• 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

NO MORE POSTS ABOUT AAR!

C

cabradio

Guest
Evvverrr. Just kidding. But boy what a whopper of thread that Randi Rhodes topic turned into. I have to commend you guys/gals for keeping it civil. Thanks to crankyyankee for pulling it together in the end with an actual link to an article referencing what Barooos was talking about in the first place...Try to stay on point with the Thread Topic in the future people! Start a new thread if you have something off topic to say..or at least bring it back in somehow.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Evvverrr. Just kidding. But boy what a whopper of thread
> that Randi Rhodes topic turned into. I have to commend you
> guys/gals for keeping it civil. Thanks to crankyyankee for
> pulling it together in the end with an actual link to an
> article referencing what Barooos was talking about in the
> first place...Try to stay on point with the Thread Topic in
> the future people! Start a new thread if you have something
> off topic to say..or at least bring it back in somehow.
>

Cab, thats good guidance...im sorry i wasnt around for the big thread....there are several things id like to see a civil response to as well....this is not a flame...but i have wondered this after watching so many threads sour.

One, i periodically google when i do my research and other work - if you take a casual or even a detailed look at the results, you see a vast number of posts denigrating AAR from conservative sources plus the usual repetition of other items which then become items in blogs or columnists' writing (right or wrong) such as the writings of a blogger i find personally offensive, the radio-equalizer (its my opinion)...ive yet to understand why conservatives do not want AAR/other liberal outlets on the air AT ALL based on the reaction/responses written by conservatives...i find this strange that the very small niche (but growing slowly) carved out by liberal/progressive radio is a significant threat that needs eradication. Conservatives rightly say they dominiate the airwaves....and liberals are just a small drop today. Im certainly going to toot our horn when we see an accomplishment in Liberal radio....as an advocate its what i do...While i certainly disagree with 99.9989 of conservative radio..i certainly don't want to eradicate it (as if i could now...but you get the meaning i hope). Id like a civil answer why so many conservatives dont want liberal radio to thrive or even struggle.

Some offbeat thoughts and musings.....maybe worth discussion or not:

1) AM may or may not get a boost from the new format - a moribund market gets a little juice from new efforts to energize the talk radio format? Possible? Is the small growth by progressives adding any fire to the bottom line of radio owners and syndicators? Is AM getting a "new look" by investors? What about streaming as a new wave? podcasting? micro-broadcasts? I know of quite a few people who podcast and im more of a stream listener than off an antenna lately.

2) Free market - AAR is a business that also wants to present a message/crusade. But its a business....at first it almost died due to horrible business decisions but its currently like any new venture...seeking financing, adjusting strategy, pursuing new options....these all seem like business like actions....why would any conservative (and capitalist) hate this business so much....if its the message, then attack the message not the business. (my thoughts)

3) the message - for me, I know AAR is a reflection or response to the current conservative talk tank.....other Liberal hosts survive the jumble in different ways.....but basically the..Talk Radio format hasnt changed significantly even with AAR...my belief is that AAR tries to speak truth to power and it doesnt always succeed....but it is successful as a counter to the one sided view that has permeated the format in recent times.....but should AAR be forced to innovate to be considered a success? Conservative hosts certainly are not "innovating' anything right now (my opinion)

4) People who never actually heard one AAR beep tone or voice - you know the ones who call AAR hate spewing, etc. I cant speak for all liberals but I do listen to the other side frequently as part of my research, advocacy, and in my personal time, activism....i don't like doing it..but if i decide to comment / criticize a conservative host...i actually did hear enough of that person's show to deliver my view. Id like to see more of that from the conservative side....again this comment makes me think of the many who never saw farenheit 9/11 but were the greatest critics....LOL

5) Framing the argument - this is my pet peeve and i would like to have a civil talk on this one with a few people here for sure....most of the conflict occurs when a conservative or other person decides to try to frame AAR as a failure with some shortsighted comment or simply with troll-like comments. Many libs on the board try to debunk/counter and end up getting "piled on" including our moderator who at times finds it (i dont understand why) important to explain to all that "im not a fan of AAR" when neutrality should rule by the moderator. (IM NOT TRYING TO GET IN TROUBLE..BUT THIS BOTHERS ME..ITS ONLY A QUESTION) In my opinion, its ok if i perceive that the board continues to lean heavily conservative...but you have to expect that i and others aren't going to let the argument always be skewed to defending AAR...WE WILL FIGHT BACK. This means that sometimes there may be friction....but i agree strongly (and i need to try hard just as well) to comment civilly rather than in anger, frustration, or sarcasm...

im not looking to start a war but i would like some answers to my musings....
 
> Many libs on the board try to debunk/counter and
> end up getting "piled on" including our moderator who at
> times finds it (i dont understand why) important to explain
> to all that "im not a fan of AAR" when neutrality should
> rule by the moderator. (IM NOT TRYING TO GET IN TROUBLE..BUT
> THIS BOTHERS ME..ITS ONLY A QUESTION)

I think you are mixing AAR and Progressive Talk with the comment about neutrality. When I say I am not a fan of AAR, I am primarily refering to the product, not necessarily the message. I am an advocate of "Truth". There is some truth on both sides of the fence. I am seeking to unite this divided land. Being completely on "one side" or "the other" only propogates a Country divided, in my opinion (oops apparently I am not allowed to express my views as a moderator).

So, am I not allowed to say I am not a fan of the 3 new Star Wars movies either? Do you expect me to be THAT neutral?

Even though I am a moderator, I too, am a contributor. I have a view that I think is worthy of public consumption, as do you. Some may like what I have to say, others won't, BUT I do not let my view get in the way of treating everyone with fairness. I will repremand a like-minded indvidual just as quickly as anyone...

A moderator will have his/her personal convictions no matter what. As long as it isn't reflected in the actual moderating, what difference does it make? At least I am not silent on my views but my actions scream what I believe. Isn't it better to know what my views are, but see that my actions are fair? Or is it bothersom that a conservative (using the term loosly), can actually exercise his brain on his own. (Yes I said that). After all, fairness is the objective in moderating. And I think I am quite fair, despite my personal views. If you, or anyone esle, feel otherwise, please let me know. My radio-info email is in my profile.

And no, you are not in trouble, I was just answering that particular point. Feel free to discuss futher.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> 5) Framing the argument - this is my pet peeve and i would
> like to have a civil talk on this one with a few people here
> for sure....most of the conflict occurs when a conservative
> or other person decides to try to frame AAR as a failure
> with some shortsighted comment or simply with troll-like
> comments. Many libs on the board try to debunk/counter and
> end up getting "piled on" including our moderator who at
> times finds it (i dont understand why) important to explain
> to all that "im not a fan of AAR" when neutrality should
> rule by the moderator.

I think the issue here is that there are a lot of progressives out there that had to sit back and "take it" from an endless parade of conservative talk shows out there. Left leaners either did Joe Biden-style hand-wringing about every view being special or tried to reply but found themselves at the other end of the dump button locked out from the media that conservatives regularly claim is totally controlled by liberals. Air America represents the equivalent of "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." This means the days of letting untruths and echo chamber 'distort-o-grams' going unanswered are over.

I think a lot of participants will debate rationally with those who post comments that actually represent some considered thought and intellectual depth. But the flame throwers come out when you see someone who really hasn't considered the issue but instead just wants to parrot bumper sticker slogans they picked up from a talk show or a blog (ie. Air America is a failure and nobody listens; Air America should be called America Haters, etc.)

I think most true conservatives who support the free market will have no objection to Air America and the business of the airwaves, and they believe their political views are honorable and strong enough to be discussed and debated. These folks get respect.

But there are others who have grown up getting politically educated primarily by talk radio, mostly by show hosts who ridicule or dump the dissent. Most of these folks don't respond well when you ask them deeper questions about what they believe - they know slogans and what their favorite show host(s) believe, but usually don't know enough about these positions to tolerate a debate about them. It is these folks that won't tolerate dissenting views and typically label anyone who disagrees with them as anti-American, against the troops, a dirty liberal, etc. Dissent = no patriotism. Watch a C-SPAN call-in show sometime and enjoy the fun. I can often tell what talk shows a caller lives for just from their talking points.

This isn't limited to one ideology either. I ripped into a college student friend of mine several years ago who was going to protest against South Africa because of their apartheid policies of the time. I stupidly asked him whether he thought a policy of reconciliation as proposed by Nelson Mandela, or a more radical approach advocated by the Zulus would bring a faster end to apartheid. He hadn't a clue what I was talking about. All he knew is that he needed to protest it because it was somehow wrong. He did the same things about many liberal issues of the day, but never really understood the issues in-depth. I hollered at him the same way I'd holler at a conservative that dismisses anyone who questions our involvement in Iraq as "hating America and our troops."

In this forum, the usual style of AA bashing isn't as overt. Instead, every few days, the same small group carefully selects negative articles about Air America and posts them here with "innocent" questions about what it all means. Usually the source of the article has an axe to grind, and what it all means is that it's yet another blogger or third-rate news source making stuff up or turning facts into a taffy pull. It's intellectually dishonest. I'd respect these people more, since they claim such an interest in AA, if they posted articles with a range of views, but that typically doesn't happen.
 
> So, am I not allowed to say I am not a fan of the 3 new Star
> Wars movies either? Do you expect me to be THAT neutral?

I'm calling Homeland Security on you right now! Terrorist. You hate us for our freedom. :)

"I'm gonna be the best Jedi Knight ever!!!!"

The only war crime since 9/11 is permitting George Lucas to write movie dialogue.
 
Excellent analysis. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > 5) Framing the argument - this is my pet peeve and i would
>
> > like to have a civil talk on this one with a few people
> here
> > for sure....most of the conflict occurs when a
> conservative
> > or other person decides to try to frame AAR as a failure
> > with some shortsighted comment or simply with troll-like
> > comments. Many libs on the board try to debunk/counter and
>
> > end up getting "piled on" including our moderator who at
> > times finds it (i dont understand why) important to
> explain
> > to all that "im not a fan of AAR" when neutrality should
> > rule by the moderator.
>
> I think the issue here is that there are a lot of
> progressives out there that had to sit back and "take it"
> from an endless parade of conservative talk shows out there.
> Left leaners either did Joe Biden-style hand-wringing about
> every view being special or tried to reply but found
> themselves at the other end of the dump button locked out
> from the media that conservatives regularly claim is totally
> controlled by liberals. Air America represents the
> equivalent of "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it
> anymore." This means the days of letting untruths and echo
> chamber 'distort-o-grams' going unanswered are over.

Dampier, if i had more words to add to the above...it would really be preaching to the choir...ill simply thank you...for giving my musings clarity. You did an fantastic job here.
>
> I think a lot of participants will debate rationally with
> those who post comments that actually represent some
> considered thought and intellectual depth. But the flame
> throwers come out when you see someone who really hasn't
> considered the issue but instead just wants to parrot bumper
> sticker slogans they picked up from a talk show or a blog
> (ie. Air America is a failure and nobody listens; Air
> America should be called America Haters, etc.)

I dont want to say that there are those on the right that wont debate rationally. I want to acknowledge rightly that there are a small number that really will debate you mano a mano. I think as of the moment, I havent seen enough of it...and encourage more of this level of debate on both sides.

During my earlier post, I failed to mention that i do review as many conservative or right-leaning or wingnut (depending on the ferocity of the words posted respectively) blogs.....i try to watch both ends of the spectrum so as to make my arguments accurate and even dare i say it fair and truthful...lol...while i can have a somewhat decent debate on Powerline...i dont expect any discourse on Freerepublic or Lucianne...but my point is that i do look at the other side seriously and sometimes with anger...but i do LOOK before i comment.
>
> I think most true conservatives who support the free market
> will have no objection to Air America and the business of
> the airwaves, and they believe their political views are
> honorable and strong enough to be discussed and debated.
> These folks get respect.

There are some "independents" and alleged "liberals" that perform similar to those on the right by maligning each and every step (or misstep) that AAR performs. I agree and respect anyone who has a problem they can debate but just saying AAR sucks and its a bad business venture wont cut it....(my opinion). Many of the comments try to hide their disgust or hate of AAR behind attacking the hosts...while each host and staff have their own flaws..you would think that AAR is an organization of nothing but the worst people and staff based on the post ive seen here and other places...no company could run with the alleged lack of ability that AAR is claimed to have. Its just stupid and I will debunk it where i can.

