OReilly, Colmes, Gallagher talk about AAR

[raccoonradio]

On the Factor. Gallagher gloats about AAR failure, though BOR does say that there are "bitter, angry, disrespectful smear merchants"
on the Right as well as the left. Colmes agrees and says "you have to be entertaining...I do have my
conservative listeners, and liberals", etc.

"Stuart Smalley hasn't been paid lately. Maybe we should take up a collection."

O'Reilly says, as he's said before, "Air America fails because people don't want to hear their
country stinks 24/7..."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJBfhdRv76s

 

[jcolletta275]

Colmes hit the nail on the head: "Entertainment is, the audience likes you regardless of what you think."

And yep, I'm one of those conservatives who listens. I love Colmes' show!

I've seen people on this board claim that you have to be on the right. I've seen them claim that if you're not on the right, you have to pretend to be. I've seen them claim that if neither is true, you have to simply be a moderator and let the callers spout opinions. None of it is true. As long as you run your show in an entertaining fashion, you'll get listeners, regardless of their opinions.

EDIT: I also like Colmes' attitude about not "taking a cheap shot" at AAR. It just shows you how much of a stand-up guy he is (and exposes O'Reilly and Gallagher as they go ahead and take the shots themselves!).

 

[dampier]

Dupe thread... already being discussed in the AAR bankruptcy thread.

People seriously need to put more effort into not starting new threads about topics already being covered elsewhere.

 

[mr_arbitron]

And your explanation why Mullah Mike Malloy is still prominently displayed on Err Amerika's website is....

If he got fired, would it not make sense for the web master to cut him out of the website?

...Or... could it be they can't afford to pay the webmaster?

... Or is it your normal excuse that there's no proof that Mullah Malloy was fired and Err Amerika has financial problems, and George Bush put a mask on Atta and the Jews left the WTC before the plane hit, and then all the passengers in Ohio were taken off the plane and confined in Gitmo, and Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olsen was recently arrested in Europe although she died in the Pentagon crash, but your fave rave website Tom Flocco .com said it was Barbara Olsen who had lots of money, and we need AAR to expose the 9-1-1 conspiracy.

whew... I need a break

 

[dampier]

And your explanation why Mullah Mike Malloy is still prominently displayed on Err Amerika's website is....

Who are you replying to... if anyone? Mike Malloy is an atheist, so calling him a mullah isn't one of your brighter moves.

...Or... could it be they can't afford to pay the webmaster?

Maybe Al Franken has him tied up in his basement.

... Or is it your normal excuse that there's no proof that Mullah Malloy was fired and Err Amerika has financial problems, and George Bush put a mask on Atta and the Jews left the WTC before the plane hit, and then all the passengers in Ohio were taken off the plane and confined in Gitmo, and Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olsen was recently arrested in Europe although she died in the Pentagon crash, but your fave rave website Tom Flocco .com said it was Barbara Olsen who had lots of money, and we need AAR to expose the 9-1-1 conspiracy.

See, this is what happens when you overdose on talking points. And who are you replying to and what does any of this have to do with this subject.

 

[arnoldevns]

Colmes hit the nail on the head: "Entertainment is, the audience likes you regardless of what you think."

And yep, I'm one of those conservatives who listens. I love Colmes' show!

I've seen people on this board claim that you have to be on the right. I've seen them claim that if you're not on the right, you have to pretend to be. I've seen them claim that if neither is true, you have to simply be a moderator and let the callers spout opinions. None of it is true. As long as you run your show in an entertaining fashion, you'll get listeners, regardless of their opinions.

Air America has failed because it is not good radio. The premise of the network was all wrong. They started out trying to find liberal celebrities that might draw a crowd to a show. What they didn't do was find good talk show hosts who could make good radio and sustain an audience for 3 hours a day/ 5 days a week. The political slant of the hosts should have been a secondary consideration - as it always should be.

Clear Channel is apparently trying to create their own liberal network now that it looks like Air America will go belly up. CC will fail too if they don't find good talk show host first, who secondarily happen to be liberal.

 

[fred flintstone]

Clear Channel is apparently trying to create their own liberal network now that it looks like Air America will go belly up. CC will fail too if they don't find good talk show host first, who secondarily happen to be liberal.

What have you seen (and where) to conclude that?

 

[raccoonradio]

>>What they didn't do was find good talk show hosts who could make good radio and sustain an audience for 3 hours a day/ 5 days a week.

Agreed.
I enjoyed Colmes old afternoon show, and briefly got to hear his Fox News Channel show on WRKO/Boston
for a few months during the Afghan War, etc. Not too bad.

 

[Scribbler]

On the Factor. Gallagher gloats about AAR failure, though BOR does say that there are "bitter, angry, disrespectful smear merchants"
on the Right as well as the left. Colmes agrees and says "you have to be entertaining...I do have my
conservative listeners, and liberals", etc.

O'Reilly says, as he's said before, "Air America fails because people don't want to hear their
country stinks 24/7..."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJBfhdRv76s

Franken played this clip on his show the other day and laughed about it. He pointed out that, according to Talkers magazine, he has more listeners than Colmes -- and also said that he beats O'Reilly's radio show in two-thirds of the markets where they're both heard.

 

[DougD]

I don't know why O'Reilly and their ilk get so worked up about AAR.

I see BOR's stern face as he regularly "updates" Factor viewers about "how AAR is hurting again."

It's like he wants to rub salt in their wounds or kick dirt in their face.

Come off it, Bill. Get a life. You really show your lack of class when you go after the little guys.

So what if AAR is having problems? Is it THAT important to get all worked up about?

I for the record like BOR AND AAR.

 

[evnlee]

I love Colmes' show!

I've seen people on this board claim that you have to be on the right. I've seen them claim that if you're not on the right, you have to pretend to be. I've seen them claim that if neither is true, you have to simply be a moderator and let the callers spout opinions. None of it is true. As long as you run your show in an entertaining fashion, you'll get listeners, regardless of their opinions.

EDIT: I also like Colmes' attitude about not "taking a cheap shot" at AAR. It just shows you how much of a stand-up guy he is (and exposes O'Reilly and Gallagher as they go ahead and take the shots themselves!).

Great points, Josh. I enjoy Colmes as well, when he's not being shouted over on Fox TV.

But, boy do the lefties HATE Colmes with a white hot passion ( almost as much as Bush ) for doing exactly what you said: being relatively entertaining and refusing to go for the cheap shot ( like the 'talent' at AAR does regularly_

 

[kaufcom]

But, boy do the lefties HATE Colmes with a white hot passion ( almost as much as Bush ) for doing exactly what you said: being relatively entertaining and refusing to go for the cheap shot ( like the 'talent' at AAR does regularly_

You're the only one taking "cheap shots" Colmes is not more "entertaining" than AAR hosts because you say so. The reason "lefties" don't like Colmes is because he has sold his soul to the devil (Fox News) and Sean Hannity. Most observers agree that he is used as foil to react to Hannity's blustering on Fox. He has spent the last five years (during the first three he was the only "liberal" syndicasted talk show host) blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio while he was cleaning up as the token liberal talker. Is it not surprising that liberals on this board can't stand Colmes, and convervatives like you love him. Think about that one.

 

[evnlee]

But, boy do the lefties HATE Colmes with a white hot passion ( almost as much as Bush ) for doing exactly what you said: being relatively entertaining and refusing to go for the cheap shot ( like the 'talent' at AAR does regularly_

You're the only one taking "cheap shots" Colmes is not more "entertaining" than AAR hosts because you say so. The reason "lefties" don't like Colmes is because he has sold his soul to the devil (Fox News) and Sean Hannity. Most observers agree that he is used as foil to react to Hannity's blustering on Fox. He has spent the last five years (during the first three he was the only "liberal" syndicasted talk show host) blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio while he was cleaning up as the token liberal talker. Is it not surprising that liberals on this board can't stand Colmes, and convervatives like you love him. Think about that one.

