Springer Gone?

[Scribbler]

Huh? I am aware of both. I mostly listen to progressive talk programs via Internet audio. But I thought we were talking about here about AAR's line-up changes in relation to local radio stations. So, how is XM or Internet audio relevant to that and what's your point?

My point is that you keep repeating, over and over and over, that only "bottom feeders" carry the full AAR lineup and therefore AAR should abandon its effort to provide a full day of programming -- but you consistently ignore the fact that AAR has a contract to provide the programming for an Air America channel on XM....and you also ignore the fact that AAR also provides an opportunity for people to listen to its Internet stream at any time of the day or night.

 

[fred flintstone]

My point is that you keep repeating, over and over and over, that only "bottom feeders" carry the full AAR lineup and therefore AAR should abandon its effort to provide a full day of programming -- but you consistently ignore the fact that AAR has a contract to provide the programming for an Air America channel on XM....and you also ignore the fact that AAR also provides an opportunity for people to listen to its Internet stream at any time of the day or night.

Dear Sribbler:

AAR can (and should) concentrate on their strongest entries and dump the weaker performing shows (thus cutting the costs associated with them). The XM Radio channel and Internet Audio stream remain a relatively small portion of the audience. In business terms, is it worthwhile to produce shows to fill time on XM and the Internet? Note, the other satellite talk channels mostly do not program live 24/7 but offer repeats during much of the day. AAR already offers repeats on satellite radio and the Internet during the overnight period. There is no need for them to go silent; they can offer another opportunity to hear their strongest shows.

AAR is flushing money down the toilet attempting to compete in morning drive. From all indications, they don't have the money to spare. In any case, they are not able to offer the kind of strong and dynamic personalities (like O&A, Howard or various local hosts) or in-depth news (like Morning Edition) or essential local information (traffic, weather, ball scores and headlines plus maybe some humorous banter) that people want in morning drive and which top stations provide in that daypart.

There might be an opportunity for them to provide show prep and recorded material (bits, features, interviews) for local progressive talk morning shows in return for spot avails in morning drive. This could make a local morning show more feasible for smaller, weaker progressive talk stations. Latch-key stations can take Bill Press, Imus or Doug Stephan.

 

[Scribbler]

[
AAR can (and should) concentrate on their strongest entries and dump the weaker performing shows (thus cutting the costs associated with them). The XM Radio channel and Internet Audio stream remain a relatively small portion of the audience. In business terms, is it worthwhile to produce shows to fill time on XM and the Internet?

But AAR has a CONTRACT to provide a full schedule of programs to XM. And like it or not, satellite delivery and Internet streaming are the future of radio. Howard Stern has only a fraction of the listeners he used to have now that he's on satellite, but he's making a lot more money. And a lot of of other talkers and DJs are making a living doing satellite only, even though their listenership in any given market is relatively tiny.

 

[FightingIrish]

[
AAR can (and should) concentrate on their strongest entries and dump the weaker performing shows (thus cutting the costs associated with them). The XM Radio channel and Internet Audio stream remain a relatively small portion of the audience. In business terms, is it worthwhile to produce shows to fill time on XM and the Internet?

But AAR has a CONTRACT to provide a full schedule of programs to XM. And like it or not, satellite delivery and Internet streaming are the future of radio. Howard Stern has only a fraction of the listeners he used to have now that he's on satellite, but he's making a lot more money. And a lot of of other talkers and DJs are making a living doing satellite only, even though their listenership in any given market is relatively tiny.

AAR does well with streaming. They are consistently in the Top 10 of all streamed stations:

http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/080106/index.asp

And that's just for their official stream, BTW.

As internet streaming continues to grow, this is one area that can't be ignored. That, and quite a few people listen to XM as well.

Not to mention that all AAR shows are carried on terrestrial stations somewhere, even the morning shows (lots of affiliates here), Springer, Seder, etc.

BTW: I heard a rumor that AAR was looking at The Young Turks for mornings.

