Randi Signs New Four Year Deal with AAR

[tombetz]

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. [...] If Maloney reads this from you, it will make his day.

That's pure idiocy, and I expect better than that from you.

Rhodes was talking with Democratic Senators (long before AAR came along) about how the conservative noise machine owned talk radio, and how they needed to do something to counter it. She has discussed these meetings many times on her program, and how she was insulted when in one meeting at Mary Landrieu's house they offered her money, and she told them politely to go to hell. If Baloney is stupid enough to try to make the kind of connection from these facts that you have done, it will be a pleasure to see the multiple new orifices that get ripped out of his behind.

 

[robbbc]

Re: Hartmann a more likely candidate...

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.

Jerry's contract was renewed last December IIRC. That year will be up in less than 6 months, leaving a three hour hole in the AAR schedule. Franken doesn't sound like he is long for his position either. There's 6 hours to fill up. Hartmann will be hard pressed to give up his few good 3 hour slots on his affiliates to move to Jerry's position so it makes sense that he will get Frankens spot.

BTW the Marc Maron show ends this Friday the 14th. Marc is in contact with AAR and rumors suggest he might be being offered Janeane's spot on the Majority Report. Whether he would take it is the only question and the answer seems likely to be no. Is Johnny Angel still around?

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: Hartmann a more likely candidate...

Jerry's contract was renewed last December IIRC. That year will be up in less than 6 months, leaving a three hour hole in the AAR schedule. Franken doesn't sound like he is long for his position either. There's 6 hours to fill up. Hartmann will be hard pressed to give up his few good 3 hour slots on his affiliates to move to Jerry's position so it makes sense that he will get Frankens spot.

BTW the Marc Maron show ends this Friday the 14th. Marc is in contact with AAR and rumors suggest he might be being offered Janeane's spot on the Majority Report. Whether he would take it is the only question and the answer seems likely to be no. Is Johnny Angel still around?

Question is: How many stations will still be taking Jerry in December (and how many will have jumped to Steph)? If AAR tries to mount a new entry (or move Hartmann from syndication into the late morning slot on the main network), how many stations will stay with a relatively unknown or completely unknown quantity from AAR or go with Steph - who does have a track record - at that point?

Maron? Again? Loyalty is one thing but AAR can't seem to let go of people who have stuck out (except Liz Winstead). Majority Report is already down for the count - with or without Garofolo. With most progressive talk stations clearing Big Ed, Majority Report either gets bumped from the line-up or delayed to late nights or overnights in most markets. The show never got its footing - and didn't have much of a chance, too.

AAR should go silent in the 9am-12noon and 7pm-10pm slots. Let stations take Steph in the morning - maybe do a re-feed of Randi in early evening - and concentrate their resources and their strongest products. They should also move the start of the morning show back to 6am; have Reilly do a show for New York and have Maddow do a show for smaller market stations out of town. Same show prep, bits and guests can be made available to both shows. Provide the show prep, bits and interviews to stations for their own morning shows (in return for clearing network spots).

PS: Baroosk, please re-read my original post. I did not say AAR had anything to do with Democracy Radio (although they did hire the guy who ran it). Neither did I say there was a connection between AAR and ie American. I said the latter was AAR's "predecessor" as the first attempt at national liberal talk radio. My point is AAR reflects the Democratic party line more than progressive political views. Just as Rush is a shill the administration and the GOP establishment (to the disappointment of many philosophical conservatives). Further, AAR still acts like it thinks its a public sector or non-profit organization - not a commercial business venture. Some on this board get upset if anyone suggests AAR is not showing a profit but they don't seem to consider profitability a high priority.

 

[robbbc]

I agree with a refeed in the morning of Randi, or simply play Jay Marvin's show already on in Boulder for XM subscribers and the internet feed. Either way you have low costs. Best solution would be to get Steph, somehow, but not likely. Her Sirius relationship is bad, maybe she would be tempted to at least get on the AAR XM feed- would be good for her.

Majority report without Janeane will be cheap to produce and Seder and, perhaps, Maron will not cost and arm and a leg to retain. You are too hard on Maron IMHO and I have heard both of them on MR, they make a good team.

On the other side of the coin you are too nice to Reilly. He is horrible and there is no reason to force him on NYC. If it is a WLIB contract issue then maybe AAR would do better finding a new home. With the Satellite sisters on at night instead of Malloy you gotta wonder what is up with that station. WQEW anyone???

