• 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

Radio UnEqualizer Trashing AAR (Again)

D

dampier

If anyone had any doubt about the credibility and balance of Brian Maloney, there isn't any doubt anymore.

In today's delightful "piece" on AAR, we have yet another example of a page torn directly out of the right wing echo chamber hit piece notebook. The only thing right about his column is when he admits he's wrong. I'm not going to go into the "scandal" issue, as there continues to be no new reports about that. But his attack on Randi Rhodes and the ridiculous accusation that AAR is using Cyndi Sheehan is something new.

You can't get father away from "fair and balanced" with:

"Why have so few on the left been willing to admit Air America Radio might be an ideological liability?"

"Air America's own strategy is now about diversionary tactics, with Cindy Sheehan's rabid supporters in Crawford and one of the network's hosts providing needed cover."

"Is this simply another phase in the left's ongoing public meltdown?"

"Privately, there must be a number of concerned Democrats and liberals, wondering just how this is going to ultimately play out. Sadly for them, it's not likely to fade soon." -- At least he hopes not.

From the "Complete Fabrication" Department:

"Host Randi Rhodes, previously investigated for alleged Presidential threats made on her show, is said to be leading the charge." - This is a complete lie first reported on The Drudge Report and quickly debunked by the NY office of the Secret Service who said there was no investigation into Randi Rhodes or AAR. Truth doesn't matter in the right wing echo chamber.

The Al Franken cartoon implying "it was only $875,000." Franken has never said anything like this. In fact, Franken believes that AAR has a moral obligation over this matter.

It's extra fun when you can witness the lie right before you:

"The Radio Equalizer has obtained a memo outlining her demands." He then reprints the alleged memo. Anyone care to let us know where in it she demands anything?


Whose the source?

When you want to insert your own opinion and try to give it credibility, you simply attribute it to someone else anonymously. Brian doesn't even bother with that:

"Air America's management was said to be thrilled by the positive Post coverage, especially since the paper has avoided covering the Gloria Wise scandal, even though Washington has an Air America station." Who said AAR management was thrilled?


This guy is rapidly becoming the Tucker Carlson of bloggers - lightweight, usually wrong, and utterly irrelevant.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2005/08/monday-air-america-scandal-updates.html#comments

<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by dampier on 08/16/05 09:33 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> If anyone had any doubt about the credibility and balance of
> Brian Maloney, there isn't any doubt anymore.

Your rant belongs in the comments section of Maloney's web site, not here. Why are you trying to debate him in a forum he likely doesn't even read?
 
> If anyone had any doubt about the credibility and balance of
> Brian Maloney, there isn't any doubt anymore.
>
> In today's delightful "piece" on AAR, we have yet another
> example of a page torn directly out of the right wing echo
> chamber hit piece notebook. The only thing right about his
> column is when he admits he's wrong. I'm not going to go
> into the "scandal" issue, as there continues to be no new
> reports about that. But his attack on Randi Rhodes and the
> ridiculous accusation that AAR is using Cyndi Sheehan is
> something new.
>
> You can't get father away from "fair and balanced" with:
>
> "Why have so few on the left been willing to admit Air
> America Radio might be an ideological liability?"
>
> "Air America's own strategy is now about diversionary
> tactics, with Cindy Sheehan's rabid supporters in Crawford
> and one of the network's hosts providing needed cover."
>
> "Is this simply another phase in the left's ongoing public
> meltdown?"
>
> "Privately, there must be a number of concerned Democrats
> and liberals, wondering just how this is going to ultimately
> play out. Sadly for them, it's not likely to fade soon." --
> At least he hopes not.
>
> From the "Complete Fabrication" Department:
>
> "Host Randi Rhodes, previously investigated for alleged
> Presidential threats made on her show, is said to be leading
> the charge." - This is a complete lie first reported on The
> Drudge Report and quickly debunked by the NY office of the
> Secret Service who said there was no investigation into
> Randi Rhodes or AAR. Truth doesn't matter in the right wing
> echo chamber.
>
> The Al Franken cartoon implying "it was only $875,000."
> Franken has never said anything like this. In fact, Franken
> believes that AAR has a moral obligation over this matter.
>
> It's extra fun when you can witness the lie right before
> you:
>
> "The Radio Equalizer has obtained a memo outlining her
> demands." He then reprints the alleged memo. Anyone care
> to let us know where in it she demands anything?
>
>
> Whose the source?
>
> When you want to insert your own opinion and try to give it
> credibility, you simply attribute it to someone else
> anonymously. Brian doesn't even bother with that:
>
> "Air America's management was said to be thrilled by the
> positive Post coverage, especially since the paper has
> avoided covering the Gloria Wise scandal, even though
> Washington has an Air America station." Who said AAR
> management was thrilled?
>
>
> This guy is rapidly becoming the Tucker Carlson of bloggers
> - lightweight, usually wrong, and utterly irrelevant.
>
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.> com/2005/08/monday-air-america-scandal-updates.html#comments
>


It all boils down to spite.

The people at AAR have jobs, he doesn't. He's basically become a grouchy blogger with a chip on his shoulder.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>
 
> It all boils down to spite.
>
> The people at AAR have jobs, he doesn't. He's basically
> become a grouchy blogger with a chip on his shoulder.