 

[clbuck]

You know, it may be possible that AAR might keep Springer, and put him on the secondary "Air America Syndication" feed, the way they do with Thom Hartmann, with Sam on the primary feed (the one that's carried by XM and the Internet stream).

This way, stations will have 3 people to choose from the 9-noon ET slot (Sam Seder, Jerry Springer, and Stephanie Miller).

 

[evnlee]

[
AAR can (and should) concentrate on their strongest entries and dump the weaker performing shows (thus cutting the costs associated with them). The XM Radio channel and Internet Audio stream remain a relatively small portion of the audience. In business terms, is it worthwhile to produce shows to fill time on XM and the Internet?

But AAR has a CONTRACT to provide a full schedule of programs to XM. And like it or not, satellite delivery and Internet streaming are the future of radio. Howard Stern has only a fraction of the listeners he used to have now that he's on satellite, but he's making a lot more money. And a lot of of other talkers and DJs are making a living doing satellite only, even though their listenership in any given market is relatively tiny.

The jury is still OUT on whether Stern's switch to Sirius is 'the future of radio'. Some would counter he sacrificed a huge listener base to sell out for his own profit.

I agree that satellite is PART of the future of radio, but not it's endgame, nor is internet streaming.

When you can buy a 5 year old model car with SAT band in the radio, stock, then well talk. Until then, it's going to be a niche market for those that can afford it, and want it.

 

[fred flintstone]

You know, it may be possible that AAR might keep Springer, and put him on the secondary "Air America Syndication" feed, the way they do with Thom Hartmann, with Sam on the primary feed (the one that's carried by XM and the Internet stream).

This way, stations will have 3 people to choose from the 9-noon ET slot (Sam Seder, Jerry Springer, and Stephanie Miller).

This could get complicated.

AAR does not own or produce the Springer show. Clear Channel produces and it was syndicated apart from AAR before AAR picked it up. Off the top of my head, it seems most of the stations that took Springer apart from AAR have dropped it. If AAR decides to take Springer off the network feed, Clear Channel could continue to syndicate the show itself (why they would want to - and why stations would want to take the show is another question).

Currently, stations have syndicated choices:

AAR Morning/Bill Press
Jerry Springer(Sam Seder)/Stephanie Miller
Al Franken/Thom Hartmann
Randi Rhodes/Ed Schultz
Majority Report(Rachel Maddow)/Peter B. Collins
Mike Malloy/Lionel/Alan Colmes
Overnight Repeats/Doug Basham

 

[kaufcom]

The XM Radio channel and Internet Audio stream remain a relatively small portion of the audience. In business terms, is it worthwhile to produce shows to fill time on XM and the Internet? .

This is not the case with AAR. About 20% of AAR listeners tune in on line or via satellite radio. If you would like I can walk down the hallway to the Research Dept. and provide you with the ratings data.

 

[ajhenderson]

Basham now competes live with Malloy/Lionel/Colmes, et al. No live overnight shows, unless your Jones station rep can convince you there are a lot of liberal truckers out there for Midnight Radio.

 

[fred flintstone]

Basham now competes live with Malloy/Lionel/Colmes, et al. No live overnight shows, unless your Jones station rep can convince you there are a lot of liberal truckers out there for Midnight Radio.

Thanks for the update. That makes the 10pm-1am field pretty crowded for progressive talk. Maybe Basham's syndicator saw an opportunity to pick up some Hendrie stations? In any case, it is puzzling that so may shows would go after the late evening progressive talk slot (unless they think they can pick some non-PT stations willing to put a liberal host in a late night "ghetto").

Haven't heard anything about Peter B. Collins' attempt at syndication in the 7pm to 10 pm slot? Has he picked up any stations? His competition is not just (coming soon) Rachel Maddow but the Randi-on-delay-after-Ed option many stations take.

Baroosk:

This is not the case with AAR. About 20% of AAR listeners tune in on line or via satellite radio. If you would like I can walk down the hallway to the Research Dept. and provide you with the ratings data.

I will take your word for it, although I would covert the opportunity to get a look at their ratings data.
I still wonder if live programming from six am to noon is worth the cost - even with 20 per cent of their listeners online? Again, mostly satellite talk channels do not program live 24/7 and most listeners are not listening 24/7. Odds are few listeners will encounter something they've already heard.

I also can't help wondering what that percentage would be if Mister Real Player hadn't decided to sell out and screw the listeners who had subscribed to Sirius.

KJCB:

Basham now competes live with Malloy/Lionel/Colmes, et al. No live overnight shows, unless your Jones station rep can convince you there are a lot of liberal truckers out there for Midnight Radio.

Now that you mention it, there might be considerable overlap in the audience for progressive talk and the audience for overnight psychic-UFO talk. Maybe Noory-Bell could pick up some PT stations.

 

[FightingIrish]

The jury is still OUT on whether Stern's switch to Sirius is 'the future of radio'. Some would counter he sacrificed a huge listener base to sell out for his own profit.

I agree that satellite is PART of the future of radio, but not it's endgame, nor is internet streaming.

When you can buy a 5 year old model car with SAT band in the radio, stock, then well talk. Until then, it's going to be a niche market for those that can afford it, and want it.

I don't fault Stern for giving up terrestrial radio. He's been wanting to leave CBS since his friend Karmazin was pushed out. He hated the Viacom regime. I remember, for a long time, seeing a countdown clock on his website marking when he'd be free from his contract. I highly doubt he was looking to re-sign with CBS. And he certainly wasn't going to any of the other biggies, like Clear Channel or ABC.

His show was starting to sound boring, and I think he realized that. I don't think he could have accomplished anything else substantial in his current situation.

Add to that the fallout from 'Nipplegate', the whole Clear Channel thing and one FCC fine too many, and Stern was either going to retire or come up with a radical solution. So he chose satellite, and a new challenge as he rebuilt his show and attempted to help nurture a medium that competed with terrestrial. I don't think it was all about the money, but someone with his track record should command a high price tag (though Sirius did pay a ton). In short, I don't think he sold out his listeners. Sleepwalking his way through his CBS show would have been selling out. He needed to blow it all up and get back to basics.

I recently gave his Sirius show a listen, and I was impressed. Sure, it was at times a bit too vulgar, but his show sounds the best it has in years. He sounds very rejuvenated and relaxed. It was nice not to hear the 20 minutes or so of commercials that pummeled his show every hour (he currently has a brief TOH break).

Also checked out a little of the other shows on his station, and while I had very low expectations judging by the schedule, the other programming wasn't bad. He reached out to terrestrial and signed Bubba and Scott Ferrell, two established personalities. And I guess Crazy Cabbie has his own show, which is perhaps the filthiest thing I have ever heard on radio. It wasn't very good, but it was kind of entertaining in an unintentional 'train wreck' sort of way.

All in all, I can't blame an established entertainer who realized he was turning into the very thing he often mocked (stuffy, old, predictable and worried about his job), and did something radical to change that. He could have just coasted with the status quo for the easy money.

Haven't heard anything about Peter B. Collins' attempt at syndication in the 7pm to 10 pm slot? Has he picked up any stations? His competition is not just (coming soon) Rachel Maddow but the Randi-on-delay-after-Ed option many stations take.

Peter B. just started syndication. He's on KPHX in Phoenix and KCTC in Sacramento. It's a pretty good show, and he's eloquent and knowledgeable about the issues. Peter B. has a long history in radio, and I listened to him occasionally when he had his morning show in San Francisco. He's an old Top 40 guy. Even filled in occasionally for Casey Kasem in the early 80s.

 

[fred flintstone]

Peter B. just started syndication. He's on KPHX in Phoenix and KCTC in Sacramento. It's a pretty good show, and he's eloquent and knowledgeable about the issues. Peter B. has a long history in radio, and I listened to him occasionally when he had his morning show in San Francisco. He's an old Top 40 guy. Even filled in occasionally for Casey Kasem in the early 80s.

I have heard his show on his Monterey station's audio stream and I enjoyed it, as well. His station and the Sacramento station are two (of three) non-AAR progressive talk stations. I'm disappointed he hasn't gotten his foot in the door at the third station (WWKB, Buffalo, from which he could be heard in most of the East). Mike Newcomb's show airs on his Monterey station and Collins' show is on Newcomb's Phoenix station (tit for tat). Otherwise, it does not sound like Collins has been getting much traction, even with Majority Report foundering.

 

[kaufcom]

I also can't help wondering what that percentage would be if Mister Real Player hadn't decided to sell out and screw the listeners who had subscribed to Sirius.

The vast majority of AAR's non terrestrial radio audience (about 220,000 listerners) are tuning in on their computers. Satellite radio accounts for less than 10%. The Sirius deal was a no brainer for AAR. They got financial and promotional benefits for exclusivity deal.

 

[fred flintstone]

The vast majority of AAR's non terrestrial radio audience (about 220,000 listerners) are tuning in on their computers. Satellite radio accounts for less than 10%. The Sirius deal was a no brainer for AAR. They got financial and promotional benefits for exclusivity deal.

Sorry, but one expects self-proclaimed "liberals" to do the right thing. XM offers some money and AAR says "listeners be damned." This demonstrates that these so-called "moderate," DLC, Southern Democrats are really neo-cons. Glaser is another rich guy dabbling in politics to get access to power. The Democrats have always been cursed with people like these (back to Nazi sympathizer Joe Kennedy - and before). Maybe next January, AAR will give Lieberman a show. He fits right in with this bunch and (hopefully) he will be unemployed at that point.

Remember LBJ called himself a "liberal," too (as in "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?"). His flack Moyers still calls himself a "liberal," too a lot of gullible Dems buy it.

 

[kaufcom]

Remember LBJ called himself a "liberal," too (as in "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?"). His flack Moyers still calls himself a "liberal," too a lot of gullible Dems buy it.

LBJ was a liberal. As President he signed more liberal legislation into law than all of the Democrats from Kennedy to Clinton combined. For example, the War on Poverty, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, The Great Society, and much more. Unfortunately, many liberals in the 1950's and 1960's were caught up in the anti-Communtist hysteria of the time. This led to the disaster in Vietnam.

Also, if Bill Moyer is not a liberal, I guess the rest of libs are communists.

 

[FightingIrish]

The vast majority of AAR's non terrestrial radio audience (about 220,000 listerners) are tuning in on their computers. Satellite radio accounts for less than 10%. The Sirius deal was a no brainer for AAR. They got financial and promotional benefits for exclusivity deal.

Sorry, but one expects self-proclaimed "liberals" to do the right thing. XM offers some money and AAR says "listeners be damned." This demonstrates that these so-called "moderate," DLC, Southern Democrats are really neo-cons. Glaser is another rich guy dabbling in politics to get access to power. The Democrats have always been cursed with people like these (back to Nazi sympathizer Joe Kennedy - and before). Maybe next January, AAR will give Lieberman a show. He fits right in with this bunch and (hopefully) he will be unemployed at that point.

Remember LBJ called himself a "liberal," too (as in "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?"). His flack Moyers still calls himself a "liberal," too a lot of gullible Dems buy it.

Translated to Bierkmwebfred speak:

"AAR is too high profile, therefore they are bad. They shouldn't be on the air because they contradict conservative beliefs and say bad things about our president. Therefore, every move they make just goes to show how flawed they are. Maybe if I say enough bad things about AAR, some liberal might actually believe me.

Of course, liberals can't attack me, because they're supposed to be wimpy pushovers. That's their nature.

But wait! Aren't conservatives supposed to be supporters of free enterprise, free will and freedom of speech? Well, we're at war, and we're supposed to agree with everything the president says. That allows us to enjoy freedom and democracy." :

BTW: FOX News briefly pulled its programming off Sirius. Does that make them bad? How about MLB? They betrayed Sirius listeners by putting all their games on XM. Same with the NFL, whose games are on Sirius. How about NASCAR, which is moving from XM to Sirius in 2007? THEY SOLD OUT THEIR LISTENERS!!! BAD, BAD, BAD!!!

