Randi Signs New Four Year Deal with AAR

[fred flintstone]

All Access

Rhodes Re-Ups With Air America Radio
RANDI RHODES told her AIR AMERICA RADIO audience THURSDAY (6/22) that she's signed a new four-year contract with the network. She also indicated that two unnamed members of the show's writing staff will be leaving but that she is hopeful that they will return with another show on the network.

After two plus years of being underappreciated, let's hope Randi's agent really stuck it to AAR for a big chunck of the Drobny's money. She is the best on air talent they have and despite the continued puffing of Franken, probably their biggest draw. The bad news is her writing staff is being cut. Apparently AAR hasn't figured out even the most talented hosts need prep - lots of prep.

 

[Gnarlodious]

Can't really shed a tear over this change, Randi is such a monotonous talker I wish she only had one hour. Seems like I usually turn her off because she's repeating herself, and then I turn it on 20 minutes later and she is STILL repeating herself!

I figure if she only had one hour she could say the same amount in less time and words. Maybe a new writer would help.

 

[Scribbler]

Can't really shed a tear over this change, Randi is such a monotonous talker I wish she only had one hour. Seems like I usually turn her off because she's repeating herself, and then I turn it on 20 minutes later and she is STILL repeating herself!

I figure if she only had one hour she could say the same amount in less time and words. Maybe a new writer would help.

Gotta agree with you about the repetition. She often opens her show with one topic and then beats it death, hour after hour. I find myself switching to public radio if I'm in the car or listening to an archived Hartmann show otherwise. But her repetition has little or nothing to do with writers -- the writers work on the produced bits that open each hour.

 

[dampier]

Rhodes is doing a four hour drive time show. The average listener is lucky to hear an hour of her program - that's why there is repetition. Not a whole lot of people stick around for the whole show. The issue here is that she doesn't like to do hard topic changes every hour like some shows do. She's talked about this on the air before, and she does it partly to stick it to stations like the one in Miami who airs her show out of order or repeat parts of the program the following day. She already loathes being moved for Ed Schultz, so she doesn't make it easy for stations by running compact hour segments that change topics with the passing of each hour (you can then run those hour segments as stand alone shows or mix the hours up for best-ofs or partial runs.)

She also goes out of her way to tell listeners "in the last hour you heard" which annoys the hell out of PDs and others who don't run her whole show. She knows it and has literally told them "screw you - run the show or don't." She is a hellcat for affiliate relations because she has always felt underappreciated considering the ratings she often manages to pull for stations who then move her show to evenings or split it up. The only hosts I have heard trash their radio affiliates more is the old Don & Mike show who vilified stations who dropped their show. The thing about Randi is, she doesn't care. Her listener fans love her for that. She will openly trash stations who run her show out of sequence (WINZ Miami being a popular favorite), but she also trashes AAR management when appropriate as well. That's why Rhodes is the best source for news about what is going on inside of AAR. She doesn't have the Unequalizer's built-in bias and need to earn a living trashing AAR, and she's not afraid to trash anyone who treats her poorly (Michael Moore being a good example).

She needs some better organization, but more importantly, she needs a lot of vacation time (she's out this upcoming week). She burns out more rapidly than any of the other hosts and you can tell it when she gets extra repetitive or bi*chy - she's worn out.

 

[SaltyDog]

"she does it partly to stick it to stations like the one in Miami"
"she doesn't make it easy for stations by running compact hour segments"
"She also goes out of her way to tell listeners "in the last hour you heard" which annoys the hell out of PDs"
"She knows it and has literally told them "screw you - run the show or don't."
"The thing about Randi is, she doesn't care. "
"She will openly trash stations who run her show out of sequence"

With a career-management style like that, she is putting a lot of pressure on herself to generate ratings for her affiliates. No reason to put up with her unless they are being hugely compensated. Is she worth it? We'll see.

 

[kaufcom]

I use to be a big Randi Rhodes fan. I listened to her on-line when she was doing her local show on WJNO in West Palm and problem three or four times a week on AAR. Now I can barely take her for more than 30 minutes at time. Like a lot of liberal hosts she is too obsessed with the War in Iraq. Yes, it is the biggest political issue, but not the only one. How many times does one have to listen to the famous Bushism "There is not connection between Osama Bin Laden and 9-11" or the Rumsfeld quote that "I doubt the war (in Iraq) will last six months."