He's a nobody. If it weren't for the publicity he gets on radio-info.com, I wouldn't know he was alive.
 
> Your rant belongs in the comments section of Maloney's web
> site, not here. Why are you trying to debate him in a forum
> he likely doesn't even read?

He does read this board, because he's trashed it before. And with several posts here linking to Maloney's blog, I think it's fine to debate its merits. If anyone wants to criticize Talkers, too, go for it.
 
> > It all boils down to spite.
> >
> > The people at AAR have jobs, he doesn't. He's basically
> > become a grouchy blogger with a chip on his shoulder.
>
> He's a nobody. If it weren't for the publicity he gets on
> radio-info.com, I wouldn't know he was alive.

Actually, a lot of his traffic comes from conservative blogs, which is probably why his blog has become the way it is. He's just appealing to his core audience. I used to have it bookmarked when it first started, because while he made his ideology clear and was always talking about how AAR is doomed, he seemed sort of reasonable, at least in the comments section. Oh well.
 
> Your rant belongs in the comments section of Maloney's web
> site, not here. Why are you trying to debate him in a forum
> he likely doesn't even read?

I actually added largely the same remarks over there. My point in doing this is that I've seen people in here repeatedly post things from this guy and claim he's an unbiased credible journalist, especially when it comes to AAR. His latest piece on AAR is the closing of the coffin on anyone in this forum who tries to use his stuff and claim in the same breath he's a credible source.
 
"Malkin and Maloney's reporting are the blog journalism at its best"
http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2005/08/special-report-by-maloney-and-malkin.html

Brian, and Michelle Malkin, to the rescue. Had a conservative talkhost been involved in something like this Air America scandal, the mainstream media would be all over it.

Brent Bozell:
"ABC gave the Air America debut a morning news story, an evening news story and an entire broadcast of "Nightline." Coverage of their scandal? None.

"CBS promoted the launch in brief anchor mentions, and then aired a long profile of Air America star Al Franken on "Sunday Morning." Scandal coverage? Zip.

"NBC highlighted the launch with a Franken interview in the morning, and an evening news story. Scandal coverage? Nothing.

"NPR promoted the launch on their talk show "Talk of the Nation," as well as their evening news show "All Things Considered," but then aired a critique of their programming on the same show a few weeks later from Michael Harrison. Scandal coverage? Zero.

"Then there's CNN, which aired Air America start-up stories in heavy rotation on the weekend before the network debut, as well as promotional stories across their prime-time lineup on Debut Day."

<P ID="signature">______________
News and views about Boston and New England Radio:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/boston_radio</P>
 
I still don't undrestand what agenda the networks or other MSM or have. Could it just be that AAR is a stale subject? AAR has discussed the scandal and put out a press release. They have about as much love for Cohen as your typical republican has for Bill Clinton. The rise *and fall* of AAR was much publicized if I remember correctly. It's rise again has had less coverage. The paper in my area was practically attacked by bloggers for not putting the story on the front page. I wouldn't have minded. The story is about a crooked CEO who takes advantage of trusting liberals who he lied to, now it is discovered that he accepted improper loans from a boys and girls club that was also run by crooks. AAR, now under new ownership after practically being bankrupted by Cohen, is paying back the loan and providing the charity with free exposure. No one at AAR is denying that anything improper happened. Just the opposite: they are calling Cohen a crook. This would be the ethical equivalent of Bush firing Rove and calling him a crook.

Whether or not MSM would care if a conservative talk show syndicator like Premiere had a crooked former CEO who accepted improper loans from a charity is unclear to me. Have we seen this happen? Any examples? If Franken or the rest of the hosts were accused of sexual harrassment or drug abuse I bet it would hit the papers. One story is juicy the other is boring...

> "Malkin and Maloney's reporting are the blog journalism at
> its best"
http://tapscottscopydesk.bl> ogspot.com/2005/08/special-report-by-maloney-and-malkin.html
>
>
> Brian, and Michelle Malkin, to the rescue. Had a
> conservative talkhost been involved in something like this
> Air America scandal, the mainstream media would be all over
> it.
>
> Brent Bozell:
> "ABC gave the Air America debut a morning news story, an
> evening news story and an entire broadcast of "Nightline."
> Coverage of their scandal? None.
>
> "CBS promoted the launch in brief anchor mentions, and then
> aired a long profile of Air America star Al Franken on
> "Sunday Morning." Scandal coverage? Zip.
>
> "NBC highlighted the launch with a Franken interview in the
> morning, and an evening news story. Scandal coverage?
> Nothing.
>
> "NPR promoted the launch on their talk show "Talk of the
> Nation," as well as their evening news show "All Things
> Considered," but then aired a critique of their programming
> on the same show a few weeks later from Michael Harrison.
> Scandal coverage? Zero.
>
> "Then there's CNN, which aired Air America start-up stories
> in heavy rotation on the weekend before the network debut,
> as well as promotional stories across their prime-time
> lineup on Debut Day."
>
 
> I actually added largely the same remarks over there. My
> point in doing this is that I've seen people in here
> repeatedly post things from this guy and claim he's an
> unbiased credible journalist

Who? Please cite a reference from someone on this web site calling Maloney a "unbiased credible journalist." Otherwise I would have to assume you're just trying to debate in an empty room and assuming you've won the argument when you don't hear a contrary opinion.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom