NY Times: Talent Changes Coming at AAR

[mwebster]

The Sunday Times includes a profile of Rachel Maddow. The article says Maddow is expected to move into morning drive. The article also mentions the loan from Boys and Girls Club and AAR's online fund-raising drive (for those of you who thought the Times was sitting on these stories).

When AAR launched, the big stars were Franken and Garofolo (as depicted in the HBO documentary). Now AAR sees Maddow and Rhodes as the future.
<blockquote>If the Air America network hangs on long enough to reach the next presidential campaign, Ms. Maddow and Ms. Rhodes can claim some of the credit. The network's chief executive, Danny Goldberg, calls them "exactly the two people who have emerged in dramatic fashion" from the shadows of Air America's stars, Al Franken and the comic actress Janeane Garofalo, who helped the network make a high-profile debut 20 months ago.</blockquote>
The article mentions Rhodes' prior broadcast experience but says Maddow's resume is limited to working in a coffee shop and being an activist for prisioners with AIDS.

Former record executive and current AAR CEO Randy Goldberg acknowledges the company is selling bumper stickers to help pay the bills.
<blockquote>Since then the network has added and lost stations, dipped in the ratings, then slightly risen again, while lagging far behind conservative talk radio in popularity. Its New York station, WLIB, was ranked 24th in the city in the most recent Arbitron ratings report, compared with WABC, the conservative talk home, at No. 8. Air America's reputation was also shaken by revelations that a founder, now departed, had borrowed $875,000 from a Bronx Boys and Girls Club to finance the network. In a statement, the network's current management said that it had repaid the loan into an escrow account, "where the money will remain until the city has completed its investigation of the club."

As for its current financial outlook, Mr. Goldberg said, "We pay the bills any way we can." Earlier this fall the network started an online fund-raising drive similar to a public radio campaign. </blockquote>
Clouds on the horizon: Big name talent, including Rhodes, are looking at other options and life after radio.
<blockquote>The network's biggest stars can be distracted. Ms. Garofalo was off filming episodes of "The West Wing" this fall, and Mr. Franken has said that he might run for Senate in Minnesota. "Air America has to look beyond Franken and Garofalo," Mr. Harrison said, "and Rachel and Randi are turning out to be quite good, and quite successful for them."

The network is expected to announce imminently a move by Ms. Maddow into a more prominent morning drive-time role. She also has a gig debating the conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on his MSNBC show, "The Situation," and a contract to appear on other MSNBC programs. ...

Ms. Rhodes gives the impression she is not entirely committed to Air America, though Mr. Goldberg said her contract runs into 2007. She said she cringes when the network rattles the tin cup, as with its pledge drive.</blockquote>
Interestingly, The Times, which had been a cheerleader for the "fledgling network" when it launched is now somewhat cautious about its future prospects: "If the Air America network hangs on long enough to reach the next presidential campaign..."

It will also be interesting to see if AAR moves beyond asking for "help" and offering bumper stickers in return to "pay the bills," and instead follows the lead of other broadcasters (including Stephanie Miller) by selling premium access (e.g., Podcasts, 24/7 on-demand access to programs, Internet videocasts of programs, program audio archives, additional web-only material). It may also be telling that AAR's initial strategy was to plead for "help" to bring programming to more markets (The Times compares it to NPR but it really sounds more like religious broadcasters) rather than to add value and sell the value-added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/arts/13bren.html

 

[robbbc]

The Good News:

AAR is aware that Randi and Maddow are the stars.
Randi doesn't like the associates program, and is speaking out about it.

The bad newspaper:

They compared WLIB to WABC with little or no perspective. WOR is within striking distance for WLIB and is a better example of competition. Bloomberg's station WBBR trails AAR on a 50kW signal. WEPN sports also trails with 50kW. 24th in NY with a 10kW directional AM signal ain't bad, the Times makes it sound like a failure. They stated that they have gained and lost some stations (in 20 months they went from less than a dozen to over 70, sounds like a gain to me but let's spin it for the right wingers). The Truth is they have gained a lot of stations and lost only a relative few. Who needs perspective I guess. No mention of Air America's real successes on the west coast. How about Majority Report being the highest rated show in New York in its timeslot, any truth to that? How about the 50kW WOR, less than a point from WLIB 12+? Give WLIB that signal and ratings would double at least.

Obviously the Times is trying to CYA, pre-empting the right wing bloggers who will inundate their ombudsman unless they skew the story hard to the right.


> The Sunday Times includes a profile of Rachel Maddow. The
> article says Maddow is expected to move into morning drive.
> The article also mentions the loan from Boys and Girls Club
> and AAR's online fund-raising drive (for those of you who
> thought the Times was sitting on these stories).
>
> When AAR launched, the big stars were Franken and Garofolo
> (as depicted in the HBO documentary). Now AAR sees Maddow
> and Rhodes as the future.
> If the Air America network hangs on long enough to reach the
> next presidential campaign, Ms. Maddow and Ms. Rhodes can
> claim some of the credit. The network's chief executive,
> Danny Goldberg, calls them "exactly the two people who have
> emerged in dramatic fashion" from the shadows of Air
> America's stars, Al Franken and the comic actress Janeane
> Garofalo, who helped the network make a high-profile debut
> 20 months ago.
> The article mentions Rhodes' prior broadcast experience but
> says Maddow's resume is limited to working in a coffee shop
> and being an activist for prisioners with AIDS.
>
> Former record executive and current AAR CEO Randy Goldberg
> acknowledges the company is selling bumper stickers to help
> pay the bills.
> Since then the network has added and lost stations, dipped
> in the ratings, then slightly risen again, while lagging far
> behind conservative talk radio in popularity. Its New York
> station, WLIB, was ranked 24th in the city in the most
> recent Arbitron ratings report, compared with WABC, the
> conservative talk home, at No. 8. Air America's reputation
> was also shaken by revelations that a founder, now departed,
> had borrowed $875,000 from a Bronx Boys and Girls Club to
> finance the network. In a statement, the network's current
> management said that it had repaid the loan into an escrow
> account, "where the money will remain until the city has
> completed its investigation of the club."
>
> As for its current financial outlook, Mr. Goldberg said, "We
> pay the bills any way we can." Earlier this fall the network
> started an online fund-raising drive similar to a public
> radio campaign.
> Clouds on the horizon: Big name talent, including Rhodes,
> are looking at other options and life after radio.
> The network's biggest stars can be distracted. Ms. Garofalo
> was off filming episodes of "The West Wing" this fall, and
> Mr. Franken has said that he might run for Senate in
> Minnesota. "Air America has to look beyond Franken and
> Garofalo," Mr. Harrison said, "and Rachel and Randi are
> turning out to be quite good, and quite successful for
> them."
>
> The network is expected to announce imminently a move by Ms.
> Maddow into a more prominent morning drive-time role. She
> also has a gig debating the conservative commentator Tucker
> Carlson on his MSNBC show, "The Situation," and a contract
> to appear on other MSNBC programs. ...
>
> Ms. Rhodes gives the impression she is not entirely
> committed to Air America, though Mr. Goldberg said her
> contract runs into 2007. She said she cringes when the
> network rattles the tin cup, as with its pledge drive.
> Interestingly, The Times, which had been a cheerleader for
> the "fledgling network" when it launched is now somewhat
> cautious about its future prospects: "If the Air America
> network hangs on long enough to reach the next presidential
> campaign..."
>
> It will also be interesting to see if AAR moves beyond
> asking for "help" and offering bumper stickers in return to
> "pay the bills," and instead follows the lead of other
> broadcasters (including Stephanie Miller) by selling premium
> access (e.g., Podcasts, 24/7 on-demand access to programs,
> Internet videocasts of programs, program audio archives,
> additional web-only material). It may also be telling that
> AAR's initial strategy was to plead for "help" to bring
> programming to more markets (The Times compares it to NPR
> but it really sounds more like religious broadcasters)
> rather than to add value and sell the value-added.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/arts/13bren.html
>

 

[doc9464]

It was good news to hear that AAR sees good success out of Randi and Maddow....i suspect now the finger will turn to Majority Report to see what can be done...or what will be done....

To keep Randi and her ego check, they are going to have to give her some "love" and for Randi thats publicity...when i see articles like this, this gives me the feeling that they are trying to set hers and other expectations with subtle quotes of the road ahead....and she continues to be well spoken with her criticsm of the way things are so that is good for both in a way....i think it would be simpler for them to have some closed meetings and work on the main strategies....I think it its important to do the following:

Work with Drobny, CC, or whoever to get into the remaining parts of the USA without AAR, and start marketing where successes exist and promote where break thrus are imminent...Boston and Miami are examples (Boston is close now to a 50khz upgrade and the conservative stations are in disarray due to management and personnel problems, while Miami is growing and could use some support to grow more)

Acquire new talent or syndicate other new talent => keep the benches warm for a possible majority report replacement

Market Mike Malloy as the anti-Savage....Savage is a nut, Malloy is a smarter pointed critic but with energy and insight..not just empty bleating like Savage.
Malloy has to cooperate and be willing to comeout of the bunker in Atlanta

Use the Washington facilities more, AAR missed a golden opportunity to be topical with the virginia governor election being the hot bed of activity during the off-year election. Since Al is moving to Minnesota, he should use vacate WLIB and DC (as a temporary headquarters) to help frame the audience that AAR for the first time will place hosts in the critical locations during the rampup to the crucial 2006 elections, the SCOTUS nomination, etc.

That would make things more interesting and may give AAR an edge no talk show has....local access to key government officials, Washington Post resources, congressmen, senators and other guests that keep AAR fresh and topical on the current events in government while keeping the focus on delivering a focused progressive message....that would be a new approach, fresh, and hopefully appealing to those who are looking for strong talk radio..not just the ususal fare.

Every host should be scheduled to spend time in that studio up until the 2006 elections.....and they should give Stephanie Miller some time there too (maybe to woo her aboard...LOL). If it works, then use the strategy more and regularly.

> The Good News:
>
> AAR is aware that Randi and Maddow are the stars.
> Randi doesn't like the associates program, and is speaking
> out about it.
>
> The bad newspaper:
>
> They compared WLIB to WABC with little or no perspective.
> WOR is within striking distance for WLIB and is a better
> example of competition. Bloomberg's station WBBR trails AAR
> on a 50kW signal. WEPN sports also trails with 50kW. 24th in
> NY with a 10kW directional AM signal ain't bad, the Times
> makes it sound like a failure. They stated that they have
> gained and lost some stations (in 20 months they went from
> less than a dozen to over 70, sounds like a gain to me but
> let's spin it for the right wingers). The Truth is they have
> gained a lot of stations and lost only a relative few. Who
> needs perspective I guess. No mention of Air America's real
> successes on the west coast. How about Majority Report being
> the highest rated show in New York in its timeslot, any
> truth to that? How about the 50kW WOR, less than a point
> from WLIB 12+? Give WLIB that signal and ratings would
> double at least.
>
> Obviously the Times is trying to CYA, pre-empting the right
> wing bloggers who will inundate their ombudsman unless they
> skew the story hard to the right.
>
>

 

[mwebster]

Logistical Changes

Good points. One small exception: Get Franken OUT of the studio. He is much better when he works in front of an audience. Keep him on tour or maybe they could get some auditorium space in the Mall of America (he could be another tourist attraction), or rent auditorium-studio space from Minnesota Public Radio/American Public Media/PRI in St. Paul.

Now that I think of it, getting the hosts out of New York might give AAR's programs less of an obvious Noo Yawk sound and feel. Send Randi back to West Palm. And keep Jerry in Cincinnati and Chicago. Maybe they wouldn't need as much space in Manhattan (less New York rent; lower operating costs).

Being in Washington physically is not that important. With current technology, it is not that important to have the guest in the same room with interviewer. If it's done right, no one can tell the difference. Terry Gross on Fresh Air NEVER interviews a person in the same studio (even if the guest is or could be in Philly).

 

[ajhenderson]

> They compared WLIB to WABC with little or no perspective.
> WOR is within striking distance for WLIB and is a better
> example of competition.

WOR isn't really a conservative station like WABC. The WOR listenership in large part makes WABC's look like spring chickens. Ed Walsh, a great talent, but it isn't as fiery as a Levin, Ingraham, Hannity. Of course, Joy Browne, Ron Hoffman, and Joey Reynolds aren't too political either. WLIB's listeners are younger and hipper. But nevertheless, WOR is a relatively weak station that could find itself behind yet another talk station.

> Bloomberg's station WBBR trails AAR
> on a 50kW signal. WEPN sports also trails with 50kW. 24th in
> NY with a 10kW directional AM signal ain't bad, the Times
> makes it sound like a failure.

While I would not call WLIB a failure, it should be noted that 50kW means nothing. There are plenty of 50kWs in Florida running wall-to-wall infomercials making a decent profit without having to have a lot of personnel like a traditional station, yet they have no ratings.

Sports stations rarely crack a 1-share, and considering that WFAN was the first of its genre, it has the higher ratings (of course, it has Imus, too). But it bills huge. WEPN isn't counting on strong 12+ numbers. As to WBBR, it's a toy for the Bloomberg enterprise. Others have posted their billing numbers before. As I've said before, there's no better station to advertise your yacht for sale that WBBR.

> They stated that they have
> gained and lost some stations (in 20 months they went from
> less than a dozen to over 70, sounds like a gain to me but
> let's spin it for the right wingers). The Truth is they have
> gained a lot of stations and lost only a relative few. Who
> needs perspective I guess. No mention of Air America's real
> successes on the west coast. How about Majority Report being
> the highest rated show in New York in its timeslot, any
> truth to that? How about the 50kW WOR, less than a point
> from WLIB 12+? Give WLIB that signal and ratings would
> double at least.

I've heard from a lot of people driving around who are straining to hear their local libtalker. Those from my hometown around Northeast Ohio can attest to the absolutely putrid signal the original AAR affiliate WJMP/Kent-Akron put out (daytime only). Yet I'd hear people from North Ridgeville, Mentor, etc. calling into Randi and other shows saying how great it was to have her on in "Cleveland". They must have been causing a safety hazard with the way they'd have to have been driving to pick up the signal that far away. Is WOR a waste... yes. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but during the day when most listening occurs, I don't see why WLIB can't do well with its stick in the city. Of course, they're 30kW by night. WWRL penetrates its core audience in the urban areas with 25kW, which is weakened by the fact that they're so high on the dial that they're practically past the "O" in AC Delco.

> premium
> > access (e.g., Podcasts, 24/7 on-demand access to programs,
> > Internet videocasts of programs, program audio archives,

Why not? It's a business, not a movement.

 

[dampier]

> The Sunday Times includes a profile of Rachel Maddow. The
> article says Maddow is expected to move into morning drive.
> The article also mentions the loan from Boys and Girls Club
> and AAR's online fund-raising drive (for those of you who
> thought the Times was sitting on these stories).

The writer of the article did not do a very credible job of reporting on AAR, including several glaring episodes of "missing the point entirely."

1) Brenna implies in the freakin lead of the story that Maddow's show is the equivalent of the National Enquirer with freak stories. Maddow spends a few minutes of her show doing what every newscast seems to do these days - do a light and silly story that has little relevance to our lives. This weekend's example on the mainstream media - bank robbery by cell phone yakking woman. Somehow this small point becomes the lead of the story? Sloppy.

2) Randi Rhodes does not call every conservative talk show host who angers her "that day" a pig. In fact, she rarely uses that turn of phrase. The most common Randisms include "unbelieveable" and "this is the sickest thing I've ever heard in my life" and "what is x's problem" and "this is so outrageous" and "can you believe these people." You'll hear these and variations almost daily. You won't hear "pig" that often. Does Brenna even listen? Only Mike Malloy likes the "p" word, usually referring to Limbaugh as "the pig man."

3) Most AAR affiliates are not at "the far end of the AM dial." I like how Brenna seems to throw this phrase around which the reader will no doubt interpret as "far out" or "out of the mainstream." In fact, there are just three AAR affiliates in the expanded AM band, if you count 1600 as part of it.

4) Brenna entirely missed the point of the Rhodes/Parshall confrontation on C-SPAN. The major thing people brought from that was when Parshall stuck her fingers in her ears and said "I can't hear you!" Brenna's straight quotation of the ironic and amusing claim by Parshall that conservative talk radio is polite (apparently she's never heard Savage or Hannity or Limbaugh) means this woman is clueless about talk radio.

5) A whole host of opinions worked its way into Brenna's article, all totally unsubstantiated. Examples -

a) If Air America hangs on long enough - where is Brenna's evidence of financial problems at the network that would lead to such a statement? It comes out of thin air.

b) Since then the network has added and lost stations - which leaves an inaccurate impression that comes straight out of the right wing propaganda machine. The correct statement would be "since then the network has added more stations that it has lost" which is factually accurate.

c) Air America's reputation was also shaken by revelations that a founder, now departed, had borrowed $875,000 from a Bronx Boys and Girls Club to finance the network. - Talk about inserting opinion into a news article. The only ones who felt the reputation was shaken was the right wing blogs trying to make it so. AAR management has never felt this way, nor have AAR listeners or the non-partisan press. It was a "scandal" that lived and died on right wing blogs. If Brenna sees otherwise, where are the quotes and reports?

d) As for its current financial outlook, Mr. Goldberg said, "We pay the bills any way we can." Earlier this fall the network started an online fund-raising drive similar to a public radio campaign. - Apparently the question Brenna didn't ask which would actually be newsworthy is whether Goldberg started the campaign to address financial problems at the network and that funds raised would be integral to the survival of AAR. Apparently Brenna was more concerned about asking Rhodes about what she did as a kid.

This article came across as a fluff piece with a lot of opinion and assertions inserted that came with absolutely no attribution, evidence, or even a quote to make it sound like it's actually coming from someone who was interviewed for the story, and that is sloppy journalism in my book.

 

[FightingIrish]

> > The Sunday Times includes a profile of Rachel Maddow. The
> > article says Maddow is expected to move into morning
> drive.
> > The article also mentions the loan from Boys and Girls
> Club
> > and AAR's online fund-raising drive (for those of you who
> > thought the Times was sitting on these stories).
>
> The writer of the article did not do a very credible job of
> reporting on AAR, including several glaring episodes of
> "missing the point entirely."
>
> 1) Brenna implies in the freakin lead of the story that
> Maddow's show is the equivalent of the National Enquirer
> with freak stories. Maddow spends a few minutes of her show
> doing what every newscast seems to do these days - do a
> light and silly story that has little relevance to our
> lives. This weekend's example on the mainstream media -
> bank robbery by cell phone yakking woman. Somehow this
> small point becomes the lead of the story? Sloppy.
>
> 2) Randi Rhodes does not call every conservative talk show
> host who angers her "that day" a pig. In fact, she rarely
> uses that turn of phrase. The most common Randisms include
> "unbelieveable" and "this is the sickest thing I've ever
> heard in my life" and "what is x's problem" and "this is so
> outrageous" and "can you believe these people." You'll hear
> these and variations almost daily. You won't hear "pig"
> that often. Does Brenna even listen? Only Mike Malloy
> likes the "p" word, usually referring to Limbaugh as "the
> pig man."
>
> 3) Most AAR affiliates are not at "the far end of the AM
> dial." I like how Brenna seems to throw this phrase around
> which the reader will no doubt interpret as "far out" or
> "out of the mainstream." In fact, there are just three AAR
> affiliates in the expanded AM band, if you count 1600 as
> part of it.
>
> 4) Brenna entirely missed the point of the Rhodes/Parshall
> confrontation on C-SPAN. The major thing people brought
> from that was when Parshall stuck her fingers in her ears
> and said "I can't hear you!" Brenna's straight quotation of
> the ironic and amusing claim by Parshall that conservative
> talk radio is polite (apparently she's never heard Savage or
> Hannity or Limbaugh) means this woman is clueless about talk
> radio.
>
> 5) A whole host of opinions worked its way into Brenna's
> article, all totally unsubstantiated. Examples -
>
> a) If Air America hangs on long enough - where is Brenna's
> evidence of financial problems at the network that would
> lead to such a statement? It comes out of thin air.
>
> b) Since then the network has added and lost stations -
> which leaves an inaccurate impression that comes straight
> out of the right wing propaganda machine. The correct
> statement would be "since then the network has added more
> stations that it has lost" which is factually accurate.
>
> c) Air America's reputation was also shaken by revelations
> that a founder, now departed, had borrowed $875,000 from a
> Bronx Boys and Girls Club to finance the network. - Talk
> about inserting opinion into a news article. The only ones
> who felt the reputation was shaken was the right wing blogs
> trying to make it so. AAR management has never felt this
> way, nor have AAR listeners or the non-partisan press. It
> was a "scandal" that lived and died on right wing blogs. If
> Brenna sees otherwise, where are the quotes and reports?
>
> d) As for its current financial outlook, Mr. Goldberg said,
> "We pay the bills any way we can." Earlier this fall the
> network started an online fund-raising drive similar to a
> public radio campaign. - Apparently the question Brenna
> didn't ask which would actually be newsworthy is whether
> Goldberg started the campaign to address financial problems
> at the network and that funds raised would be integral to
> the survival of AAR. Apparently Brenna was more concerned
> about asking Rhodes about what she did as a kid.
>
> This article came across as a fluff piece with a lot of
> opinion and assertions inserted that came with absolutely no
> attribution, evidence, or even a quote to make it sound like
> it's actually coming from someone who was interviewed for
> the story, and that is sloppy journalism in my book.
>

I always find that newspaper writers appear to know very little about radio. Many of them can't seem to even be bothered to at least get the call letters or the frequency right. At least some of the national magazines try to understand the business (Entertainment Weekly, for example, has run some very good articles on the radio industry).

It seems like everytime I read a newspaper article about radio, the writer is just going through the motions and could care less.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[ibezdechi]

Hon...if the article irritated you that much then there must be some truth to it! AAR here in San Diego has been less than a rousing success. When you spend your entire airtime unconstructively bitching and hyperventilating about the President rather than promoting an ideology, things like what have happen to AAR happen.

I love how the NYT these days seems to be equally hated by the right AND the left of the spectrum.

> > The Sunday Times includes a profile of Rachel Maddow. The
> > article says Maddow is expected to move into morning
> drive.
> > The article also mentions the loan from Boys and Girls
> Club
> > and AAR's online fund-raising drive (for those of you who
> > thought the Times was sitting on these stories).
>
> The writer of the article did not do a very credible job of
> reporting on AAR, including several glaring episodes of
> "missing the point entirely."
>
> 1) Brenna implies in the freakin lead of the story that
> Maddow's show is the equivalent of the National Enquirer
> with freak stories. Maddow spends a few minutes of her show
> doing what every newscast seems to do these days - do a
> light and silly story that has little relevance to our
> lives. This weekend's example on the mainstream media -
> bank robbery by cell phone yakking woman. Somehow this
> small point becomes the lead of the story? Sloppy.
>
> 2) Randi Rhodes does not call every conservative talk show
> host who angers her "that day" a pig. In fact, she rarely
> uses that turn of phrase. The most common Randisms include
> "unbelieveable" and "this is the sickest thing I've ever
> heard in my life" and "what is x's problem" and "this is so
> outrageous" and "can you believe these people." You'll hear
> these and variations almost daily. You won't hear "pig"
> that often. Does Brenna even listen? Only Mike Malloy
> likes the "p" word, usually referring to Limbaugh as "the
> pig man."
>
> 3) Most AAR affiliates are not at "the far end of the AM
> dial." I like how Brenna seems to throw this phrase around
> which the reader will no doubt interpret as "far out" or
> "out of the mainstream." In fact, there are just three AAR
> affiliates in the expanded AM band, if you count 1600 as
> part of it.
>
> 4) Brenna entirely missed the point of the Rhodes/Parshall
> confrontation on C-SPAN. The major thing people brought
> from that was when Parshall stuck her fingers in her ears
> and said "I can't hear you!" Brenna's straight quotation of
> the ironic and amusing claim by Parshall that conservative
> talk radio is polite (apparently she's never heard Savage or
> Hannity or Limbaugh) means this woman is clueless about talk
> radio.
>
> 5) A whole host of opinions worked its way into Brenna's
> article, all totally unsubstantiated. Examples -
>
> a) If Air America hangs on long enough - where is Brenna's
> evidence of financial problems at the network that would
> lead to such a statement? It comes out of thin air.
>
> b) Since then the network has added and lost stations -
> which leaves an inaccurate impression that comes straight
> out of the right wing propaganda machine. The correct
> statement would be "since then the network has added more
> stations that it has lost" which is factually accurate.
>
> c) Air America's reputation was also shaken by revelations
> that a founder, now departed, had borrowed $875,000 from a
> Bronx Boys and Girls Club to finance the network. - Talk
> about inserting opinion into a news article. The only ones
> who felt the reputation was shaken was the right wing blogs
> trying to make it so. AAR management has never felt this
> way, nor have AAR listeners or the non-partisan press. It
> was a "scandal" that lived and died on right wing blogs. If
> Brenna sees otherwise, where are the quotes and reports?
>
> d) As for its current financial outlook, Mr. Goldberg said,
> "We pay the bills any way we can." Earlier this fall the
> network started an online fund-raising drive similar to a
> public radio campaign. - Apparently the question Brenna
> didn't ask which would actually be newsworthy is whether
> Goldberg started the campaign to address financial problems
> at the network and that funds raised would be integral to
> the survival of AAR. Apparently Brenna was more concerned
> about asking Rhodes about what she did as a kid.
>
> This article came across as a fluff piece with a lot of
> opinion and assertions inserted that came with absolutely no
> attribution, evidence, or even a quote to make it sound like
> it's actually coming from someone who was interviewed for
> the story, and that is sloppy journalism in my book.
>

 

[dampier]

> Hon...if the article irritated you that much then there must
> be some truth to it!

Babe, if irritation with press reports means that the press reports are true, you just ripped apart more than a decade of a parade of complaints from your friends that there is a liberal agenda in the press in this country.

> AAR here in San Diego has been less
> than a rousing success. When you spend your entire airtime
> unconstructively bitching and hyperventilating about the
> President rather than promoting an ideology, things like
> what have happen to AAR happen.

Only left wing shows bitch and hyperventilate? Did you start listening to talk radio in late January 2001 and miss eight years of hysterical right wing talk built on Clinton bashing?

> I love how the NYT these days seems to be equally hated by
> the right AND the left of the spectrum.

I hate sloppy journalism period. Judith Miss Run Amok Miller and the fakeorters who made it up as they went along at the NY Times and other papers is an indictment of corporate media that cares little about actual journalism enough to actually fact check what they print. I don't care whether it's perceived as a right wing or left wing paper. I care about factual reporting.

 

[dampier]

> It seems like everytime I read a newspaper article about
> radio, the writer is just going through the motions and
> could care less.

Glenn Hauser who does World of Radio has a common turn of phrase he's used for at least a decade when it comes to press reports about radio:

"Do they mention the frequency? Of course not!"

 

[mwebster]

Sloppy Criticism

Boy, there's no winning with you. Many say the Times is liberal but apparently not liberal enough for you. Every word - every comma - has to fit your worldview.

1. The article says Maddow "spices her pre-dawn newscast on the Air America network with news of the weird." The operative word here is "spices." (Merrian Webster: Spice v. To add zest or relish to. <"cynicism spiced with humor">) The purpose of a lead, especially in a feature story, is to capture the reader's attention or interest. But don't let your lack of knowledge of journalism get in the way of the axe you wish to grind.
2. Apparently, Randi called someone a "pig" the day the writer came for the interview. This is offered as an example of her comments. The article does not say she calls EVERY conservative broadcaster "a pig" (your re-phrasing).
3. Like it or not, most progressive talk stations are on local and regional AM channels, most of which are above 1200 on the dial. These channels are home mostly to low-powered stations which offering ethnic, minority, foreign language or religious broadcasts. In markets like New York, major AM stations were and are clustered to the more desirable lower end of the AM band, and few people ever listened to the stations at the "far end." Progressive talk arrived late and the best real estate on the radio dial was already taken.
4. The New York Times (and other publications) have written about the bombastic sytle of many conservative hosts. That was not the purpose of this article. And any newspaper writer is limited in how much space he/she has to tell the story. Newspapers are not blogs where a writer can go on - and on.
5. Where's your evidence that AAR is in the black?
   1. They are a private company and they have not opened the books; they don't have to. I would not expect any broadcast enterprise in a comparable situation to have turned the corner by now. The people who have provided money to start AAR have indicated they did not do so to make a profit on an investment. Goldberg has never attempted to say the company is profitable. Do you know something he doesn't?
   2. They have added stations, and lost stations. The article says AAR programming is heard in 72 cities, which makes it clear they do have a net gain.
   3. The article also indicates that Randi is not comfortable with AAR's online fund raising ("she cringes when the network rattles the tin cup").
   4. I would consider the statment AAR's "reputation was shaken" to be a fair summary. Maybe not with you, but you seem to have more blind faith in AAR than many others. How do you know how AAR management (or staff) felt? Or AAR listeners for that matter. Talk about making stuff up.
   5. The article was a personality profile on Maddow and Rhodes. Therefore what Rhodes did as a kid is more on point. When the Business section does an article on the company, they are more likely to ask such questions. Talk about second-guessing.

It is ironic for someone who keeps quoting blogs to talk about "sloppy journalism." It is also hypocritical for someone who keeps making statments of opinion to start demanding attribution and evidence when others do the same.

Again, this was a feature in the Sunday Arts section. It was a "fluff piece," but apparently it was not fluffy enough for you. Where AAR is concerned, it seems only abject fawning is good enough for you.

You have your opinion, fine! But you lose credibility when you start charging bias or incompetence because another writer draws conclusions different from yours or approaches a story differently than you would like to see it approached. In your own way, you are as narrow-minded and self-righteous as some of the neo-cons and social conservatives you oppose.

 

[mwebster]

Only when you like the "facts" and you only like "facts" when they support your opinion. You know nothing about journalism. Stick to your blogs.

> I care about factual reporting.
>

 

[FightingIrish]

Re: Sloppy Criticism

For some reason, there are many that seem overly-obsessed about AAR. And quite often, the same old talking points are brought up. Most of them claim that AAR is hemmhoraging money, is not profitable, etc.

Is AAR losing money? I believe so. No high-profile upstart media venture is going to make money out of the gate. Anyone who thinks so knows nothing about business. Will it make money someday? I strongly believe so.

I'd like to share examples of a couple other high-profile upstarts, hoping that all of this is put into perspective.

First off is a story about a regional newspaper publisher called Gannett. They were known for simplistic small-town newspapers with little substance. For years, the guy who had just become their CEO, Al Neuharth, fostered a dream of a nationally-focused and distributed newspaper. A newspaper for the TV generation, with lots of graphics and and an upbeat, 'just the facts'-style writing structure. This was at a time when local papers all over the country were closing it's doors at a record pace. Everyone thought Al was nuts. Many of Gannett's executives were screaming for Al's head. Competitors laughed at him. But only a few years after the first issue of USA Today arrived on the streets, a miracle happened - it turned a profit! USA Today became so wildly popular that it changed the whole idea of newspapers in this day and age and turned tiny Gannett into the biggest newspaper publisher in the country.

A few years later, another media company had an even more ambitious dream. A fourth TV network. Never mind that DuMont 'proved' it could not be done. Others thought differently. When Metromedia, owners of the old DuMont affiliates (which were in Top 10 markets and were VHF frequencies) decided to sell out, the company overpaid for the properties. Again, many in the industry thought they were nuts and wondered what the hell they were going to do with those independent stations. Well, they laid out plans to build a competitor to NBC, ABC, and CBS. Everybody laughed, and even more so than they laughed at Gannett back in the early 80's. The new FOX network got off to a slow, rough start, but within half a decade, landed a few hits such as "The Simpsons" and even took away CBS's longtime NFL package. The FOX network was on it's way, and now the networks are referred to as the Big Four.

Now, I know the situation with AAR is different, and most of the naysaying is on ideological grounds, since many conservatives often prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and hum rather than listen to any viewpoints that may conflict with their own simplistic black-and-white views of the world. But I really don't see it as being out of the realm of possibility that AAR, with the right decisions, could concievably become a success. They are certainly not doomed.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Sloppy Criticism

> Boy, there's no winning with you. Many say the Times is
> liberal but apparently not liberal enough for you.

"Many say" = Fox News Channel and conservatives. The notion of the liberal media myth continues to be torn apart as we witness the mea culpa coming from the media over the propaganda-style drumbeating they did in echoing Bush Administration's calls for war.

> Every word - every comma - has to fit your worldview.

Not at all... just standard, accepted journalistic practices, especially from a paper like the NY Times that should know better by now.

> The article says Maddow "spices her pre-dawn newscast on the
> Air America network with news of the weird." The operative
> word here is "spices." (Merrian Webster: Spice v. To add
> zest or relish to. ) The purpose of a lead, especially in a
> feature story, is to capture the reader's attention or
> interest. But don't let your lack of knowledge of
> journalism get in the way of the axe you wish to grind.

This woman buried the lead. Was the most important or relevant part of the article the Rachel Maddow "news of the weird?" No. It was about how the women of Air America are doing these days. Her "spice" went on like MSG in a bad Chinese restaurant, and it leaves readers with a major mis-impression of what Maddow's show is about.

> Apparently, Randi called someone a "pig" the day the writer
> came for the interview. This is offered as an example of
> her comments. The article does not say she calls EVERY
> conservative broadcaster "a pig" (your re-phrasing).

Apparently you read the article as well as this woman listens to Air America, which is to say "not so much" with the accuracy thing.

"'You're a pig!' she cries at whatever male conservative broadcaster has angered her that day."

Implication: whatever male conservative broadcaster angers her each day on her show is called a pig. True? No.

> Like it or not, most progressive talk stations are on local
> and regional AM channels, most of which are above 1200 on
> the dial. These channels are home mostly to low-powered
> stations which offering ethnic, minority, foreign language
> or religious broadcasts. In markets like New York, major AM
> stations were and are clustered to the more desirable lower
> end of the AM band, and few people ever listened to the
> stations at the "far end." Progressive talk arrived late
> and the best real estate on the radio dial was already
> taken.

Right foot on red. Thanks for the enlightening performance of "Twister." Do you really expect us to believe that this woman actually thought through the allocation of AM frequencies and signals before writing that? Sure you can trim a puzzle piece to make it fit wherever you want, but a true picture that does not make.

I'm sure 50kw stations like WTOP on 1500 or WWKB on 1520 (and many, many others) will take issue with your mischaracterization of anything above 1200 as the "far end" of the dial. The woman wrote not about WLIB (which is on 1190 so that doesn't meet even your odd "1200 on up=far end" rule) but about AAR affiliates in general. She was wrong.

> The New York Times (and other publications) have written
> about the bombastic sytle of many conservative hosts. That
> was not the purpose of this article. And any newspaper
> writer is limited in how much space he/she has to tell the
> story. Newspapers are not blogs where a writer can go on -
> and on.

So apparently the NY Times has room for hyperbole but no room for actual news? Those damn Macy's ads always eating all the news hole space!

> Where's your evidence that AAR is in the black?

I'm not writing for the NY Times, nor am I making an assertion whether AAR is profitable or not. I am asking that a newspaper that makes an assertion or impression back it up with actual proof, not throwaway too cute by half lines "spiced" throughout the article.

> They are a private company and they have not opened the
> books; they don't have to. I would not expect any broadcast
> enterprise in a comparable situation to have turned the
> corner by now. The people who have provided money to start
> AAR have indicated they did not do so to make a profit on an
> investment.

Hey, that might actually be newsworthy enough to put in a news article. But there wasn't room for that because we had to deal with whether Rhodes was on detention during her school years.

> They have added stations, and lost stations. The article
> says AAR programming is heard in 72 cities, which makes it
> clear they do have a net gain.

To those who know the history of AAR that's true. But I assert the average NY Times reader doesn't know that, and it should have been clear.

> The article also indicates that Randi is not comfortable
> with AAR's online fund raising ("she cringes when the
> network rattles the tin cup").

I have no issue with that. Randi routinely criticizes AAR management on her show.

> I would consider the statment AAR's "reputation was shaken"
> to be a fair summary. Maybe not with you, but you seem to
> have more blind faith in AAR than many others. How do you
> know how AAR management (or staff) felt? Or AAR listeners
> for that matter. Talk about making stuff up.

Since this woman actually talked to AAR people for her article, and the story isn't about me writing an article, your points are off point. I would love to know the answers to your questions. The "reporter" never bothered to ask them. But we do know from AAR management that they do not feel their reputation was at all shaken. They've said so. It's a fair summary only in the mind of routine AAR critics like yourself.

> The article was a personality profile on Maddow and Rhodes.
> Therefore what Rhodes did as a kid is more on point. When
> the Business section does an article on the company, they
> are more likely to ask such questions. Talk about
> second-guessing.

So I should be looking for a sidebar on Limbaugh's drug addictions, whether or not Hannity got detention in school, whether O'Reilly really came from the other side of the tracks as he implies? Talk Show Secrets Revealed... Next Maury! Is this what we want from any section of the NY Times?

The NY Times in a NEWSpaper. I understand the nature of the article and the fact it appears in the Arts section. But that doesn't excuse sloppy reporting and errors, no matter how light n' fluffy the article is.

> It is ironic for someone who keeps quoting blogs to talk
> about "sloppy journalism."

This ball not only game out of left field, it came from another ballgame. I quote from blogs when those blog authors claim to be running a fair and balanced news operation and are put on certain news channels as a "talk show analyst" without disclosing the true nature of said blog's political bias. If you call it "news," it had better actually be news.

> It is also hypocritical for
> someone who keeps making statments of opinion to start
> demanding attribution and evidence when others do the same.

If I write a news article, the last thing you'll find in it is my opinion. I believe in the golden rule of newswriting - "who the hell cares what you think." Writing messages in an interactive message forum is such a far cry away from writing for the prestigious NY Times, radio astronomers wouldn't be able to hear it.

If you write a news article and make statements purporting to be fact, you'd better be showing us where you got that.

> Again, this was a feature in the Sunday Arts section. It
> was a "fluff piece," but apparently it was not fluffy enough
> for you. Where AAR is concerned, it seems only abject
> fawning is good enough for you.

Stop calling Psychic Friends Network to try and guess what I think and believe. I wouldn't care if the article was pro-AAR or con-AAR, as long as it was rooted in fact. The facts apparently went missing on Aruba in a lot of this story.

> You have your opinion, fine! But you lose credibility when
> you start charging bias or incompetence because another
> writer draws conclusions different from yours or approaches
> a story differently than you would like to see it
> approached. In your own way, you are as narrow-minded and
> self-righteous as some of the neo-cons and social
> conservatives you oppose.

I presented specific instances of where this article was lacking in actual fact and instead presented throwaway opinion as fact. I don't want the writer to draw conclusions for me. I want the facts presented so I can draw my own conclusions. Apparently in this case, the author decided to go with the same irony that Fox News uses when they say "we report, you decide."

 

[ajhenderson]

Re: Sloppy Criticism

> Apparently you read the article as well as this woman
> listens to Air America, which is to say "not so much" with
> the accuracy thing.
>
> "'You're a pig!' she cries at whatever male conservative
> broadcaster has angered her that day."

"Whatever" meaning the one observed occurence, and "that day" being singular.

> Implication: whatever male conservative broadcaster angers
> her each day on her show is called a pig. True? No.

> I'm sure 50kw stations like WTOP on 1500 or WWKB on 1520
> (and many, many others) will take issue with your
> mischaracterization of anything above 1200 as the "far end"
> of the dial. The woman wrote not about WLIB (which is on
> 1190 so that doesn't meet even your odd "1200 on up=far end"
> rule) but about AAR affiliates in general. She was wrong.

WTOP IS at the far end of the dial, quite close to the glove compartment. It's 50kW won't travel as far as it would on 630 WMAL, which is why they're only 5kW. Those stations were established long ago and benefit from that. However, the proliferation of new stations in the last two decades had nowhere to apply but in the less populated upper band. 1200 isn't a bad assessment.

> The NY Times in a NEWSpaper. I understand the nature of the
> article and the fact it appears in the Arts section. But
> that doesn't excuse sloppy reporting and errors, no matter
> how light n' fluffy the article is.

You need Mauryesque segments to attract young and female readers.

 

[dampier]

Re: Sloppy Criticism

> "Whatever" meaning the one observed occurence, and "that
> day" being singular.

"Whatever" would not have passed muster if used in a singular manner, especially with "that day." Anyone honest with themselves will put the two together and see "whatever" and "that day" clearly implies this is not as isolated incident. If it was isolated, you would have seen something akin to:

"You're a pig" she cries at (name of broadcaster) -or - a male conservative broadcaster who angered her. (You could even throw in that day, but including "whatever" implies more than one in this context.)

> WTOP IS at the far end of the dial, quite close to the glove
> compartment. It's 50kW won't travel as far as it would on
> 630 WMAL, which is why they're only 5kW. Those stations were
> established long ago and benefit from that. However, the
> proliferation of new stations in the last two decades had
> nowhere to apply but in the less populated upper band. 1200
> isn't a bad assessment.

Thank you for playing "missing the point entirely!" Ask yourself whether the author of the article would have known this when writing it.

BTW, in many markets, this theory still wouldn't fly. Rochester has 1180 WHAM which was Rochester's first radio station, with 50kw heard all over the country. Our second station, WHEC-AM ended up on 1460. Our third station WSAY ended up on 1370, all in these upper band frequency ranges long before the AM dial was congested. WTOP is easily audible here in Rochester - WMAL is not. I don't dispute that propagation can impact on stations based on their frequency, but power has a lot more to do with it than frequency when we're talking about a 5 vs. 50kw station. WKBW on 1520 was clearly a legacy station heard all over with plenty of fond memories for those who heard it.

This is a real stretch of an argument to try and justify sloppy writing.

 

[ajhenderson]

Re: Sloppy Criticism

> BTW, in many markets, this theory still wouldn't fly.
> Rochester has 1180 WHAM which was Rochester's first radio
> station, with 50kw heard all over the country. Our second
> station, WHEC-AM ended up on 1460. Our third station WSAY
> ended up on 1370, all in these upper band frequency ranges
> long before the AM dial was congested. WTOP is easily
> audible here in Rochester - WMAL is not. I don't dispute
> that propagation can impact on stations based on their
> frequency, but power has a lot more to do with it than
> frequency when we're talking about a 5 vs. 50kw station.
> WKBW on 1520 was clearly a legacy station heard all over
> with plenty of fond memories for those who heard it.

Of course, stations like 550 in Buffalo do wipe out lower band availabities throughout much of New York. There are exceptions to the upper band rule, but the most number of local frequencies, ie 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, exist above the fold. With only 1kW high up on the dial the lack of interference coverage coming from Class C status, these aren't the best real estate.

In Phoenix, we have a 50kW on 1580 owned by Radio Disney. You'd be right, that's not a bad station. Although still, they weren't the first to the game, because they have a North-South peanut nighttime pattern that has them heard in LA some nights, but not in parts of the valley. KFNX 1100 has 50kW out of far north Cave Creek during the day, but because they've only been around since 1993, their 1kW nighttime pattern cuts off a good part of the metro by night. The best stations have huge coverage at night, too.


> This is a real stretch of an argument to try and justify
> sloppy writing.

I'm not justifying anything; I'm addressing the earlier argument seen above.