Oh, and Prescott Bush (Dubya's grandfather) was a very big Nazi supporter, so don't go there.

 

[fred flintstone]

You think I'm a conservative? :
That's almost funny.

Conservatism - and conservative talk radio - appeals to the worst in people. Anger. Greed. Hatred. So when conservatives engage in sleazy business practices, I am not surprised. It's the kind of thing I expect from them. If you want to hold up Rupert Mudoch as a standard of conduct worthy of emulation, that's your business.

I expect more from liberals, even rich liberals. Even more than overt neo-cons, I abhor closet neo-cons, like LBJ, the Kennedys, the Clintons, Al Gore, Lieberman, and the rest of the DLC who infiltrate the Democratic party in liberal guise.

You really should pay more attention to the posts to which you reply. You are not a credit to Notre Dame.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I expect more from liberals, even rich liberals. Even more than overt neo-cons, I abhor closet neo-cons, like LBJ, the Kennedys, the Clintons, Al Gore, Lieberman, and the rest of the DLC who infiltrate the Democratic party in liberal guise.

I expect little from you in the way of accuracy in applying political labels. Anything you might have said in the past regarding the differences and/or similarities between liberals and progressives was just negated with the things you've said in here.

This isn't the place to argue whether liberal is good or bad. But if you're going to discuss whether or not a given talk show host, network, or syndication service is liberal, conservative, or something else, you should at least use the same meanings for words as the rest of the English speaking world.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, LBJ, the Clintons, and Al Gore all more or less share a common political philosophy, which most of the world refers to as "liberal". Joe Lieberman's philosophy doesn't seem to be in sync with those others, so perhaps a different word might describe him better. As for "the Kennedys", JFK is probably turning over in his grave over what his little brother, the Senator from Chappaquiddick, has done over the course of his career.

 

[fred flintstone]

I expect little from you in the way of accuracy in applying political labels. Anything you might have said in the past regarding the differences and/or similarities between liberals and progressives was just negated with the things you've said in here.

Your rant on progressive-liberal talk does not exactly establish you as an authority on political labels.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, LBJ, the Clintons, and Al Gore all more or less share a common political philosophy, which most of the world refers to as "liberal".

"Most of the world" don't know what they are talking about.  Jack supported Joe McCarthy; Bobby worked for him.  Jack and his mafia buddies tried to assassinate Castro.  Then, of course, there is Viet Nam.  GENE McCarthy and McGovern were liberals.  Humphrey started out liberal and sold out.  The Kennedys were allied with Democratic party machine bosses like Daley and Curley (who were never liberal but knew how to take care of their bases).

AAR represents the Democratic party establishment and the Democratic Leadership Council - not true progressive Democrats. They are "liberal" only in comparison to the Republican establishment (by replying to the GOP, me, too - only not so much or a little bit more). AAR is anti-Palestinian (pro Zionist). They do not oppose the war, they only think it could be handled better. They make bad jokes about Bush (Letterman makes good ones) and call it opposition. AAR is a straw man for neo-cons and their talk show front men.

And on top of everything, AAR is BAD RADIO. (Now, don't tell me, your friends like it and therefore it can't be bad. See: "Most of the world" above.)

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Most of the world" don't know what they are talking about.

Whereas you, on the other hand, know better than most of the world. Apparently you can't tell the difference between being anti-Soviet Union at a time when the US and USSR were engaged in the Cold War, and being a political liberal. Refusing to support the US against the USSR in the Cold War was not a litmus test for being a liberal.

AAR represents the Democratic party establishment and the Democratic Leadership Council - not true progressive Democrats.

Then who are the "true progressive Democrats?" The socialists?

Now, don't tell me, your friends like it and therefore it can't be bad

Actually, none of my friends have heard it. Or, if they have, they've never commented on it to me. There are no stations in the city where I live who carry first-string AAR programming. There is one battery-powered station that can barely be heard carrying one second-string AAR syndicated program.

There are no stations in my city that carry liberal talk radio shows that draw significant ratings. And there are no progressive talk radio shows on the air at all.