - even before the bankruptcy filing and that station (like many others) has been weaning itself from the network's programming. The article quotes PD Don Martin as saying, "We're trying to take this progressive format and make it radio, not make it a cause."

The article adds KTLK gets about half its programming from hosts "of its own choosing," including Jones' Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. The Times calls them "radio veterans, another quality lacking in many of the hosts who populate Air America's schedule."

The article also quotes Talkers Magazine editor Michael Harrison as saying AAR hosts, "continue to be presenting themselves as some sort of political campaign. I don't think they have as much of a chance if their political agenda supersedes their business agenda." Harrison is quoted as adding that political agenda progressive talk does not represent that future viability of liberal radio hosts, pointing out Bush's most scathing (and possibly effective) radio critic in 2004 was Howard Stern.

The article says that according to PD Simon, AAR's problems were: (1) Political agenda was more important than entertaining radio (see above); (2) Over-spending and (3) People with a lack of radio experience in charge and on the air. "It's a shame. This was an opportunity to create really good, new talk radio. It was misbegotten from the start, not a project of people who knew radio and wanted to create something long-term... Their core audience isn't big enough to sustain a commercial operation the way they're spending money," Simon is quoted as saying.

In addition, to Jones Radio, two other groups have announced plans to syndicate progressive talk radio programming.

 

[dampier]

The article quotes All Access news-talk editor Perry Simon as saying, ""The problem," Simon said, "is that the entire category of liberal talk is judged by what Air America is doing." The Times reports Simon added there is a market for progressive talk and the key to the format working is "if it's entertaining talk radio first and liberal second."

The problem is most of the press about AAR today is coming from the right wing attack press which purposefully tries to link libtalk to AAR, especially when the financial issue started to be raised. It makes it far easier for them to try and tie an ideological failure to a format linking it to the business acumen of AAR. Those not in the know still presume Schultz and Miller are part of AAR. Howard Kurtz in a shallow interview past weekend had Miller on to talk about AAR's bankruptcy (huh?) and also claimed AAR owned the stations it was on, which was wrong.

The article adds KTLK gets about half its programming from hosts "of its own choosing," including Jones' Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. The Times calls them "radio veterans, another quality lacking in many of the hosts who populate Air America's schedule."

I am having a hard time figuring out where these quotes are coming from. Is the Times saying another quality lacking... or is it All Access or someone else.

The article also quotes Talkers Magazine editor Michael Harrison as saying AAR hosts, "continue to be presenting themselves as some sort of political campaign. I don't think they have as much of a chance if their political agenda supersedes their business agenda." Harrison is quoted as adding that political agenda progressive talk does not represent that future viability of liberal radio hosts, pointing out Bush's most scathing (and possibly effective) radio critic in 2004 was Howard Stern.

I am not sure if the Stern comment actually ended up being true in the end.

As far as the other conclusions, I am not so sure having some big names at AAR's launch wasn't a fatal mistake because it got them a lot of launch attention. If they launched with Peter Werbe, The Young Turks, EcoTalk, and the plethora of other unknowns out there, would AAR have gotten as much attention? I don't think so. I think the natural evolution of the format is weeding out the Hollywood/entertainment stars from the talk radio stars, and AAR is still on the air. If they evolve away from the highest priced talent and groom more radio talent, they can succeed. And now they have at least a half-dozen competing program providers, so it's survival of the fittest.

 

[fred flintstone]

As far as the other conclusions, I am not so sure having some big names at AAR's launch wasn't a fatal mistake because it got them a lot of launch attention. If they launched with Peter Werbe, The Young Turks, EcoTalk, and the plethora of other unknowns out there, would AAR have gotten as much attention? I don't think so. I think the natural evolution of the format is weeding out the Hollywood/entertainment stars from the talk radio stars, and AAR is still on the air. If they evolve away from the highest priced talent and groom more radio talent, they can succeed. And now they have at least a half-dozen competing program providers, so it's survival of the fittest.

The question is: was Brendan Behan right? Is there no such thing as bad publicity?

AAR did get some ink from signing Franken and Garofolo but I don't think they were all the much a factor. Neither was exactly a household name. Phil Donahue wrote some 20 years ago that celebrity is a continuum from the weekend weatherman to Frank Sinatra. Franken and Garofolo both fall closer to the weekend weatherman. Much of buzz were more man-bites-dog - liberals-start-radio network type stories. Then, right after launch, the press attention immediately shifted to AAR loosing two (of four) stations because the rent checks bounced.

The alternative route would have been carefully to select some experienced radio people and few good signals in markets with potential for the format, and grow gradually from there. That is more the route Democracy Radio chose, and look who produced the two most successful progressive talk programs.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>some experienced radio people and few good signals

AAR was trying to cover the whole country with its signals and it often wound up on weaker ones. What might have made more sense would be to do what you said, or possibly even make AAR a syndicator rather than a network and try to get on the established talk signals in town. Would people listen to a station with a liberal-leaning host following a conservative-leaning one? Sone have said it can be done.

Re: trying to get people elected rather than providing entertaining radio--that could be another reason.
In Boston the AAR stations debuted a month before the '04 election, so they figured maybe they could
influence the vote. But in Mass. the Dems control is so firm that there was no danger that Bush would
beat Kerry here, or that any of the 10 Congressmen (all Ds) would lose (more than a few were unopposed or had little-known opposition) or
that the state legislature would fall below the 85 per cent Dem. barrier. Other than Gov and Lt Gov,
Mass is a solid blue state, and even that may change come Nov 7. However, there are quite a bit of independents in MA who could vote for Republican candidates on occason (no Dem has been elected gov since 1986).
(Republicans are about 13 per cent!) These might be "Reagan Democrats" or people who, like me,
are conservative on most issues but moderate/liberal on some.