When she does wander off the war talk, she makes at total ass of herself. Her only comment of the immigration issue is that Bush made some kind of deal with Mexican President Fox when he met with him in 2001.

She seems to think that Bush is either gay or having an affair with Condeleeza Rice. What's that all about?

Now she has lost her writers so we won't have a guaranteed segment of comic relief at least once an hour.

Randi's show has gotten so bad that I now am even listening to Al Franken.

 

[fred flintstone]

Before somebody says this is speculation, I'll say it. This is speculation. But it's happened before. Randi signs a new contract. It is not unreasonable to assume she is getting more money with the new contract. So maybe AAR management pays for the raise by cutting two writers from the shows budget? This is one of AAR's two best performing shows - if not the best performing show. I share Baroosk's concern that the show could turn into an extended Randi rant without a reduced writing staff (who likely do more than just write comedy bits, but also do show prep, and pre-interviews). AAR needs to put their chips on a probable winner.

I think, for example, AAR could get more live clearances for Randi. I don't know the specifics of P1's deal with Clear Channel for Ed Schultz but there are some markets where Ed likely does better and some where Randi would probably do better. Particularly in the Northeast Corridor, AAR should make Randi's show as strong as possible and work to get it cleared in PM drive.

 

[robbbc]

The major clearance that would help the most for Randi live would be WKOX in Boston. The PD there is against it as Ed is his biggest money getter. The only hope is that another CC station wants Ed in the area and it opens up the time slot. The Portland ME station, the WHMP Trimulcast in the Hampshire valley, Brattelboro and Burlington VT station carry Randi Live. The rest of New England Libtalkers are a hodge podge unlikely to change and are so low power they wouldn't be worth the effort to get switched from 6-10 to 3-7. With a 50kW WKOX on the Horizon any station between Providence and Portland has lost any interest in flipping to libtalk.

 

[dampier]

[With a career-management style like that, she is putting a lot of pressure on herself to generate ratings for her affiliates. No reason to put up with her unless they are being hugely compensated. Is she worth it? We'll see.

She is pulling bigger ratings than Franken in some markets, so she is the natural future star of AAR if/when Franken moves on.

I use to be a big Randi Rhodes fan. I listened to her on-line when she was doing her local show on WJNO in West Palm and problem three or four times a week on AAR. Now I can barely take her for more than 30 minutes at time. Like a lot of liberal hosts she is too obsessed with the War in Iraq. Yes, it is the biggest political issue, but not the only one. How many times does one have to listen to the famous Bushism "There is not connection between Osama Bin Laden and 9-11" or the Rumsfeld quote that "I doubt the war (in Iraq) will last six months."

Since Iraq is the number one issue in the country, there is no doubt about what will be the number one topic on a lot of radio shows - liberal or conservative. Since conservatives have tried to connect 9/11 with Saddam repeatedly, it's no surprise Randi debunks that theory repeatedly as well.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Fully agree with Fred on the market stuff.

We need Big Eddie live here in Ohio to attract more gun-toting meat-eaters to the cause.

And both he and Randi have made considerable listeners gains. Randi just made the Talkers Magazine Top 25, and Big Eddie has gained a million listeners.

I predict the two will compete live in Columbus eventually. This, of course, depends on if Limbaugh has any further drug-induced episodes. Longtime local host John Corby competes with Ed now and would make a great replacement if Rush finds himself behind bars.

Hannity is on tape delay here opposite the Majority Report and Lionel, both of which have seen a ratings gain. That's while the station carrying Rush and Hannity sees its ratings continue to drop.

In the meantime, we're all content here as long as nobody messes with Stephanie Miller.

 

[Gnarlodious]

Hartmann a more likely candidate...

> She is pulling bigger ratings than Franken in some markets, so she is the natural future star of AAR if/when Franken moves on.

I disagree. I think Thom Hartmann is being groomed for the role. Thom has gotten tremendous exposure from subbing multiple slots, and I hear other AAR talkers repeating what Thom has been saying for weeks already because his research and strategy is more advanced. All AAR has to do is air his national show which is already on AAR 2. Thom is very modest about it on air, but he has a constant stream of callers who say they wish he was a full-timer. Thom is a good choice too, since his politics are more moderate than the wacko Florida Brooklynite.

 

[dampier]

Re: Hartmann a more likely candidate...

[I disagree. I think Thom Hartmann is being groomed for the role. Thom has gotten tremendous exposure from subbing multiple slots, and I hear other AAR talkers repeating what Thom has been saying for weeks already because his research and strategy is more advanced. All AAR has to do is air his national show which is already on AAR 2. Thom is very modest about it on air, but he has a constant stream of callers who say they wish he was a full-timer. Thom is a good choice too, since his politics are more moderate than the wacko Florida Brooklynite.

Being a sub host and having a syndicated show not on the AAR network feed primary lineup does not make you groomed for a new "star host" especially without any proven radio ratings success. He doesn't have the star power draw that the AAR talent that got all the attention early on got, and if you are going to go for money results with two "non-star power" hosts, Randi is going to win that contest. She has been alluding to a whole pack of extra goodies and recognition she is getting in her four year contract, and while not being super specific, she has hinted at Weezie & George Jefferson's "moving on up" if Al leaves.

Hartmann will have a place on AAR's primary lineup if/when a show is dropped. We know it's not Springer, because he has a one year contract renewal (hardly a vote of confidence there). Hartmann could be running overnight right now instead of AAR overnight repeats.

 

[fred flintstone]

"Star Power" really hasn't done that well for them. The strongest person in the AAR's network line-up is the one slighted at the beginning because she wasn't a "name." Rush wasn't a "star" (outside Sacramento) when he started either.

AAR may have a contract with Jerry but the stations don't. The way things are going, he may end up with only Sirius, the markets where competing stations have Stephanie Miller and the weak-stick, small market stations which can't switch channels on their satellite receivers without a board op.

And AAR got attention early on through: (1) Novelty. (It will never fly.) (2) Incompetence. (Only on for two weeks and already bounced off two of their four stations.)

 

[Gnarlodious]

Big Eddie's widening audience...

> We need Big Eddie live here in Ohio to attract more gun-toting meat-eaters to the cause.
Interesting statement. I heard Doug Stephan, who is a moderate conservative, say this morning that he listened to Ed Schultz and one of his political rants which he described as "pretty thought provoking and entertaining". Doug is an independent thinker, and I could hear in his voice he was impressed with Big Ed.

So Ed Schultz is attracting a much wider audience than your standard operational liberal, and meanwhile "liberals" are castigating Ed for betraying the cause.

Stand by for an emerging trend...

 

[dampier]

Re: Big Eddie's widening audience...

So Ed Schultz is attracting a much wider audience than your standard operational liberal, and meanwhile "liberals" are castigating Ed for betraying the cause.

Stand by for an emerging trend...

There isn't a groundswell of hatred for Schultz in the liberal community. He's not Alan Colmes. Most of the strife with Schultz has to do with his rivalry with Randi Rhodes. Her fans often despise him because his show runs live and hers is moved or cut back (this was a very big deal with the original XM left channel which slashed Randi's show.) He is not a verbally combative host, which means he won't argue with the red meat conservative crowd which makes people think of Colmes, and he attacked a few liberal groups because they attacked Democrats who voted for the credit card industry bailout bill (like they needed help). That latter point really got people hot because Schultz's parent entity received direct funding from the Democratic party which ties him much more closely with establishment Democrats. The blogosphere movement is where you'll find most Schultz critics because they are opposed to some of the establishment Democrats.

However, given the choice between Schultz and right wing talk, liberals will listen to and support Ed Schultz, so don't overstate the disagreement.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: Big Eddie's widening audience...

Most of the strife with Schultz has to do with his rivalry with Randi Rhodes. Her fans often despise him because his show runs live and hers is moved or cut back (this was a very big deal with the original XM left channel which slashed Randi's show.) He is not a verbally combative host, which means he won't argue with the red meat conservative crowd

Randi Rhodes has a rivalry with Big Ed. Not the other way around. Ed is a gentleman. Randi is a whining, kvetching princess.
Big Ed was first into national syndication. Not Randi. If anyone is poaching, it's Randi.
And because Big Ed is a gentleman he is put down by rabid political zealots who glorify rudeness and personal attack.
The truth is "the choir" hates it when somebody doesn't preach to it - and only to it.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Re: Big Eddie's widening audience...

The truth is "the choir" hates it when somebody doesn't preach to it - and only to it.

Are you reading my mind or something?

As I posted elsewhere on the board, I'm not really in "the choir". I started listening in the format to Randi, who is very talented and, at the time she launched on AAR, was a mile and a half better than all of that network's host (and still is, within that company). But it seems the personal drama and the "diva" attitude has grown with her...and she's now more strident and less humorous than she was at launch.

I still am not really enamored with "Big Ed's" cornpoke, "sportsman from the heartland" act that seems aimed at Middle America. (Yes, I know he's really like that.) I'd still, if pressed with a direct choice, listen to Randi over Ed (though I don't really listen to either now - our local libtalker runs them in the usual CC Eastern Time Ed-PMD/Randi-nights sequence).

But like I said, Stephanie Miller is about the only libtalk show I regularly catch anymore. I occasionally listen to Glenn Beck on the other side of the ledger, but I can't really reconcile some of the off-the-wall stuff that occasionally comes out of his mouth apparently just to gain him publicity (re: the oven/NYT comments and similar).

Not being "part of the choir", it seems few shows in either left or right talk realize that it's All About Entertainment. That's one reason Steph is wiping the libtalk floor with Jerry, Jerry, Jerry - the other reason is that he's still not really a good radio host.

-OMW

 

[dampier]

Re: Big Eddie's widening audience...

Randi Rhodes has a rivalry with Big Ed. Not the other way around. Ed is a gentleman. Randi is a whining, kvetching princess.

It was Ed Schultz that torpedoed Randi's live clearance on the Clear Channel outlets (and Entercom as well) when AAR started. Schultz's show was going nowhere sitting alone in national syndication in a sea of markets with all conservative talk outlets. Schultz's show needed AAR affiliates for carriage. The original plan (and this was for XM as well) was to clear AAR programs live and carry the competing talk programs on a delayed basis. Rhodes was promised broad carriage in afternoon drive for her show, partly in return for committing to four hours a day (which is a long shift day after day). Schultz and Rhodes originally crossed swords at a strategy session with prominent Democrats even before AAR started and Schultz launched. Party bigwigs were building a kitty in order to build or launch progressive talk shows. Rhodes refused to accept any Democratic party money because she felt that would make her a paid employee, Schultz happily did take the money. A large amount of those funds were used to pay launch bonuses for live clearances, which stuck it to Randi, especially on the east coast and on XM. She blasted XM as garbage for months when AAR started because they didn't carry even half of her show. She was openly promoting Sirius, until XM secured a deal for exclusivity (and she trashed AAR management on the air as "morons" and "stupid" for that deal).

Big Ed was first into national syndication. Not Randi. If anyone is poaching, it's Randi.

Randi didn't pay launch bonuses with party money for her show, Schultz did. And considering the stations are AAR affiliates, it's another example of AAR management screwing Randi by not insisting on some conditions to carry her program, but Franken got all of the attention early on.

Ultimately ratings will decide who wins this one.

 

[fred flintstone]

Randi didn't pay launch bonuses with party money for her show, Schultz did. And considering the stations are AAR affiliates, it's another example of AAR management screwing Randi by not insisting on some conditions to carry her program, but Franken got all of the attention early on.

Affiliate? So what? Stations that take programming from Jones Radio are Jones affiliates by your standards, as well. And distributors (networks or syndicators) can not force stations to take programs. What are you saying? AAR should have told stations, take the program live or shove it! Then they'd really be nowhere (except a few LMAs and small stations in Blue small markets who want a turnkey feed). By the way, they call stations which take only Hartmann "affiliates," too. Affiliate is one of those terms so broadly used that it's meaningless.

Thank you for pointing out that Big Ed and Randi took part in a "strategy session with Democratic Party bigwigs." This makes it clear that AAR is not progressive talk but DLC talk and an organ of the party establishment. It's predecessor was run by the UAW - labor talk. You're making the case here that progressive (or liberal) talk radio can not make it on its own in free market without infusions of cash from politicians or rich activists. If Maloney reads this from you, it will make his day.

 

[kaufcom]

AAR is not progressive talk but DLC talk and an organ of the party establishment. It's predecessor was run by the UAW - labor talk. You're making the case here that progressive (or liberal) talk radio can not make it on its own in free market without infusions of cash from politicians or rich activists. If Maloney reads this from you, it will make his day.

You're stretching on this one Fred. AAR had nothing to do with Democracy Radio. AAR was funded by a private placement and involved some shady characters like Evan Cohen and Mark Walsh. I attended some of the early DR strategy sessions and they didn't have a clue what AAR was up to. It's even more of stetch to connect AAR to the now defunct ie America Radio Network, which was owned by the UAW. The only connection between AAR and ie American is that AAR picked up Mike Malloy when ie American went belly up.