Baroosk, are you off your meds again?
Re read your comment above. I praise a liberal talker that I find entertaining.(Like Stephanie Miller.) Sound very conservative to you? Yeah, I thought so....
A guy with deep roots in talk radio, when he was on WABC he got ratings any AAR host would KILL for. 2 decades of radio experience in major markets.
You claim he has been 'blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio', yet when given the chance to do so on cable TV's highest rated news show, he declines.
Furthermore, who is to blame for the failure of liberal talk radio OTHER then liberals?Please clarify that little gem for us. :

I think you hate Colmes becuase he exposes how shallow your intellect is. He proudly calls himself a 'liberal' , and chastises those that would relabel themselves 'progressives'. He wrote a book titles 'Red,White, and Liberal' for petes sake. He is watched by 2 million people everynight and is on WWRL in the #1 radio market....Wonder how his numbers fare next to AAR in his time slot?

 

[fred flintstone]

I think you hate Colmes becuase he exposes how shallow your intellect is. He proudly calls himself a 'liberal' , and chastises those that would relabel themselves 'progressives'. He wrote a book titles 'Red,White, and Liberal' for petes sake. He is watched by 2 million people everynight and is on WWRL in the #1 radio market....Wonder how his numbers fare next to AAR in his time slot?

No, they hate Colmes because he doesn't hit Hannity back.

On WWRL? I guess you have not been keep up with your homework the last few weeks.

I wonder how Colmes' numbers compare next to Lionel in that time slot. Oh, yes. I know. Lionel kicks his butt.

 

[jcolletta275]

I think you hate Colmes becuase he exposes how shallow your intellect is. He proudly calls himself a 'liberal' , and chastises those that would relabel themselves 'progressives'. He wrote a book titles 'Red,White, and Liberal' for petes sake. He is watched by 2 million people everynight and is on WWRL in the #1 radio market....Wonder how his numbers fare next to AAR in his time slot?

No, they hate Colmes because he doesn't hit Hannity back.

Unfortunately, that's the way the show is set up. However, I frankly happen to think Colmes has the upper hand in his debating tactics on the TV show: he makes his point, then sits back and won't argue it when he knows he's done so. If you're actually paying attention, it makes him look like he knows he's won the argument (even if he's wrong and/or you disagree with him).

Hannity, while I agree with him much more often than I do Colmes, has a tendency to beat his point into the heads of anyone who disagrees with him on the show. He doesn't do so that much on his radio show... while it does happen, more often he'll just sit back and let whoever is arguing against him stumble all over themselves. Why he doesn't do that on the TV show I'll never understand.

But Colmes, to me, comes across as less vitriolic and smarter than his partner on the TV show, simply because he does what Hannity does on his radio show: once he feels he's proven his point, he moves on. It's not that he doesn't "hit Hannity back," he just feels his point has been made, he's correct, and that it's time to move to the next topic.

Again, I think it makes him look more intelligent.

 

[fred flintstone]

Unfortunately, that's the way the show is set up. However, I frankly happen to think Colmes has the upper hand in his debating tactics on the TV show: he makes his point, then sits back and won't argue it when he knows he's done so. If you're actually paying attention, it makes him look like he knows he's won the argument (even if he's wrong and/or you disagree with him).

Hannity, while I agree with him much more often than I do Colmes, has a tendency to beat his point into the heads of anyone who disagrees with him on the show. He doesn't do so that much on his radio show... while it does happen, more often he'll just sit back and let whoever is arguing against him stumble all over themselves. Why he doesn't do that on the TV show I'll never understand.

But Colmes, to me, comes across as less vitriolic and smarter than his partner on the TV show, simply because he does what Hannity does on his radio show: once he feels he's proven his point, he moves on. It's not that he doesn't "hit Hannity back," he just feels his point has been made, he's correct, and that it's time to move to the next topic.

Again, I think it makes him look more intelligent.

Gee, just like some people on this board. :

 

[jcolletta275]

That's why I took a break from this board for a while... I needed to get away from all the stress

 

[kaufcom]

You're the only one taking "cheap shots" Colmes is not more "entertaining" than AAR hosts because you say so. The reason "lefties" don't like Colmes is because he has sold his soul to the devil (Fox News) and Sean Hannity. Most observers agree that he is used as foil to react to Hannity's blustering on Fox. He has spent the last five years (during the first three he was the only "liberal" syndicasted talk show host) blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio while he was cleaning up as the token liberal talker. Is it not surprising that liberals on this board can't stand Colmes, and convervatives like you love him. Think about that one.

evnlee said

You claim he has been 'blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio', yet when given the chance to do so on cable TV's highest rated news show, he declines.

I attended several talk radio events prior to AAR's launch. Colmes was always the only liberal on talk radio panels. His position was to consistently blame liberals for their failure to launch successful talk shows. All the time, he eagerly cashed his checks from Fox News.

Furthermore, who is to blame for the failure of liberal talk radio OTHER then liberals?Please clarify that little gem for us. :

Lib Talk is not a failure. Two and half years ago there was one syndicated liberal talker --Alan Colmes. Today there are over a dozen. Despite the well documented financial problems of AAR, liberal talk is doing very well and ratings are their growing better than conservative talk.

I think you hate Colmes becuase he exposes how shallow your intellect is.

I don't "hate" Alan Colmes and when I met in New York a few months ago he never mentioned that I was shallow.

 

[fred flintstone]

What Is Failure?

Baroosk, are you off your meds again?

A guy with deep roots in talk radio, when he was on WABC he got ratings any AAR host would KILL for. 2 decades of radio experience in major markets.
You claim he has been 'blaming liberals for the failure of liberal talk radio', yet when given the chance to do so on cable TV's highest rated news show, he declines.
Furthermore, who is to blame for the failure of liberal talk radio OTHER then liberals?Please clarify that little gem for us. :

He didn't get ratings for WABC good enough for WABC. Neither did a long string of other morning drive hosts and teams, His WABC ratings were not quite up to what Thom Hartmann gets in Portland (and Hartmann hasn't had to kill anyone yet). One of the failed WABC morning teams was Curtis and Lisa Sliwa. After that Curtis bounced around New York radio (the mayor even forced the local public radio station to give him a show at one point) until they paired him with liberal Ron Kuby; the most successful morning show WABC has ever had since they were Top40. Ron Kuby works with a conservative host without being (or looking like) a foil/sounding-board/punching bag - and still doing a show that does not deteriorate to Jane-you-ignorant-slut level of dialogue. Ron Kuby really should be getting a lot more national attention - and maybe his own show.

OK, Even: Whom do YOU blame for the "failure" of liberal talk radio? Please don't waste our time by saying it failed because it's liberal. There are more than enough liberals in this country to support a successful radio format. And please include your grounds for declaring "failure."

 

[evnlee]

Re: What Is Failure?

OK, Even: Whom do YOU blame for the "failure" of liberal talk radio? Please don't waste our time by saying it failed because it's liberal. There are more than enough liberals in this country to support a successful radio format. And please include your grounds for declaring "failure."

I've never claimed AAR failed ( or is in the process of doing so ) because of thier message. And I did not state the original 'failed at talk radio' comment, I was just responding to it.
My problem with AAR is how they went about it in the first place. I think everyone on this board might agree that the reason AAR was launched was as a response to the success of Limbaugh and conservative talk. Well, the forces behind AAR decided to mimic what Limbaugh was doing rather then find the established liberal talents and use them against him. They went to find people who had not cut thier milk teeth in radio, and these people just copied what Limbaugh was doing, and poorly.
One of the reasons I think Miller is so popular is because her program is not ' all left. all day.' She talks about non political things all the time. Now Rush may do this ( example: NFL ) but he puts his ideological crap, I.E McNabb sucks right into it. Miller gets you with subtlety, not substance.
Then AAR does everything wrong, from the financing, to the imaging, everything. That's got to hold back liberal talk, not help it. The first major attempt at doing this should have been done right, off the bat. All that press, all the $$$, and it just stinks. They could have really made a run at it, but they just continue to drop the ball.
Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts :-X