You also have to wonder if AAR was trying to reach the far left (or just plain left) but ignored the middle
and the right. Some conservative hosts have had liberal callers/listeners/guests (Rush, Hannity, Carr,
Ingraham) so those on the left do listen to them--do conservatives or independents listen to liberal
radio? Maybe they haven't because they find it's not entertaining or maybe the far-left talk was a bit
much for them. (Some might argue conservatives are closed minded; that could be the reason. Some could also argue some liberals are close minded.) But if
a left-leaning host were entertaining (I've enjoyed Colmes, S. Miller, and Harry Shearer) maybe
the middle and the right would tune in.

I wonder if some on the Left were not listening to AAR because they like NPR better...

Also: as people get older, sometimes their political spot in the spectrum moves to the right. You would
think younger people would be more likely to listen to AAR as a result--and talk radio generally
attracts older listeners--and the older folks may be partially or completely conservative. Maybe the
younger, more liberal among us preferred music stations...

who knows!

 

[raccoonradio]

>>(1) Political agenda was more important than entertaining radio (see above); (2) Over-spending and (3) People with a lack of radio experience in charge and on the air.

I can't argue with the fact that hosts like Rush and Hannity do have a political agenda they're trying to push,
too...but they don't let it get in the way of being entertaining!
Over-spending: got to live within your means. Imagine if these big spenders were running the country!
(And yes, I know, some Republicans can be big-government, big-spenders too). Got to pay your bills.
First build the audience and get advertisers, then do some spending...

Lack of radio experience--a big factor.

btw it can't be said liberals are just jumping into talk radio now because there were hosts in the past
like J. Jackson, Cuomo, Hightower--even Colmes with his old afternoon show...and not all were
successful. The conservative hosts, though, followed Rush's business model and got to be successful--
add to that the fact that liberals dominate other media (TV, newspapers, magazines, movies, etc.)
and it was only natural that the Right would eventually find a way to get their voices out there: the
first was talk radio, then Fox News came along (and is doing well in many respects). And both the left
and the right are doing well online (blogosphere, discussion groups) now...
The lib media assumed the whole country thought like them (the blue states). But there are independents
and conservatives out there, too, and talk radio and Fox News came along to serve them. Now even
CNN is bowing to the right-leaners with shows like Glenn Beck.

Now the libs are trying to play catchup with regards to talk radio. They tried to do it too much too fast.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I feel odd quoting, well, myself, but from a recent OMW item:

http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-didnt-know-he-was-here-or-wed-have.html

Air America also has, in its 2-plus year history, pretty much directly ignored most of the advice radio professionals have given it, including advice from those radio pros actually working for the company.

And it's always felt more like a political operation than a radio one, and that hasn't changed. In its press release about the bankruptcy, Air America notes the importance of being on the air in the upcoming election season, as new CEO Scott Elberg points out:

“Staying on the air is crucial for the Network's primary ratings period as well as for the country which is facing its most important mid-term election in recent history.”

 

[fred flintstone]

AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

OA, since you are "quoting yourself" (who better?)...

I have been resisting the temptation to point out that I have been posting such criticisms of AAR for close to a year and a half, and I was repeatedly criticized and attacked for posting them (by some of the same people who now make the same points I had made and seem to think they have just discovered the secret to cold fusion).

Part of the reason AAR is in its current fix is because it had "fans" who were in denial about the sorry state of AAR's finances, operations and programs, and who believed their own wishful thinking (i.e., AAR must succeed and will succeed because we want it to succeed and because it should succeed). Much the same illogic apparently took place within AAR, but AAR fans were "enablers" who encouraged AAR to continue its ill-advised practices. Apparently not giving "the other side" ammunition to attack AAR was more important than reality and having the progressive talk format succeed.

_________________________________________________
OA, haven't seen you here as much lately. Hope you'll come back and post more often. I know you've got your own blog and don't want to give away all the "goodies" here, but come back and "quote yourself" - especially when you've got something those of us outside your market area might find interesting, too.

 

[dampier]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

I have been resisting the temptation to point out that I have been posting such criticisms of AAR for close to a year and a half, and I was repeatedly criticized and attacked for posting them (by some of the same people who now make the same points I had made and seem to think they have just discovered the secret to cold fusion).

Part of the reason AAR is in its current fix is because it had "fans" who were in denial about the sorry state of AAR's finances, operations and programs, and who believed their own wishful thinking (i.e., AAR must succeed and will succeed because we want it to succeed and because it should succeed). Much the same illogic apparently took place within AAR, but AAR fans were "enablers" who encouraged AAR to continue its ill-advised practices. Apparently not giving "the other side" ammunition to attack AAR was more important than reality and having the progressive talk format succeed.

Don't beat your own drum too loudly.

I have -never- seen anyone in here say anything like "AAR must succeed and will succeed because we want it to succeed and it should succeed." Show me a post anywhere that says anything of the sort. In fact, those of us who -do- appreciate AAR's presence on the radio dial have not been boosting Air America as much as defending it against a plethora of stupid commentary from the wingnuts who still, from time to time, write nonsense like "nobody wants to listen to liberal talk," or "AAR is going off the air this month," or "AAR steals from poor and hungry children," et al. In fact, if anyone ties the fate of AAR to its ideology, it's conservative critics who seem to believe that the liberal talk's very fate depends on election results.

If AAR was listening to its "fans" as you write, then Unfiltered and Mike Malloy would still be on the air. In fact, the biggest complaint from listeners has been that AAR has -not- been listening to its loyal listeners.

You are fixing the facts around your own opinions of AAR itself. Everything you have written is based on the premise that these people have no business being in the radio business, as if those that are "professionals" in the radio industry today have done such a bang up job that listeners around the country, particularly younger ones, are fleeing commercial radio in this country for satellite, iPods, and their owned burned CDs. Outside of simply consolidating the industry so that a half dozen conglomerates largely control the radio dials in most cities (with one or two mega players being especially important), I wouldn't be too supportive of "radio professionals" in the management office. Most of their management and programming decisions are exactly what drives people away from commercial radio.

