Time: Why Air America Will Be Missed

[raccoonradio]

Well, we'll always have NPR. Franken said from the start (04) his mission was to defeat George W Bush. Oops.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1955848,00.html

 

[ctkatz]

but npr is not partisan and is run by government appointees. that means during republican controlled government as well. i wish people would stop using that canard of "liberal" npr because it's not.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I need to search through my local public library for the name of a book I read several months ago. A young man with liberal leanings who had worked as an aide to some congressmen took time to travel the country for a year or so gathering information for a book on the political process.

He attended a lot of meetings where substantial (read that MONEYED) liberals gathered to discuss how they were going to be more effective in voicing their political views. The author had some interesting views on how big donors to conservative projects differed from big donors to liberal projects.

I bring all this up because he attended some meetings that involved guiding and supporting Air America. In the book he was quite frank in discussing how liberal movers-and-shakers shot themselves in the foot multiple times as they tried to make Air America work.

I don't know what was proven by the failure of Air America.... but I read a lot of posts claiming it proved things...... that don't match some of the facts at hand.

 

[ericdxx]

What biased and delusional article. As if Limbaugh isn't a political player, as if Air America's pathetic atttempt to play a role in Kerry's campaign discredit conservative talkers.. They're just trying to turn a disaster into something positive.

 

[listener-in]

With TV networks and newspapers are curtailing hard news coverage, NPR is a unique NEWS organization - literally. If it ceased to exist, it would leave a gap in public information that would be very hard to fill. News isn’t left or right, though as Fox in particular demonstrates, it can be slanted heavily one way by what’s included, what's emphasized and what’s omitted.

NPR also hosts plenty of opinion programming and guests across what passes for the political spectrum these days (i.e., from slightly left to a long way right of center). What NPR certainly is not is the repository of a left-leaning schedule like Air America - nor should it be. To point to it as an example of liberal media as a counterweight to the right is just ridiculous.

Conservatives rejoice a little too much over Air America’s demise. Considering how the industry giants confine progressive talk, with only a few exceptions, to their less desirable transmitters, the format is doing very nicely, thank you - Air America or not.

By the time Air America expired it was only a minor voice in progressive talk. Conservatives always whine against “entitlements” but the fact is that even those conservative talkers who are the least talented and draw the smallest audiences are treated as if they were entitled to favored frequencies. If the industry is smart, it will learn that there’s money to be made by leveling the talk-radio playing field.

 

[johnbasalla]

For what it's worth, there have been a number of worthy stories that would not have been covered nationally if it were not for Fox News.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For what it's worth, there have been a number of worthy stories that would not have been covered nationally if it were not for Fox News.

Examples?

 

[johnbasalla]

The first one I remember was when they did a few stories about the VH-1 music television network doing a series about music groups behind prison walls ... groups made up of murderers and rapists and others of the criminal element ... and how the producers glorified these guys. Some of the victims were not amused.

Also, they did a piece on some sacreligious defacing of the Catholic Christian Church.

 

[johnbasalla]

Fox News: On a topic that did get overall media attention... The chaos down at our Southern border was first reported nation-wide by Foxnews, at least that's where I heard about it first. If it wasn't for Foxnews, that whole mess may have been ignored by the others, but it became so big that they had to join in.

 

[ericdxx]

Franken said from the start (04) his mission was to defeat George W Bush. Oops.

As far as I'm concerned the recount in Minnesota that got Franken into office had more shady crap going on than the Florida recount in 2000. Franken is the ass of America.

 

[One Who Knows]

With TV networks and newspapers are curtailing hard news coverage, NPR is a unique NEWS organization - literally. If it ceased to exist, it would leave a gap in public information that would be very hard to fill. News isn’t left or right, though as Fox in particular demonstrates, it can be slanted heavily one way by what’s included, what's emphasized and what’s omitted.

NPR also hosts plenty of opinion programming and guests across what passes for the political spectrum these days (i.e., from slightly left to a long way right of center). What NPR certainly is not is the repository of a left-leaning schedule like Air America - nor should it be. To point to it as an example of liberal media as a counterweight to the right is just ridiculous.

Conservatives rejoice a little too much over Air America’s demise. Considering how the industry giants confine progressive talk, with only a few exceptions, to their less desirable transmitters, the format is doing very nicely, thank you - Air America or not.

By the time Air America expired it was only a minor voice in progressive talk. Conservatives always whine against “entitlements” but the fact is that even those conservative talkers who are the least talented and draw the smallest audiences are treated as if they were entitled to favored frequencies. If the industry is smart, it will learn that there’s money to be made by leveling the talk-radio playing field.

But, do you really understand how conservative talk got it's foothold to begin with?

It proved the programs could work on those "less desirable" transmitters.

In the early 90's Rush Limbaugh's program was carried in one large market on a Class C 1,000 watt AM. This station was well down in the 1 share range 12 plus most of the time. Rush, with only promotion on traded out bus cards took that station to a 2.5 to 2.7 share 12 plus...(which translated to almost a 6 share, and top 5 in demo). We were sold out during Rush most of the time back then.

The big AM across town saw that, and paid Rush a gazillion bucks (or at least some healthy rights fee) to get him on their low-on-the-dial flaming non-directional 5,000 watter.

For a progressive talker to get on the big sticks, you've got to prove you can substantially raise the numbers on small sticks before the big ones come calling. It's called: developing a good track record.

And please name me the conservative talkers who are "least talented" with "small audiences" that get "big sticks". On our station, Hannity is #1 with a 12 share. Rush is #1 also in double digits, Neal Boortz may be, to some, a southern phenomena, but he's #1 here. Michael Savage pulls top numbers at night, too.

Yes, there are "B" level talk shows on both sides. But, if a "B" level show is on an "A" stick, it's because either the show is working on the "A" stick, or that "A" stick has a competitor and the "B" level show is the best they can get.

Putting conservative and liberal talk on the same station has been tried and tried and tried. It can work, but only in very few markets. In fact, I would suggest it fails in more markets than it works.

Go research this. Look at the ratings. Talk to some programmers. And don't assume it's all being run by one conservative boogie man in a big office at the top of a major company.

 

[listener-in]

For what it's worth, there have been a number of worthy stories that would not have been covered nationally if it were not for Fox News.

The ACORN story being one of them, which turned out to have been a fraudulent story, using video footage shot with the explicit purpose of misleading. It succeeded to the extent of persuading Congress to behave in a McCarthyite fashion, selectively penalizing the entire ACORN organization for a few isolated and exaggerated transgressions by a few employees. This was reversed by the courts, after the damage was done - but I doubt if that piece of news ever saw the light of day on Fox. Fox clearly pursued ACORN not as news but as a political campaign. Worthy story? I don't think so.

Yes, there are "B" level talk shows on both sides. But, if a "B" level show is on an "A" stick, it's because either the show is working on the "A" stick, or that "A" stick has a competitor and the "B" level show is the best they can get.

You know as well as I do that markets abound where B level rightie talk is given a free pass and A level progressive talk is never tried. If it's not out-and-out bias, it's the herd instinct where managements are reluctant to depart from the conventional wisdom. And when they do try progressive talk, more often than not it gets zero promotion.

 

[johnbasalla]

The ACORN story .

I respectfully disagree. It was a very worthy story as ACORN was proven to be worse then first thought. It was important to ferret out these illegal occurrances as ACORN would surely use illegal tactics in working for their candidates. The video footage only mislead the evildoers at ACORN.
Some might call that investigative reporting.

 

[ctkatz]

You know as well as I do that markets abound where B level rightie talk is given a free pass and A level progressive talk is never tried. If it's not out-and-out bias, it's the herd instinct where managements are reluctant to depart from the conventional wisdom. And when they do try progressive talk, more often than not it gets zero promotion.

plus, hasn't it been shown that there are some progtalk shows that rate even and even beat the so-called established conservotalk shows and they are still located on poor and and worse broadcast locations? i think its been noted that there are some hosts, like thom hartmann, like randi rhodes, like stephanie miller, like ed shultz, that have beaten the numbers rush, or beck, or weiner savage have put up in the same markets that air the conservative host and the progressive host.

and as for acorn, why weren't they ever a national story BEFORE the president got elected and it was known that the president worked for them at one time? and also like npr, they are a non-partisan organization that was funded by the federal government when it was run by democrats AND republicans. if we are going to play the game of a few bad apples representing the whole bunch, i'm sure that there are a couple of federal contracts that should have been cancelled because of some shoddy work done by kbr/halliburton, and i don't hear any talk in the congress of getting those contracts cancelled.

 

[smedge2006]

In one of the markets in my state, the primary conservative talker has something like a seven share and the next two are 0.3 and 0.4. Any chance of #2 and #3 flipping to progtalk or something else? Hell will freeze over first! Conventional wisdom has a powerful grip, not to mention the glut of syndication that tilts right. Witness all the progtalkers who put on liberal self-hater Alan Colmes or Phil Hendrie, an alleged liberal syndicated by a conservative network whose comic bits usually exaggerate and ridicule liberal ideas. There's not much reason to put those two on a progtalker, unless you just plain ran out of syndicated stuff to fill the day.

 

[Signal_Faded]

While a true balance on the airwaves may be missed by some it won't be missed by the broadcasters who lost money on progressive programming. Let's face it...while we all want to believe that talk radio is about the message, changing the world and gaining more support to a particular ideology it is, in fact, all about the money.

 

[quadraphonic]

You know as well as I do that markets abound where B level rightie talk is given a free pass and A level progressive talk is never tried. If it's not out-and-out bias, it's the herd instinct where managements are reluctant to depart from the conventional wisdom. And when they do try progressive talk, more often than not it gets zero promotion.

Doggone, in your estimation, does any progressive talk program fail because of the program?

 

[listener-in]

You know as well as I do that markets abound where B level rightie talk is given a free pass and A level progressive talk is never tried. If it's not out-and-out bias, it's the herd instinct where managements are reluctant to depart from the conventional wisdom. And when they do try progressive talk, more often than not it gets zero promotion.

Doggone, in your estimation, does any progressive talk program fail because of the program?

I never so much as suggested such a thing. It would be nice if many of them even had that option. Let's turn it around. Does any conservative talk fail because of the program, or are they, in Garrison Keiller's words "all above average", with no exceptions?

 

[quadraphonic]

You know as well as I do that markets abound where B level rightie talk is given a free pass and A level progressive talk is never tried. If it's not out-and-out bias, it's the herd instinct where managements are reluctant to depart from the conventional wisdom. And when they do try progressive talk, more often than not it gets zero promotion.

Doggone, in your estimation, does any progressive talk program fail because of the program?

I never so much as suggested such a thing. It would be nice if many of them even had that option. Let's turn it around. Does any conservative talk fail because of the program, or are they, in Garrison Keiller's words "all above average", with no exceptions?

Your scenario there just seemed to give progressive talk a lot of "outs" on the blame there.
"Nobody tries it, and when they do they don't promote it so it fails."

Most programs fail because of the program, whether it's conservative or progressive. If it doesn't make people want to listen, it fails. If advertisers don't buy it, it fails.

 

[listener-in]

Your scenario there just seemed to give progressive talk a lot of "outs" on the blame there.
"Nobody tries it, and when they do they don't promote it so it fails."

Most programs fail because of the program, whether it's conservative or progressive. If it doesn't make people want to listen, it fails. If advertisers don't buy it, it fails.

Why is it then that there's so much second-tier conservative talk kept on the air with ratings so dismal that if they had been liberal they would have been booted off the air long ago. Look at the markets where liberal talk prospers - the stations commit to it and promote it, as any good business would. We all know there are companies like Salem that wouldn't air liberal talk for doctrinaire reasons, even if it made them a ton of money.