-
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
"Media Activists See Hope in Nashville's Traditionally Conservative Market"
- Thread starter MattNC
- Start date
> http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/11924/index.php
>
> Didn't see this posted
>
I'm surprised the Tennessee IMC folks would want an Air America affiliate coming in...but diversifying things in the realm of political talk wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO.
If they get AAR and manage to keep support for Radio Free Nashville and WVOL, then more power to them. <P ID="signature">______________
What, you were expecting me to make sense for a change?</P>
>
> Didn't see this posted
>
I'm surprised the Tennessee IMC folks would want an Air America affiliate coming in...but diversifying things in the realm of political talk wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO.
If they get AAR and manage to keep support for Radio Free Nashville and WVOL, then more power to them. <P ID="signature">______________
What, you were expecting me to make sense for a change?</P>
While I'm definitely no fan of Rush, the wild claims in this press release make these people no better than he is. Just because they're coming from the opposite side doesn't make them right (as opposed to wrong, not left), either. The "success" of Radio Free Nashville? By what measure? Just the fact that it is on? That there's been no infighting among the elitest we're-too-good-for-Nashville staff? And who are these people that call themselves "Nashville's favorite talk hosts"? Even people who work in radio have never heard of them. What a bunch of rubes. These people scare me just as much as Rush. Everybody deserves a voice in broadcasting, as long as the voice adheres to FCC rules, but... May the sanity of the middle-of-the-roaders live long and prosper.
E
Evangelist
Guest
> While I'm definitely no fan of Rush, the wild claims in this
> press release make these people no better than he is. Just
> because they're coming from the opposite side doesn't make
> them right (as opposed to wrong, not left), either. The
> "success" of Radio Free Nashville? By what measure? Just the
> fact that it is on? That there's been no infighting among
> the elitest we're-too-good-for-Nashville staff? And who are
> these people that call themselves "Nashville's favorite talk
> hosts"? Even people who work in radio have never heard of
> them. What a bunch of rubes. These people scare me just as
> much as Rush. Everybody deserves a voice in broadcasting, as
> long as the voice adheres to FCC rules, but... May the
> sanity of the middle-of-the-roaders live long and prosper.
>
There were several inaccuracies in that press release. There have been plenty of liberal talk hosts on Nashville airwaves over the years. Most didn't last because their personalities rubbed audiences the wrong way; others moved on to other markets.
You're right that most people who work in radio haven't heard of the "favorite talk hosts." In talking with radio people around town, when the subject of Radio Free Nashville comes up, the most common response is along the lines of "oh, yeah--they're on now, aren't they?" RFN serves its purpose--programming to those who agree with its agenda, and that's fine.
> press release make these people no better than he is. Just
> because they're coming from the opposite side doesn't make
> them right (as opposed to wrong, not left), either. The
> "success" of Radio Free Nashville? By what measure? Just the
> fact that it is on? That there's been no infighting among
> the elitest we're-too-good-for-Nashville staff? And who are
> these people that call themselves "Nashville's favorite talk
> hosts"? Even people who work in radio have never heard of
> them. What a bunch of rubes. These people scare me just as
> much as Rush. Everybody deserves a voice in broadcasting, as
> long as the voice adheres to FCC rules, but... May the
> sanity of the middle-of-the-roaders live long and prosper.
>
There were several inaccuracies in that press release. There have been plenty of liberal talk hosts on Nashville airwaves over the years. Most didn't last because their personalities rubbed audiences the wrong way; others moved on to other markets.
You're right that most people who work in radio haven't heard of the "favorite talk hosts." In talking with radio people around town, when the subject of Radio Free Nashville comes up, the most common response is along the lines of "oh, yeah--they're on now, aren't they?" RFN serves its purpose--programming to those who agree with its agenda, and that's fine.
C
ChrisPC
Guest
> http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/11924/index.php
>
> Didn't see this posted
>
I really don't know why AAR isn't on in Nashville by now; it's even on in Memphis, isn't it? I'm not exactly a fan, but it would probably carve out a pretty good niche here. The Music Row/West End crowd would go gaga over it! If Nashville can support WPLN-AM, AAR would probably do fine.
>
> Didn't see this posted
>
I really don't know why AAR isn't on in Nashville by now; it's even on in Memphis, isn't it? I'm not exactly a fan, but it would probably carve out a pretty good niche here. The Music Row/West End crowd would go gaga over it! If Nashville can support WPLN-AM, AAR would probably do fine.
Air America has been on in Memphis for about a year. It can't even get a 1 share and it is on what is probably the 2nd best AM frequency in the market.
Here's what New York political strategist Alan Skorski says about Air America's future:
"At some point it's going end, because I remember reading that a number of very wealthy celebrities, the Barbara Streisand types and those on the left ... didn't want to give any money to this venture because they knew it wasn't going to work," Skorski says. "So it'll be up to George Soros, when he says enough is enough." The author says Air America Radio is very much like anti-Bush activist Cindy Sheehan. "She was doing a book signing [and] no one showed up. So it's the same thing with Air America," he says. "It's like watching a real bad car accident. Everybody looks at it, but after a while, you kind of get bored with it. It's a very, very angry network." According to Skorski, one night-time host on Air America actually said he hates America and that it is the number-one terrorist nation in the world
Here's what New York political strategist Alan Skorski says about Air America's future:
"At some point it's going end, because I remember reading that a number of very wealthy celebrities, the Barbara Streisand types and those on the left ... didn't want to give any money to this venture because they knew it wasn't going to work," Skorski says. "So it'll be up to George Soros, when he says enough is enough." The author says Air America Radio is very much like anti-Bush activist Cindy Sheehan. "She was doing a book signing [and] no one showed up. So it's the same thing with Air America," he says. "It's like watching a real bad car accident. Everybody looks at it, but after a while, you kind of get bored with it. It's a very, very angry network." According to Skorski, one night-time host on Air America actually said he hates America and that it is the number-one terrorist nation in the world
N
NotSoSilentBob
Guest
Air America
I don't want this to degenerate into a political debate...there have been far too many threads closed on the "News/Talk" board covering this very issue because some people didn't know how to control themselves in their arguments.
That being said, I'll say what I've heard about Air America. I have heard that the only reason Clear Channel invested in it was to protect their powerful conservative news/talk stations. There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one) out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would act as nothing more than a campaign device for Republicans, and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make sense?
> Air America has been on in Memphis for about a year. It
> can't even get a 1 share and it is on what is probably the
> 2nd best AM frequency in the market.
>
> Here's what New York political strategist Alan Skorski says
> about Air America's future:
>
> "At some point it's going end, because I remember reading
> that a number of very wealthy celebrities, the Barbara
> Streisand types and those on the left ... didn't want to
> give any money to this venture because they knew it wasn't
> going to work," Skorski says. "So it'll be up to George
> Soros, when he says enough is enough." The author says Air
> America Radio is very much like anti-Bush activist Cindy
> Sheehan. "She was doing a book signing [and] no one showed
> up. So it's the same thing with Air America," he says. "It's
> like watching a real bad car accident. Everybody looks at
> it, but after a while, you kind of get bored with it. It's a
> very, very angry network." According to Skorski, one
> night-time host on Air America actually said he hates
> America and that it is the number-one terrorist nation in
> the world
> <P ID="signature">______________
Bob
Moderator, Nashville board
Radio-Info.com--Always Tuned In
"I don't spread rumors, but I sometimes make outrageous speculations with no factual basis."</P>
I don't want this to degenerate into a political debate...there have been far too many threads closed on the "News/Talk" board covering this very issue because some people didn't know how to control themselves in their arguments.
That being said, I'll say what I've heard about Air America. I have heard that the only reason Clear Channel invested in it was to protect their powerful conservative news/talk stations. There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one) out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would act as nothing more than a campaign device for Republicans, and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make sense?
> Air America has been on in Memphis for about a year. It
> can't even get a 1 share and it is on what is probably the
> 2nd best AM frequency in the market.
>
> Here's what New York political strategist Alan Skorski says
> about Air America's future:
>
> "At some point it's going end, because I remember reading
> that a number of very wealthy celebrities, the Barbara
> Streisand types and those on the left ... didn't want to
> give any money to this venture because they knew it wasn't
> going to work," Skorski says. "So it'll be up to George
> Soros, when he says enough is enough." The author says Air
> America Radio is very much like anti-Bush activist Cindy
> Sheehan. "She was doing a book signing [and] no one showed
> up. So it's the same thing with Air America," he says. "It's
> like watching a real bad car accident. Everybody looks at
> it, but after a while, you kind of get bored with it. It's a
> very, very angry network." According to Skorski, one
> night-time host on Air America actually said he hates
> America and that it is the number-one terrorist nation in
> the world
> <P ID="signature">______________
Bob
Moderator, Nashville board
Radio-Info.com--Always Tuned In
"I don't spread rumors, but I sometimes make outrageous speculations with no factual basis."</P>
A
AlanWest
Guest
Re: Air America
> There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the
> McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would
> act as nothing more than a campaign device for Republicans,
> and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make sense?
Well, since they're totally in majority control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government...
Seriously, why can't we just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? What's wrong with that?
> There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the
> McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would
> act as nothing more than a campaign device for Republicans,
> and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make sense?
Well, since they're totally in majority control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government...
Seriously, why can't we just reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? What's wrong with that?
> it's even on in Memphis, isn't it?
yeah...but Nashville can have it, most don't give a year here in Tennessee's step child..uhh I mean Memphis
yeah...but Nashville can have it, most don't give a year here in Tennessee's step child..uhh I mean Memphis
E
Evangelist
Guest
Re: Air America
> > There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> > out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> > Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> > conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the
> > McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would
>
> > act as nothing more than a campaign device for
> Republicans,
> > and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make
> sense?
>
> Well, since they're totally in majority control of the
> Executive and Legislative branches of government...
>
> Seriously, why can't we just reinstate the Fairness
> Doctrine? What's wrong with that?
>
The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way for the government to tell broadcasters what they could and could not air on news or information programs. No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one be in place for the electronic press.
> > There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> > out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> > Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> > conservative talk radio in order to satisfy the
> > McCain/Feingold Bill because conservative talk radio would
>
> > act as nothing more than a campaign device for
> Republicans,
> > and the Democrats would have no way to compete. Make
> sense?
>
> Well, since they're totally in majority control of the
> Executive and Legislative branches of government...
>
> Seriously, why can't we just reinstate the Fairness
> Doctrine? What's wrong with that?
>
The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way for the government to tell broadcasters what they could and could not air on news or information programs. No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one be in place for the electronic press.
A
AlanWest
Guest
Re: Air America
> The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way
> for the government to tell broadcasters what they could and
> could not air on news or information programs.
No, the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It did, however, require them to give equal time. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, we can see how the right-wing noise machine has dominated the airwaves, abused the public trust, and cut a sharp and seemingly permanent divide between Americans.
> No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one be in
> place for the electronic press.
Newspapers do not use public airwaves, radio and television stations do. When you use what belongs to the people as a whole, you should be obligated to serve the people as a whole.
> The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way
> for the government to tell broadcasters what they could and
> could not air on news or information programs.
No, the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It did, however, require them to give equal time. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, we can see how the right-wing noise machine has dominated the airwaves, abused the public trust, and cut a sharp and seemingly permanent divide between Americans.
> No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one be in
> place for the electronic press.
Newspapers do not use public airwaves, radio and television stations do. When you use what belongs to the people as a whole, you should be obligated to serve the people as a whole.
E
Evangelist
Guest
Re: Air America
> > The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way
> > for the government to tell broadcasters what they could
> and
> > could not air on news or information programs.
>
> No, the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It did,
> however, require them to give equal time. With the Fairness
> Doctrine gone, we can see how the right-wing noise machine
> has dominated the airwaves, abused the public trust, and cut
> a sharp and seemingly permanent divide between Americans.
>
> > No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one
> be in
> > place for the electronic press.
>
> Newspapers do not use public airwaves, radio and television
> stations do. When you use what belongs to the people as a
> whole, you should be obligated to serve the people as a
> whole.