 

[dampier]

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.

They can do anything their contracts will let them get away with. AAR was built as a standalone format for talk outlets because the conservative talk outlets weren't willing to try liberal talk in the mix. If they were, AAR would have been a syndicator from the outset. Jones liberal talk distribution came about from a totally different deal. That distribution arm was built with seed money from Democratic party activists and fundraisers. Their main host in Ed Schultz and to wedge him on stations they paid launch bonuses. That's just factual history.

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.

You are arguing with yourself. I am not discussing the meaning of the word "affiliate." You are.

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.

This has been discussed in this forum many times, so it's not breaking news. Randi Rhodes was at the meeting but decided not to take a penny from them. The Democrats were playing the role of venture funders for a startup. There is nothing DLC about AAR when you listen to hosts like Mike Malloy or Sam Seder. Randi Rhodes tolerates them. Al Franken goes along to get along. The whole reason for AAR was a concern about why libtalk hosts never got a shot on commercial radio. The same theory which brings us cruddy radio in this country today also applied to this - if it works in one market, it will probably work in them all... just don't rock the boat with something too unproven. So you got a parade of often lousy conservative me-too hosts on local outlets and, in most, not a single liberal one, good, bad or otherwise. Remember the "nobody wants to hear liberal talk because it's boring?" Stephanie Miller has even talked about the fact she's wanted to do a liberal politics show for years but stations kept saying no to her because it was too "risky." She's proven she can be entertaining and draw ratings. Randi Rhodes had it even worse, beating Limbaugh in his own market and still being told by Clear Channel they couldn't "risk" syndicating her.

So they put together a format that stations could run that wouldn't "risk" exposing listeners to liberal and conservative hosts and that is where we are today.

 

[fred flintstone]

AAR was built as a standalone format for talk outlets because the conservative talk outlets weren't willing to try liberal talk in the mix. If they were, AAR would have been a syndicator from the outset.

Not so. AAR realized (correctly IMHO) that liberal talk "in the mix" with conservative had not worked - and would not work. They started out with the idea that what later was called "progressive talk" had to be a distinct format. Their original business plan was to lease stations to carry "the network" 24/7. If anything, AAR tried to be a satellite-delivered format service like Music of Your Life or Scott Shannon's Oldies, and some of the weaker stations still use it that way.

 

[dampier]

AAR was built as a standalone format for talk outlets because the conservative talk outlets weren't willing to try liberal talk in the mix. If they were, AAR would have been a syndicator from the outset.

Not so. AAR realized (correctly IMHO) that liberal talk "in the mix" with conservative had not worked - and would not work. They started out with the idea that what later was called "progressive talk" had to be a distinct format. Their original business plan was to lease stations to carry "the network" 24/7. If anything, AAR tried to be a satellite-delivered format service like Music of Your Life or Scott Shannon's Oldies, and some of the weaker stations still use it that way.

I think we said the same thing. They did not plan on leasing all of their stations, just the ones in a few very large markets. They had no plan to expand beyond leasing the outlets for NY, Chicago and LA. I agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[AKLes]

Rhodes was talking with Democratic Senators (long before AAR came along) about how the conservative noise machine owned talk radio, and how they needed to do something to counter it. She has discussed these meetings many times on her program, and how she was insulted when in one meeting at Mary Landrieu's house they offered her money, and she told them politely to go to hell.

Good for her! Integrity, rare as it is, is wonderful!

So, if one accepts that there really is a "conservative noise machine" conspiracy (using the legal definition), then might it not be reasonable to assume that the liberal establishment might envy it and want to replicate it? AA sure looks and sounds like an attempt at replication. If people like Randi have been invited to be a cog in said machine and declined then it does prove that there IS a "liberal noise machine". Just not as effective a machine as might be possible were she (and presumably others) to jump on board.

Echoes here of voice mail which talks but never listens. "Have your machine call my machine; they can do lunch!" But like the dining machines; are either the conservative or liberal machines doing anything more than talking AT people, effectively preaching to the converted and doing little beyond reinforcing steretypical views?

We need, I think, a special prosecutor to interrogate EVERY talk show host and demand to know whether they're on the payroll of either side! If so, they're violating FCC sponsorship rules and need to be fined and forced to disclose the fact at the start and end of each program segment to protect the innocent (if any).