There is this constant memory lapse that it was the exact same kind of stupid conventional wisdom that kept liberal voices off commercial radio for the past 20 years. Folks like Randi Rhodes, even when she proved she could be a huge ratings draw, couldn't get her show syndicated just because she was doing liberal talk. She is the -only- talk show host owned by Clear Channel that was permitted to be partially released from her contract to be an AAR talk show host. She still has a contract with Clear Channel. She can't be syndicated but Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham can? Hello? In just about every market on the conservative AM dial, there is a mini-me Rush clone reading talking points and playing conservative radio. These people get shows, but liberal talent can't even breakthrough the firewall to get a shot, so they are working public radio, if at all.

So because of the brilliance of the "radio professionals" you believe in so much, it took a whole new approach to build a network and find radio stations who would be willing to commit a considerable amount of their airtime to a new liberal talk concept. Like that was going to be an easy sell. And where have most AAR affiliates ended up? On rimshot stations, a low power dumping ground AM, or a station that couldn't even make it in the ratings book before it was flipped to AAR. And how much promotion have these stations gotten? Zero, outside of whatever the local press mentions upon launch. Grooming for success this isn't.

In fact, those of us who appreciate AAR are also the most open people around here to criticize them when they do stupid things. But at least they are on the air and for every Young Turks they carry, there is an Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, both of whom have beaten the second tier show hosts that said two years earlier that nobody would want to listen to liberal talk. Rush Limbaugh has had a 20 year head start, often on the top rated AM station in a market and with boatloads of promotion (anyone remember Rush Rooms and the bus cards showing him with his cigars?) along the way.

Addressed more generally to everyone:

From Randi's latest comments, it looks like AAR's bankruptcy reorganization may be one of the shortest in history. As Glaser continues to work behind the scenes to assume control, it appears likely they'll be out of Chapter 11 as soon as his people are in place. In fact, it's looking more and more like this entire affair was nothing short of a coup d'état engineered by Glaser to assume control of the network and oust the Drobny's.

Is it important for people to be able to hear an opposing viewpoint right before an election at a time when the president of this country is willing to spend 90 minutes "workin' hard" on browbeating his right wing talk show echo chamber into supporting him and his party to the point that Sean Hannity last week was literally BLAMING his own listeners for failing to support the Bush agenda? I sure think so, and in that context, I would be surprised if AAR did NOT say something like that.

There also seems to be a denial among those on the other side who seem to think that people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are also not running their own propaganda and political support operations for the Republican party. From daily talking points issued straight out of the RNC, to Ken Mehlman guest appearances, to easy access to Bush and Cheney for "interviews" which are nothing more than program length political ads, to the browbeating of listeners on a day to day basis about how important it is to vote for the "right" candidate, it seems like the only people in denial about how important right wing talk radio is to the Republican party are some participants in this very forum. And if those people can't see that, why should we pay attention to anything they write because they clearly couldn't find a clue even if Col. Mustard handed them the bloody candlestick in the Billiard Room.

 

[fred flintstone]

Dear Phil,

I have -never- seen anyone in here say anything like "AAR must succeed and will succeed because we want it to succeed and it should succeed." Show me a post anywhere that says anything of the sort. In fact, those of us who -do- appreciate AAR's presence on the radio dial have not been boosting Air America as much as defending it against a plethora of stupid commentary from the wingnuts

I didn't say it's what anyone said. This is my interpretation of where AAR "fans" are coming from. Your comment also suggests you continue to see this as a political issue - not a radio issue, and are reluctant to give AAR due radio criticism because you don't want to give up political debating points to those on the other side.

Everything you have written is based on the premise that these people have no business being in the radio business, as if those that are "professionals" in the radio industry today have done such a bang up job that listeners around the country, particularly younger ones, are fleeing commercial radio in this country for satellite, iPods, and their owned burned CDs. Outside of simply consolidating the industry so that a half dozen conglomerates largely control the radio dials in most cities (with one or two mega players being especially important), I wouldn't be too supportive of "radio professionals" in the management office. Most of their management and programming decisions are exactly what drives people away from commercial radio.

They don't. They don't know what the ____ they are doing and they don't know they don't what they are doing. On top of that, they don't care. Once again, you trot out the same argument you use so often: Something is OK if you can find someone else of whom the same can be said: The Johnny-does-it-too-and-his-mother-lets-him argument. Of course, there is other bad management and bad programming in radio; but AAR's level of incompetence puts it at the top of the list. And don't dismiss those "conglomerates largely control the radio dials in most cities." If it weren't for them - one in particular - the progressive talk format would not have survived AAR's bungling.

In fact, those of us who appreciate AAR are also the most open people around here to criticize them when they do stupid things. But at least they are on the air and for every Young Turks they carry, there is an Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, both of whom have beaten the second tier show hosts that said two years earlier that nobody would want to listen to liberal talk. Rush Limbaugh has had a 20 year head start, often on the top rated AM station in a market and with boatloads of promotion (anyone remember Rush Rooms and the bus cards showing him with his cigars?) along the way.

Rush is on top because he is better at doing political talk radio than anybody else. It is because he is good that he is on these top-rated stations with good signals. Most top performers in news-talk were doing well before Rush. And Rush was on some clunkers (or delayed to evenings and weekends) when he started. Rush had a 20 year (actually 16) head start: Whose damn fault is that? People on your side complained about Rush but didn't do anything until late in the game.

On top of that (as your remarks to "everyone" make clear), you are still suffering from the illusion that talk radio will change any body's mind about anything - or their vote. You still see talk radio as a political campaign - and a crusade; the same kind of thinking that has hobbled progressive talk radio to date. Liberal activists find it too easy to use Rush and conservative talk radio as a scapegoat for their own inability to communicate effectively and campaign successfully. The Democratic Party historically excels at losing elections and it's not Rush's fault. And despite your refusal to face this well-established fact, people don't listen to radio for "an opposing viewpoint." People want to hear what they already believe.

Folks like Randi Rhodes, even when she proved she could be a huge ratings draw, couldn't get her show syndicated just because she was doing liberal talk. She is the -only- talk show host owned by Clear Channel that was permitted to be partially released from her contract to be an AAR talk show host. She still has a contract with Clear Channel.

Again, you are bashing the company that has put progressive talk into 25 markets, that has developed local hosts in several of them, has done some innovative events and promotions, and has most of the better-performing progressive talk outlets in its portfolio. Many talk stations tried programming liberal hosts early on; mostly they did not do well. Do you have any evidence that Clear Channel or any broadcaster has blocked hosts (it employed - not "owned") from attempting syndication? You say Randi is the only one permitted to be an "AAR talk show host." A very Clinton-esque statement, which conveniently leaves out Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. Further, Randi's record in West Palm was good - but hardly qualified her as a "huge ratings draw."

From Randi's latest comments, it looks like AAR's bankruptcy reorganization may be one of the shortest in history. As Glaser continues to work behind the scenes to assume control, it appears likely they'll be out of Chapter 11 as soon as his people are in place. In fact, it's looking more and more like this entire affair was nothing short of a coup d'état engineered by Glaser to assume control of the network and oust the Drobny's.

More wishful thinking, in which you have repeatedly indulged when discussing AAR? Or do you have some evidence (which you are quick to demand from others; slow to provide yourself)?

 

[dampier]

I didn't say it's what anyone said. This is my interpretation of where AAR "fans" are coming from. Your comment also suggests you continue to see this as a political issue - not a radio issue, and are reluctant to give AAR due radio criticism because you don't want to give up political debating points to those on the other side.

I see it as a factual issue, and now that you've backed away from a factual assertion of what AAR fans think to your own interpretation, we can put that where it belongs - next to the other AAR critics.

I am one of the few people in here who is willing to applaud and criticize AAR at the same time - good news and bad. I don't have to prove an argument that AAR management is bad along with my 2,000 posts trying to prove that assertion. I don't have a lot to say about AAR unless someone attacks it with unfounded and groundless nonsense. Then you'll see me in there doing fact checking and usually discovering someone's talking points are just beneath the surface.

They don't. They don't know what the ____ they are doing and they don't know they don't what they are doing. On top of that, they don't care. Once again, you trot out the same argument you use so often: Something is OK if you can find someone else of whom the same can be said: The Johnny-does-it-too-and-his-mother-lets-him argument. Of course, there is other bad management and bad programming in radio; but AAR's level of incompetence puts it at the top of the list. And don't dismiss those "conglomerates largely control the radio dials in most cities." If it weren't for them - one in particular - the progressive talk format would not have survived AAR's bungling.

We are all familiar with your basic premise outlined in the first two sentences. We see you trying to prove and argue that assertion of yours in just about every post. And if that means mischaracterizing the views of AAR fans, so be it. That and your latest desire to be stroked as some sort of oracle... but wait for more on that.

You want to blast a radio operation that exists in spite of the radio industry itself. The same people who are now scratching their heads wondering why people have fled their programming for satellite, iPods, and the Internet. Are they making loads of mistakes? Sure. But in the context of the rest of the industry, who isn't?

Rush is on top because he is better at doing political talk radio than anybody else. It is because he is good that he is on these top-rated stations with good signals. Most top performers in news-talk were doing well before Rush. And Rush was on some clunkers (or delayed to evenings and weekends) when he started. Rush had a 20 year (actually 16) head start: Whose damn fault is that? People on your side complained about Rush but didn't do anything until late in the game.

In the 1990's I would agree with you. The glory days are over and he's been reduced to being an apologist. The entertainment factor has been replaced more and more by the haranguing and excuse-making. Some stations have had enough.

People on "my side" did attempt to launch liberal talk shows and a lot of stations running conservative talk wouldn't run them. Stephanie Miller exists today because AAR made new avenues available for her show. Same with Schultz. Count the number of affiliates they are on that are not either AAR affiliates or on another liberal station in the market competing with AAR, especially before this summer.

On top of that (as your remarks to "everyone" make clear), you are still suffering from the illusion that talk radio will change any body's mind about anything - or their vote. You still see talk radio as a political campaign - and a crusade; the same kind of thinking that has hobbled progressive talk radio to date. Liberal activists find it too easy to use Rush and conservative talk radio as a scapegoat for their own inability to communicate effectively and campaign successfully. The Democratic Party historically excels at losing elections and it's not Rush's fault. And despite your refusal to face this well-established fact, people don't listen to radio for "an opposing viewpoint." People want to hear what they already believe.

I used to do a news program on a satellite radio outfit that existed primarily to organize and mount a political effort to reregulate the cable television industry and establish satellite dishowners' rights. I had the only non-political straightforward unbiased show on the whole station, and they actually were very effective in mobilizing and organizing people, and the operation was a major thorn in the side of Congress, particularly when a thousand people would all call a Congressional office within five minutes to lobby on an issue. Talk radio can very much influence people and reinforce pre-conceived political notions, especially when they feel they are in a crowd of people that share them. Can it change a vote? There isn't much evidence of that, but it sure can motivate people TO vote and strengthen their convictions. If it did not, would President Bush have spent 90+ minutes with the right wing talk show hosts in his effort to motivate the base?

Would Karl Rove waste time scheduling these people if he thought it was for nothing? Of course not. Would more than 100 countries spend money on an external shortwave radio service trying to influence people's views about their particular country or movement? Is everyone fooled but you? I don't think so.

And now you are back to making assertions that I haven't seen anybody else say. Namely that liberal activists blame Rush for their inability to win elections. Voter turnout makes a huge difference. Having a network of talking-point-reading conservative talk show hosts all discussing the same issues and the same spin on them can help motivate turnout. Having a complete lack of an opposing viewpoint on the radio makes it impossible for Democrats to motivate their own voters. Again, the Republicans see it. The Democrats see it. The president himself sees it. But you don't so that makes it false. Okay, then.

Again, you are bashing the company that has put progressive talk into 25 markets, that has developed local hosts in several of them, has done some innovative events and promotions, and has most of the better-performing progressive talk outlets in its portfolio. Many talk stations tried programming liberal hosts early on; mostly they did not do well. Do you have any evidence that Clear Channel or any broadcaster has blocked hosts (it employed - not "owned") from attempting syndication? You say Randi is the only one permitted to be an "AAR talk show host." A very Clinton-esque statement, which conveniently leaves out Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. Further, Randi's record in West Palm was good - but hardly qualified her as a "huge ratings draw."

Clear Channel refused to syndicate Randi Rhodes pre-AAR. That is simply a fact. They admitted it to her. AAR paved the way with a pioneering concept of having a 24/7 libtalk network. After it existed, CC jumped on the bandwagon along with several others, most of whom have programs on AAR affiliated stations. Miller and Schultz are not under Clear Channel contracts. Rhodes was and still is. Randi was the number one talk show host in W Palm Beach for several years, achieving higher ratings than Rush when she competed against him, and she still bested him even after her time slot was changed. Any show host who can kick Rush Limbaugh's butt in the ratings is a huge ratings draw in the talk market.

More wishful thinking, in which you have repeatedly indulged when discussing AAR? Or do you have some evidence (which you are quick to demand from others; slow to provide yourself)?

Randi was talking out of turn again on her show. I think she is going to have a new enemy at AAR to bash - Glaser, who she obviously doesn't like, and his lackey lawyer who she despises.

"Ubiquitous 'Fred Flintstone,' with his surprisingly accurate rumors and matching slogan: 'You can't handle the truth.' - Phyllis Stark, Radio-Info columnist

I was completely wrong about you beating your own drum. It's an entire brass band. Nice signature line there.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

Is it important for people to be able to hear an opposing viewpoint right before an election at a time when the president of this country is willing to spend 90 minutes "workin' hard" on browbeating his right wing talk show echo chamber into supporting him and his party to the point that Sean Hannity last week was literally BLAMING his own listeners for failing to support the Bush agenda? I sure think so, and in that context, I would be surprised if AAR did NOT say something like that.

This is where you and I separate.

Do you have any idea how many people do NOT listen to political talk radio of any form?

In most large markets, the sum/total of all talk radio listening doesn't reach above 10 percent market share.

90 percent of radio listeners are happily plugging along listening to Light Rock, Less Talk, or Today's Best Country, or whatnot. And that doesn't even count the folks who've left the over-air radio dial for satellite radio, or for their own iPods, or whatever else.

How many people do you think are going to vote against the Republican party because they happen to stumble onto AAR? For that matter, how many people do you think would decide not to vote for a Democrat because of something Rush said?

Sure, "every vote counts". But that's not my point.

My point is that Rush and his gazillion clones (save perhaps for ideologues like Salem's talkers) don't exist because they are electing Republicans. They exist because they try to garner the largest possible audience, entertain (yes, entertain!) that audience, and thus, they can charge - as Rush himself puts it frequently - "confiscatory advertising rates".

Sure, they're political animals, and sure, they have such things as access to the White House and the Republican talking points. If that's all Rush had in 1988, when he left KFBK in Sacramento for a national gig, he'd not be on the air today.

AAR's problem is that they see liberal talk almost primarily as an election influencer, even today. It's a problem that isn't even shared by other liberal talk programs.

I know you're a regular listener to Stephanie Miller. While she certainly talks about elections and "the need" (in her eyes) to elect Democrats, that's not the primary reason for her show. Her show is an entertainment program, and she knows it, and entertainment comes first. Some of the activists even call in occasionally bristling that she isn't serious enough!

That's my point. And if conservative talk radio travels too far down the "we need to spread the word to elect Republicans" road, it risks wading into the same territory as well, at least for this disaffected moderate listener.

 

[fred flintstone]

OA,

Excellent points, well-made.

Put another way: Political talk is a branch of sports talk. Politics is the most popular spectator sport in the US. Most markets have at least one and sometimes two or three sports talk stations. There are three turnkey networks and dozens of local shows around the country. Most local hosts are homers; so are most political talk hosts - they have a "team" they root for and the show is built around that.

Sports talk has not changed the outcome of a single game - ever.
Maybe - maybe - it has helped sell a few tickets (or add a few fractions of a ratings point to a play by play broadcast).
Now in cities with two teams, hosts on a station are often homers for the team the station broadcasts. In such instances, sports talk has never - ever - turned a Yankee fan into a Mets fan (for example).

The whole idea of Air America Radio and progressive talk is equivalent to this:
George Steinbrenner is listening to the radio and he hears sports talk hosts talking about the Mets, or the Red Soxs or the Cubbies. He is sick of anti-Yankee hosts dominating sports talk and he decides to use his vast wealth to launch a Yankee Sports Talk Network. Instead of hiring sports talk hosts, he hires Jason Alexander (who does not work for the Yankees but played somebody who did on TV). People in radio tell him a Yankee-boosting network won't work, so he ends up leasing time on a few scattered small stations. Few people listen. No increase in ticket sales next season. No increase in TV ratings. But other sports talk hosts talk about George Steinbrenner a lot, so he is happy.

But wait. The following season is a bad year for the Mets. They lose their most popular players. They team has a big drug scandal. They end up in the cellar through out the season. The Yanks have a good year and are in a tight pennant race. More people start going to Yankee games. George Steinbrenner claims victory for his Yankee Talk Network. Some commentators think it's important that fans can hear sports talk shows boosting both teams.

 

[evnlee]

The whole idea of Air America Radio and progressive talk is equivalent to this:
George Steinbrenner is listening to the radio and he hears sports talk hosts talking about the Mets, or the Red Soxs or the Cubbies. He is sick of anti-Yankee hosts dominating sports talk and he decides to use his vast wealth to launch a Yankee Sports Talk Network. Instead of hiring sports talk hosts, he hires Jason Alexander (who does not work for the Yankees but played somebody who did on TV). People in radio tell him a Yankee-boosting network won't work, so he ends up leasing time on a few scattered small stations. Few people listen. No increase in ticket sales next season. No increase in TV ratings. But other sports talk hosts talk about George Steinbrenner a lot, so he is happy.

But wait. The following season is a bad year for the Mets. They lose their most popular players. They team has a big drug scandal. They end up in the cellar through out the season. The Yanks have a good year and are in a tight pennant race. More people start going to Yankee games. George Steinbrenner claims victory for his Yankee Talk Network. Some commentators think it's important that fans can hear sports talk shows boosting both teams.

that's a fantastic analogy!

 

[dampier]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

Do you have any idea how many people do NOT listen to political talk radio of any form?

In most large markets, the sum/total of all talk radio listening doesn't reach above 10 percent market share.

90 percent of radio listeners are happily plugging along listening to Light Rock, Less Talk, or Today's Best Country, or whatnot. And that doesn't even count the folks who've left the over-air radio dial for satellite radio, or for their own iPods, or whatever else.

I don't have an argument with you about that. However, talk radio listeners are clearly more likely to turn up at the polls than the average Delilah listener. The fact they are listening to a news/talk station (radio or TV news for that matter) is exactly why politicians place their ads first and foremost on those stations and during those programs.

Again, look at the landscape out there. Do you think Dr. James Dobson is wasting his breath when he weds evangelism and conservative politics together? Even before there was the current form of talk radio, there were people like Father Coughlin and his National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. Coughlin spoke to millions of Americans (and yes, a minority of them), but was credited with influencing several pieces of legislation along the way. Politicians react when even a small army of people lobby them on an issue (knowing that in most cases, the overwhelming majority of people in his/her district will never contact them about anything.)

How many people do you think are going to vote against the Republican party because they happen to stumble onto AAR? For that matter, how many people do you think would decide not to vote for a Democrat because of something Rush said?

Again, I suggest you only look at the political landscape out there. If the Bush Administration did not believe talk radio influenced votes and voter turnout, why host a meeting with the president for 90 minutes with only conservative radio talkshow hosts. Why are they going to run another talk show free-for-all at the White House again in a few days, bringing talk show hosts into DC and making available members of the administration for interviews and boosting the administration position?

Do I think one day of Rush or Randi is going to flip voters? No. But those who are interested in political issues can be influenced by the talk shows they listen to. Just listen to "reformed Democrats" who call Rush and tell him they've changed their votes and parties because of his show and arguments. Or former Republicans who had some generic dissatisfaction with the GOP who had those views crystalized by Randi Rhodes and flipping them against this administration.

Considering how divided the country is, it doesn't take too many people to flip to make a difference. Newt Gingrich certainly saw that, crediting Rush and other conservative talk shows as being one of the most important tools they had in influencing the 1994 Republican Revolution.

And, I might add, back when the station I used to work for was around first and foremost to be a political movement (my news show was the only thing not taking a political position), it so successfully organized the satellite dish community into melting down phone lines of elected officials that we were part of the one and only veto that was overturned by the Congress in 1992 during Bush 41's presidency - S.12, which forced the industry to be open to competition and helped reregulate the cable television industry. Both Democrats and Republicans credited the station for making a huge impact, including Sens. Al Gore and John Danforth. It made a difference.

My point is that Rush and his gazillion clones (save perhaps for ideologues like Salem's talkers) don't exist because they are electing Republicans. They exist because they try to garner the largest possible audience, entertain (yes, entertain!) that audience, and thus, they can charge - as Rush himself puts it frequently - "confiscatory advertising rates".

Sure, they're political animals, and sure, they have such things as access to the White House and the Republican talking points. If that's all Rush had in 1988, when he left KFBK in Sacramento for a national gig, he'd not be on the air today.

You are arguing with a point I am not making. At no time did I suggest that the only reason Rush is on the air is to elect Republicans. His show is on the air because it attracts listeners and is profitable for the business. At the same time, until AAR came around, there was a very strong reluctance on the part of the conventional wisdom of PD's to put liberal talk show hosts on the air to speak to their side on the air. We were told nobody wants to listen to liberals, or that liberals don't listen to radio, or that they only want to hear NPR, or that liberals by their nature are too mushy to be entertaining. And so when a station decided on what shows to put on the air, they would choose a conservative.

An excellent example of this was in pre-AAR days with Randi Rhodes. She is the number one radio personality in West Palm Beach, Florida. She beat Rush and every other right wing talker up and down the dial and made WJNO big money. But when she wanted to take that success to other stations, she was turned down flat. Far lower rated conservative talkers ended up with syndication deals and Clear Channel told her specifically they would never syndicate her unless she was doing conservative talk. She has repeatedly reminded her own listeners and named names of some of the senior CC officials in the southeast who told her if she was running a right wing format, she could be syndicated tomorrow. She refused to change her positions, and was stuck in W Palm until AAR launched. CC made the extraordinary move of permitting her contract to be expanded to allow her to work for both them and AAR. According to her, there is no other personality across the entire megacorp that is CC that has that deal. Just her.

I want to make it crystal clear that all of my posts in this thread are in one specific context - why AAR is important to the concept of liberal talk as a format. Because without that network, Rhodes, Miller, Schultz, Malloy, Press, and all the rest would either not be on the air or still stuck in a single market or having to live in Alan Colmes' world - being a libtalker sold to conservative stations to needle conservatives, not truly reach out to a liberal audience.

There needs to be a diversity of voices on the air today, breaking through the stupid conventional wisdom that only conservative talk can succeed. And AAR has paved the way. It may find itself soon reduced to a program syndicator, but it managed to convince enough outlets to try a libtalk format on which a plethora of up and coming hosts like Stephanie Miller can have a home.

Now it's survival of the fittest, and as people here know, my favorite libtalk host is Stephanie Miller. Randi Rhodes is second. I care more about maintaining a diversity on the airwaves, and letting show hosts compete to see who can attract the biggest audiences, than I do about AAR itself. But for those of us who had nothing to listen to before AAR, we do consider it to be an important pioneering force for libtalk.

I know you're a regular listener to Stephanie Miller. While she certainly talks about elections and "the need" (in her eyes) to elect Democrats, that's not the primary reason for her show. Her show is an entertainment program, and she knows it, and entertainment comes first. Some of the activists even call in occasionally bristling that she isn't serious enough!

That's my point. And if conservative talk radio travels too far down the "we need to spread the word to elect Republicans" road, it risks wading into the same territory as well, at least for this disaffected moderate listener.

There is a place for Stephanie's style and Randi's. After all, for every Randi Rhodes, there is a Michael Medved, Janet Parshall, or even Sean Hannity, who has clearly taken the agenda of electing Republicans, to the point to blaming his listeners for not supporting Republicans enough and that if they don't vote for them, they put the country in peril. And to his Democratic listeners, what entertaining points is he making? Why he is seriously telling them that they should not go out and vote.

But AAR is the one running the political agenda, right?

 

[dampier]

Put another way: Political talk is a branch of sports talk. Politics is the most popular spectator sport in the US. Most markets have at least one and sometimes two or three sports talk stations. There are three turnkey networks and dozens of local shows around the country. Most local hosts are homers; so are most political talk hosts - they have a "team" they root for and the show is built around that.

That is among the most shallow arguments I have ever seen in here. An informed electorate discussing and debating issues of the day (which sometimes exists in spite of itself because so many are turned off to politics) is important in a democracy, even when it's done by the talking points crowd. The Mets are not.

Sports talk has not changed the outcome of a single game - ever.

Your own analogy falls flat on its face because you are comparing apples and oranges. Fans do not determine the outcome of a baseball game - the players do. No amount of talk radio is going to change the fact that in baseball, you as a fan are not a player and really have no influence in the final score. In politics, voters are integral to the process. You can win or lose a baseball game even if nobody is sitting in the stand. You cannot get elected to a position of power in politics without voters.

Additionally, if one must rely on your silly analogy, I have yet to hear a PD tell a show host that supports the Mets that he cannot have a show on his station unless and until he switches his support for the Yankees, and that even among the other stations in the market, there is not one station that will carry a Mets show, because "nobody wants to hear Mets sports radio," or "Mets fans do not listen to radio shows," or "those that support the Mets are really not entertaining because they are too non-confrontational to be entertaining," or "the Mets already have ESPN so they don't need their own show." Meanwhile, of the 15 Yankees shows on the air in the market, the vast majority of them barely draw flies, but because of one or two popular Yankees shows, they still get the green light while the one guy with the Mets show can't even get the graveyard shift. And when the Mets network does manage to get on the air, Yankees fans accuse the very existence of the alternative viewpoint as "bad for America at a time of war" and people set up websites trying to make a living bashing anything to do with the Mets, and if even one show on the Mets Network fails, it "proves" the Mets are a failed team.

George Steinbrenner is listening to the radio and he hears sports talk hosts talking about the Mets, or the Red Soxs or the Cubbies. He is sick of anti-Yankee hosts dominating sports talk and he decides to use his vast wealth to launch a Yankee Sports Talk Network. Instead of hiring sports talk hosts, he hires Jason Alexander (who does not work for the Yankees but played somebody who did on TV). People in radio tell him a Yankee-boosting network won't work, so he ends up leasing time on a few scattered small stations. Few people listen. No increase in ticket sales next season. No increase in TV ratings. But other sports talk hosts talk about George Steinbrenner a lot, so he is happy.

You just keep digging here. AAR is not a one man operation. Many dozens of investors who agreed with the importance of hearing a diversity of voices on the airwaves decided that after PD's refused entry to those with a different ideology, they would do what had not been done before - the creation of a new format that would allow a station to never have to worry about the clashing of a conservative and a liberal (which was a major argument why folks like Rhodes couldn't get syndicated). Now a station can have a format that offers a full lineup of shows that can attract an underserved audience.

So there is no one individual with vast wealth launching a network as some ego trip. For every comedian or Hollywood star AAR launched with, there was also a Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy, and AAR never bought its way onto stations across the country - they lease time on one and have sold the concept effectively to dozens upon dozens of others. And people do listen - particularly to Randi Rhodes and even Al Franken who bests several of the second tier conservative hosts, an amazing feat for a network two years old.

In fact, if you want to criticize an operation that is on a mission of former politicians, entertainment critics, and religious-political lobbyists, one need not look beyond the Salem Witch Trials Network. Funny how you never hear the kind of criticism AAR seems to always receive while Salem gets hardly a mention.

Your analogy has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

However, talk radio listeners are clearly more likely to turn up at the polls than the average Delilah listener.

False correlation. Old people are more likely to show up at the polls AND old people are more likely to listen to talk radio.

Again, look at the landscape out there....

Another they-do-it-too argument.

Again, I suggest you only look at the political landscape out there. If the Bush Administration did not believe talk radio influenced votes and voter turnout, why host a meeting with the president for 90 minutes with only conservative radio talkshow hosts. Why are they going to run another talk show free-for-all at the White House again in a few days, bringing talk show hosts into DC and making available members of the administration for interviews and boosting the administration position?

Do I think one day of Rush or Randi is going to flip voters? No. But those who are interested in political issues can be influenced by the talk shows they listen to. Just listen to "reformed Democrats" who call Rush and tell him they've changed their votes and parties because of his show and arguments. Or former Republicans who had some generic dissatisfaction with the GOP who had those views crystalized by Randi Rhodes and flipping them against this administration.

In one breath you are argue talk shows do flip voters - and that talk shows don't flip voters. You're right: They don't. People reform and THEN start listening to Rush (who may help the crystallize their "reformed" views). They seek out Rush BECAUSE their views are changing or have changed - for support and confirmation.

What talk radio does is "rally the troops" and rouse the rabble. Talk radio can move to action those already predisposed to action. Lots of Bush's base is now threatening to stay home. The meeting with talk show hosts was to get the hosts to get those people back with the program. Your satellite dish story is another example of motivating the predisposed, it wasn't about changing hearts and minds.

I want to make it crystal clear that all of my posts in this thread are in one specific context - why AAR is important to the concept of liberal talk as a format. Because without that network, Rhodes, Miller, Schultz, Malloy, Press, and all the rest would either not be on the air or still stuck in a single market or having to live in Alan Colmes' world - being a libtalker sold to conservative stations to needle conservatives, not truly reach out to a liberal audience.

There needs to be a diversity of voices on the air today, breaking through the stupid conventional wisdom that only conservative talk can succeed. And AAR has paved the way. It may find itself soon reduced to a program syndicator, but it managed to convince enough outlets to try a libtalk format on which a plethora of up and coming hosts like Stephanie Miller can have a home.

AAR did establish that progressive talk needs to be a distinct format. It also undermined the viability of the format through its constant and repeated bungling. AAR has repeatedly confirmed program directors worst fears about progressive talk radio. The format's success stories, the evidence that the format can succeed commercial, come from Jones and Clear Channel - despite AAR's worst efforts. The sooner AAR disappears, the better for the progressive talk format.

You seem to be willing to believe whatever AAR says and whatever Randi says. She whines, bitches and kvetches like a spoiled brat. So, she did OK in West Palm. Clear Channel did not think she had the chops for syndication; lots of successful local hosts do not. Maybe they were wrong. But you (and Randi) want to make this into some big right-wing radio conspiracy. Part of the problem is Randi wanted national syndication handed to her (which AAR ultimately did). But there are numerous examples of other hosts who wanted to take a shot at syndication going with smaller syndicators, or even going on their own. They went out and did it the hard way; one station at a time. But Princess Randi would rather complain and do nothing (and in that way confirm right-wing stereotypes of liberals).

I suppose you also think its a big right-wing and Clear Channel conspiracy to put on Big Eddie in afternoon drive and bump Randi to fringe time. She does enough whining about that, too.

 

[fred flintstone]

That is among the most shallow arguments I have ever seen in here. An informed electorate discussing and debating issues of the day (which sometimes exists in spite of itself because so many are turned off to politics) is important in a democracy, even when it's done by the talking points crowd.

You should read some of your own stuff. ;D

I'll bet you got an A in civics. Political naivety is fine in the 9th grade.

Funny how you never hear the kind of criticism AAR seems to always receive while Salem gets hardly a mention.

AAR gets attention from all its screw ups. Salem does not screw up, therefore gets less attention. Hardly anybody listens to either and they make little difference in the great scheme of things.

Fans do not determine the outcome of a baseball game - the players do.

I say again. Politics is a spectator sport. Bread and circuses for the amusement of the mob. It has no impact on the distribution of wealth, power and priviledge in this society. Not matter what your civics teacher told you: Voters do not determine the outcome of the game - the players do (not the candidates - the players).

 

[kaufcom]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

In most large markets, the sum/total of all talk radio listening doesn't reach above 10 percent market share.

In Los Angeles the number one talk radio station KFI reaches a million different listeners each week. The other three talk stations -- conservate KABC and KRLA and liberal KTLK also reach about a million listeners combined. If you are trying to say that a million people listening to Rush Limbaugh, and immigrant bashers John and Ken, are not something that a political group wants to go after, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

In Los Angeles the number one talk radio station KFI reaches a million different listeners each week. The other three talk stations -- conservate KABC and KRLA and liberal KTLK also reach about a million listeners combined. If you are trying to say that a million people listening to Rush Limbaugh, and immigrant bashers John and Ken, are not something that a political group wants to go after, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Yes, political groups do want to go after them because they think going after them will influence or change the outcome of an election. The undecideds (or "independents") decide elections. They don't listen to talk radio (or read newspapers, watch news programs or otherwise expose themselves to political content). Talk radio listeners are "the choir." Talk radio can help to get everybody to show up for choir practice. Talk radio can get everybody in the choir to sing together and to sing louder. But talk radio does not reach - let alone convert - the heathen.

 

[kaufcom]

Re: AAR "Fans" Distancing Themselves from AAR

In Los Angeles the number one talk radio station KFI reaches a million different listeners each week. The other three talk stations -- conservate KABC and KRLA and liberal KTLK also reach about a million listeners combined. If you are trying to say that a million people listening to Rush Limbaugh, and immigrant bashers John and Ken, are not something that a political group wants to go after, I'm afraid you're mistaken.

Yes, political groups do want to go after them because they think going after them will influence or change the outcome of an election. The undecideds (or "independents") decide elections. They don't listen to talk radio (or read newspapers, watch news programs or otherwise expose themselves to political content). Talk radio listeners are "the choir." Talk radio can help to get everybody to show up for choir practice. Talk radio can get everybody in the choir to sing together and to sing louder. But talk radio does not reach - let alone convert - the heathen.

If I'm a political operative and you tell me I can reach 1 million different people in a week by advertising on KFI, do you think I'm going to care about how many are Republicans, Democrats, or independents? Also do you have some data on these one million listeners that the rest of us don't have? What makes you think that Democrats and political indendents are not listening to KFI. The demos that the station makes public would argue against this.