>
Sorry, not buying this "Fairness Doctrine" bit. I had to deal with it and it was a pain. At the places where I have worked, we did a much better job of being fair and accurate when we didn't have to worry about appeasing every special-interest group that came down the pike.
There are plenty of media available for people to get viewpoints across to audiences. NPR's talk network and Air America provide opportunities for liberal viewpoints; other talk shows put forth both conservative and liberal views--there are too many shows to mention.
The purpose of comercial radio and TV stations is not to "serve the public interest" or "promote the common good" or some other such utopian idea. The purpose of commercial radio and TV stations is to make money.
> > The Fairness Doctrine was a joke. It was just another way
> > for the government to tell broadcasters what they could
> and
> > could not air on news or information programs.
>
> No, the Fairness Doctrine did no such thing. It did,
> however, require them to give equal time. With the Fairness
> Doctrine gone, we can see how the right-wing noise machine
> has dominated the airwaves, abused the public trust, and cut
> a sharp and seemingly permanent divide between Americans.
>
> > No such regulation existed for print press, nor should one
> be in
> > place for the electronic press.
>
> Newspapers do not use public airwaves, radio and television
> stations do. When you use what belongs to the people as a
> whole, you should be obligated to serve the people as a
> whole.
>
Sorry, not buying this "Fairness Doctrine" bit. I had to deal with it and it was a pain. At the places where I have worked, we did a much better job of being fair and accurate when we didn't have to worry about appeasing every special-interest group that came down the pike.
There are plenty of media available for people to get viewpoints across to audiences. NPR's talk network and Air America provide opportunities for liberal viewpoints; other talk shows put forth both conservative and liberal views--there are too many shows to mention.
The purpose of comercial radio and TV stations is not to "serve the public interest" or "promote the common good" or some other such utopian idea. The purpose of commercial radio and TV stations is to make money.
Re: Air America
There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> conservative talk radio
Yes there have been rumblings about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
Repeal of the FD is how people like Rush got issues-oriented talk radio going
again...
Freedom of the Press means freedom to publish what you want without
government interference. That should apply to radio, too: if you want to have
an all-conservative station or an all-liberal one, so be it. Should the
government go to the NY Times and demand the conservative viewpoint
be given equal time? How about the FCC demanding that Air America carry
50 per cent liberal hosts, 50 per cent conservative? Then again, doing that
might increase their ratings...
"Hello, Mr. Air America station, wallowing in the bottom of the ratings,
this is the FCC. You can still carry Franken and Schulz but the new
Fairness Doctrine means you also have to carry Limbaugh and Hannity."
Horrors--they might actually get better ratings! Hmm, on second thought
If the libs can put a quality product on, let them. Who knows, with the
right hosts, libtalk could succeed. "Rush wasn't built in a day"...(i.e.,
it took awhile for him to build a following and maybe that can happen
to libtalk, too...or, maybe not...)
There is a conspiracy theory (and a darn good one)
> out there that says that if/when Air America fails, the
> Democratic Party is aiming to completely shut down
> conservative talk radio
Yes there have been rumblings about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
Repeal of the FD is how people like Rush got issues-oriented talk radio going
again...
Freedom of the Press means freedom to publish what you want without
government interference. That should apply to radio, too: if you want to have
an all-conservative station or an all-liberal one, so be it. Should the
government go to the NY Times and demand the conservative viewpoint
be given equal time? How about the FCC demanding that Air America carry
50 per cent liberal hosts, 50 per cent conservative? Then again, doing that
might increase their ratings...
"Hello, Mr. Air America station, wallowing in the bottom of the ratings,
this is the FCC. You can still carry Franken and Schulz but the new
Fairness Doctrine means you also have to carry Limbaugh and Hannity."
Horrors--they might actually get better ratings! Hmm, on second thought
If the libs can put a quality product on, let them. Who knows, with the
right hosts, libtalk could succeed. "Rush wasn't built in a day"...(i.e.,
it took awhile for him to build a following and maybe that can happen
to libtalk, too...or, maybe not...)
- Status