>
> But there are others who have grown up getting politically
> educated primarily by talk radio, mostly by show hosts who
> ridicule or dump the dissent. Most of these folks don't
> respond well when you ask them deeper questions about what
> they believe - they know slogans and what their favorite
> show host(s) believe, but usually don't know enough about
> these positions to tolerate a debate about them. It is
> these folks that won't tolerate dissenting views and
> typically label anyone who disagrees with them as
> anti-American, against the troops, a dirty liberal, etc.
> Dissent = no patriotism. Watch a C-SPAN call-in show
> sometime and enjoy the fun. I can often tell what talk
> shows a caller lives for just from their talking points.
>
> This isn't limited to one ideology either. I ripped into a
> college student friend of mine several years ago who was
> going to protest against South Africa because of their
> apartheid policies of the time. I stupidly asked him
> whether he thought a policy of reconciliation as proposed by
> Nelson Mandela, or a more radical approach advocated by the
> Zulus would bring a faster end to apartheid. He hadn't a
> clue what I was talking about. All he knew is that he
> needed to protest it because it was somehow wrong. He did
> the same things about many liberal issues of the day, but
> never really understood the issues in-depth. I hollered at
> him the same way I'd holler at a conservative that dismisses
> anyone who questions our involvement in Iraq as "hating
> America and our troops."
>
> In this forum, the usual style of AA bashing isn't as overt.
> Instead, every few days, the same small group carefully
> selects negative articles about Air America and posts them
> here with "innocent" questions about what it all means.
> Usually the source of the article has an axe to grind, and
> what it all means is that it's yet another blogger or
> third-rate news source making stuff up or turning facts into
> a taffy pull. It's intellectually dishonest. I'd respect
> these people more, since they claim such an interest in AA,
> if they posted articles with a range of views, but that
> typically doesn't happen.
>

As with your first paragraph, i can offer no more words to help make these posts stronger...again thank you for more clarity. While you and I seem to agree strongly here, I await to see if a real discourse will come from those on the other side...until them the argument I think goes unanswered for the moment. I thank you for taking the first shot at a civil discourse.
 
> I think you are mixing AAR and Progressive Talk with the
> comment about neutrality. When I say I am not a fan of AAR,
> I am primarily refering to the product, not necessarily the
> message. I am an advocate of "Truth". There is some truth on
> both sides of the fence. I am seeking to unite this divided
> land. Being completely on "one side" or "the other" only
> propogates a Country divided, in my opinion (oops apparently
> I am not allowed to express my views as a moderator).

Thank you for your replying to my issue here Cab. Taking you at your word and I do not object to a majority of the comments when you step in to moderate. I do not agree that the moderator should join the discourse. I think you could probably do what you describe if you made it clear when these are you opinions versus where you moderate...i don't think its unreasonable to ask that...i do not personally object to what you say in general...but if you express your opinion..i respectfully ask that your opinions not conflate with your duties as moderator. If you disagree, then I can simply say i asked....thanks for letting me air my complaints.

>
> So, am I not allowed to say I am not a fan of the 3 new Star
> Wars movies either? Do you expect me to be THAT neutral?

As this is not a star wars forum....i wouldnt disagree with your example..i didnt like them either...LOL ...but on issues of radio...yes i would ask that you try to be neutral where you logically and reasonably can....im not that exacting on myself...and i wouldnt ask you to be quite that exacting....LOL
>
> Even though I am a moderator, I too, am a contributor. I
> have a view that I think is worthy of public consumption, as
> do you. Some may like what I have to say, others won't, BUT
> I do not let my view get in the way of treating everyone
> with fairness. I will repremand a like-minded indvidual just
> as quickly as anyone...

I think you are a pretty good moderator...we just disagree on some points...im glad you feel that you can keep it fair and respect that.....
>
> A moderator will have his/her personal convictions no matter
> what. As long as it isn't reflected in the actual
> moderating, what difference does it make?

i think it does..but we dont have to agree on everything....honestly.

At least I am not
> silent on my views but my actions scream what I believe.
> Isn't it better to know what my views are, but see that my
> actions are fair?

No, i dont on your views, Yes on your actions.

Or is it bothersom that a conservative
> (using the term loosly), can actually exercise his brain on
> his own. (Yes I said that). After all, fairness is the
> objective in moderating. And I think I am quite fair,
> despite my personal views. If you, or anyone esle, feel
> otherwise, please let me know. My radio-info email is in my
> profile.

Again i respect your moderation because you are willing to ask the people for fair criticism. With the perceived bias (my opinion) that i feel is strong here,
i ask for more clarity between comment and moderation....if i find an issue after this, ill report to you as requested to your email.
>
> And no, you are not in trouble, I was just answering that
> particular point. Feel free to discuss futher.

Again, i couldnt thank you more for letting me air a respectful complaintl...
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom