What is it about Air America Radio?

[bierkenstock]

It seems to bring out the worst in people, those who love it and those who hate it, those who agree with it and those who disagree. Anything posted here about AAR, good or bad, invites a flood of "passionate" replies.

This seems to be unique to AAR. The same kind of response does not seem automatically to occur for posts about non-AAR progressive hosts or Democracy Radio. In fact, the rest of the progressive talk community often seems treated with mild indifference by comparison.

For many it seems, AAR is a crusade (for or against).

And it's not just on this board. Radio Columnist Corey Dietz has written columns about AAR (posted on about.com). Dietz writes about radio - programming, business and technology. His column is apolitical (even when dealing with broadcast regulation). He wrote:
http://radio.about.com/od/airamericaradio/a/aa092905a.htm
<blockquote>
"From a reviewer’s point of view, I made no predictions of doom but early on questioned the network’s entertainment value which brought on a barrage of hate email which was surprisingly personal and malicious. "

"Some people who have read this review insist on interpreting it from a political point of view. It was written from an entertainment point of view - not a political point of view - and also written soon after the network started up when there was much disarray and fumbling. The Radio professionals who have written me commenting on it understand that. Some people not in Radio who have political agendas seem to want to see it as a "Right vs. Left" thing which, if you read carefully and objectively, you will see it is not."
</blockquote>
In my observation, people on the right often collapse the traditional distinction between fact and interpretation and seize on anything to discredit AAR (not the progressive talk format, just AAR). People on the left have no room for any criticism at all of AAR, even when that criticism is unrelated to political position. And as Dietz said, it does get "personal and malicious" even on a moderated board.

I can understand the heat of political debate. But this kind of intense reaction does not happen when somebody mentions Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Bill Press. Some people like them, some don't. But people seem to be able to say so without starting a flame war.

So, why all this vehemence (on all sides) where AAR is concerned? I admit, I don't get it.

 

[Scribbler]

> In my observation, people on the right often collapse the
> traditional distinction between fact and interpretation and
> seize on anything to discredit AAR (not the progressive talk
> format, just AAR). People on the left have no room for any
> criticism at all of AAR, even when that criticism is
> unrelated to political position.

I'm on the left and do have "room" for criticism of AAR.

I don't especially like Maron, Springer, and Rhodes and rarely
listen to them, although I know people who are fans of Maron
and Rhodes and assume that Springer has some appeal in The
Heartland. Al Franken "ers" and "ahs" far too much and
obviously spends too little time preparing for his shows (but
I usually like his guests). And AAR management has obviously
made some mistakes, especially in the early days when Evan
Cohen and some of his cronies were MISmanaging the place.

But I do get my hackles up when some on this board make
generalized statements such as "Air America is bad radio"
and gleefully seize on minutia, virtually meaningless
12+ ratings, and false claims by right-wing extremists
to boost their arguments that AAR is bound to fail.

One example: the salesman who stubbornly clings to the false claim
in the New York Post that Air America "announcers" are "begging"
for donations, although I have yet to see a claim by anybody that
he or she has actually heard such "begging." I listen to AAR several
hours a day and have never heard such an on-the-air appeal.

Others are personally offended by the fact that some of the hosts
on Air America didn't have much (or any) commercial radio experience
when AAR launched 18 months ago. I wonder if they realize that both
members of the morning team at the most successful political talk
station in the country (Curtis and Kuby on WABC) didn't have any
radio experience (except as guests) before they started (at different
times) on that very station.

Imperfect as it is, I'm glad that Air America exists. It's
responsible for scores of stations switching to a format that
has given liberals (and moderates) an alternative to
right-wing extremism. I don't personally like Ed Schultz
or Stephanie Miller, but I'm glad that they've gained more national
exposure because Air America opened the door (and that Thom Hartmann
is also getting much more exposure because of that door-opening). <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Scribbler on 10/12/05 11:38 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Shadow]

> > In my observation, people on the right often collapse the
> > traditional distinction between fact and interpretation
> and
> > seize on anything to discredit AAR (not the progressive
> talk
> > format, just AAR). People on the left have no room for
> any
> > criticism at all of AAR, even when that criticism is
> > unrelated to political position.
>
> I'm on the left and do have "room" for criticism of AAR.
>
> I don't especially like Maron, Springer, and Rhodes and
> rarely
> listen to them, although I know people who are fans of Maron
>
> and Rhodes and assume that Springer has some appeal in The
> Heartland. Al Franken "ers" and "ahs" far too much and
> obviously spends too little time preparing for his shows
> (but
> I usually like his guests). And AAR management has obviously
>
> made some mistakes, especially in the early days when Evan
> Cohen and some of his cronies were MISmanaging the place.
>
> But I do get my hackles up when some on this board make
> generalized statements such as "Air America is bad radio"
> and gleefully seize on minutia, virtually meaningless
> 12+ ratings, and false claims by right-wing extremists
> to boost their arguments that AAR is bound to fail.
>
> One example: the salesman who stubbornly clings to the false
> claim
> in the New York Post that Air America "announcers" are
> "begging"
> for donations, although I have yet to see a claim by anybody
> that
> he or she has actually heard such "begging." I listen to AAR
> several
> hours a day and have never heard such an on-the-air appeal.
>
>
> Others are personally offended by the fact that some of the
> hosts
> on Air America didn't have much (or any) commercial radio
> experience
> when AAR launched 18 months ago. I wonder if they realize
> that both
> members of the morning team at the most successful political
> talk
> station in the country (Curtis and Kuby on WABC) didn't have
> any
> radio experience (except as guests) before they started (at
> different
> times) on that very station.
>

Discussing what people like or dislike regarding radio content is like not much different then asking people what they like on pizza. Everyone has specific likes and dislikes for everything.

I respect your opinion of the hosts and happen to relly enjoy Rhodes. Springer is OK and I'm not a big fan of the morning show. I think Franken is very good and he does seem to prepare for the shows. His delivery is a little slow and filled with utterances at times, but I can get past that.

AAR dove into unchartered waters when they launched. They really had no idea what to expect. Anyone has to admit that they have been more successful then anyone thought they would be at this point.

By the way, just because someone has not had radio experience doesn't mean they would be a bad talk show host.

 

[954]

Franken and Rhodes

> So, why all this vehemence (on all sides) where AAR is
> concerned? I admit, I don't get it.

I don't get it either, but I liked your analysis.

Could it be than Franken and Rhodes bring out the
worst in people?

I think those two are more like Michael Savage and Bob
Grant in style than the relatively mild-mannered
Hannity and Limbaugh.

73s from 954

<P ID="signature">______________
<center>South Florida Radio Pages</center></P>

 

[gr8oldies]

Odds are, without radio experience, they're not going to be good. This "stick anyone with an opinion in front of a microphone and he/she will be a good talk show host" has to go.

 

[bierkenstock]

Thanks for a thoughtful response. But I'd quibble with your statement that WABC is the "most successful political talk station in the country." They are in the number one market which might make them automatically the biggest and even the top billing in ad sales. They are not in the Top Seven in their market (Arbitron's definition for Top Performing News-Talk stations in major markets), nor currently in the top 10. Their Arbitron numbers now and generally are in the fair to middlin' range.

I would say better contenders in major markets for the "most successful" title would include: WGN, Chicago, and ABC's KGO, San Francisco or WJR, Detroit.
And some large market stations with even better local numbers (close to or exceeding double-digit 12+ average quarter hour shares) include: WSB, Atlanta, WCCO, Minneapolis, KMOX, St. Louis, KDKA, Pittsburgh, KFBK, Sacramento, or WLW, Cincinnati. Off the top of my head, these stations use experienced radio talent in morning drive.

Curtis and Sliwa owe their chemistry and their success to their program director, Phil Boyce (previously PD at WJR, Detroit). Sliwa had struck out in morning drive previously (apparently the on-air chemistry did not happen with his partner at the time, his then-wife). Sliwa was a name and was bouncing around the station in fringe times. Boyce saw some possibility with the two and put them on one night a week and gave them a chance to grow and develop, probably with a good deal of training and coaching. AAR's problem may be not so much their inexperienced air talent but their lack of a strong, creative program director. One function of a good PD is to keep talent from making comments which trigger threads like the one above.



>
> Others are personally offended by the fact that some of the
> hosts
> on Air America didn't have much (or any) commercial radio
> experience
> when AAR launched 18 months ago. I wonder if they realize
> that both
> members of the morning team at the most successful political
> talk
> station in the country (Curtis and Kuby on WABC) didn't have
> any
> radio experience (except as guests) before they started (at
> different
> times) on that very station.
>

 

[Scribbler]

Re: Franken and Rhodes

> > So, why all this vehemence (on all sides) where AAR is
> > concerned? I admit, I don't get it.
>
> I don't get it either, but I liked your analysis.
>
> Could it be than Franken and Rhodes bring out the
> worst in people?
>
> I think those two are more like Michael Savage and Bob
> Grant in style than the relatively mild-mannered
> Hannity and Limbaugh.

Huh? Franken is TOO mild-mannered for my taste. Do you
actually listen to him or have you just swallowed the
right-wing talking point that he's filled with "hate?"

Seems to me that any criticism of Bush automatically equals
"hate" in the right-wing world. However, Mike Malloy is
somebody who makes no bones about the fact that he does "hate"
the whole crowd now in power.

I'd like to hear Malloy during daylight hours with the same
sort of guests that Franken has -- but in the present climate
that's not going to happen.

 

[Shadow]

> Odds are, without radio experience, they're not going to be
> good. This "stick anyone with an opinion in front of a
> microphone and he/she will be a good talk show host" has to
> go.
>
Why? Why does everything have to be cookie-cutter? A good PD can hire a bright, educated, opinionated, witty, thought provoking person and mold them into a good host. The fact that there is so much syndication has higher reduced the talent pool of weekenders, overnighters and talent in smaller markets. Since that talent pool is thoroughly reduced, why not create the ideal talk host. That is basically what Phil Boyce at WABC has done in the past.

Now hiring a new to radio talent with not any real direction is a recipe for disaster. Radio is losing listeners to other media because we are too worried about promoting Limbaugh and Stern copy cats rather then thinking outside the box and creating new hosts.

 

[Shadow]

> I would say better contenders in major markets for the "most
> successful" title would include: WGN, Chicago, and ABC's
> KGO, San Francisco or WJR, Detroit.
> And some large market stations with even better local
> numbers (close to or exceeding double-digit 12+ average
> quarter hour shares) include: WSB, Atlanta, WCCO,
> Minneapolis, KMOX, St. Louis, KDKA, Pittsburgh, KFBK,
> Sacramento, or WLW, Cincinnati. Off the top of my head,
> these stations use experienced radio talent in morning
> drive.

WGN is no doubt huge. But some core differences between WABC and WGN is that they are completely different stations. WABC is syndicated from 11:45a to 6PM and from 8P-10PM. WGN is all live and local. In addition, WGN gets a HUGE cume/ratings booster for 6 months out of the year due to the Cubs. Also, WGN is not really a political talk station like WABC. Rush, Hannity and Ingraham are 100% political talk.
>
> Curtis and Sliwa owe their chemistry and their success to
> their program director, Phil Boyce (previously PD at WJR,
> Detroit). Sliwa had struck out in morning drive previously
> (apparently the on-air chemistry did not happen with his
> partner at the time, his then-wife). Sliwa was a name and
> was bouncing around the station in fringe times. Boyce saw
> some possibility with the two and put them on one night a
> week and gave them a chance to grow and develop, probably
> with a good deal of training and coaching. AAR's problem
> may be not so much their inexperienced air talent but their
> lack of a strong, creative program director. One function
> of a good PD is to keep talent from making comments which
> trigger threads like the one above.
>
>
>
> >
> > Others are personally offended by the fact that some of
> the
> > hosts
> > on Air America didn't have much (or any) commercial radio
> > experience
> > when AAR launched 18 months ago. I wonder if they realize
>
> > that both
> > members of the morning team at the most successful
> political
> > talk
> > station in the country (Curtis and Kuby on WABC) didn't
> have
> > any
> > radio experience (except as guests) before they started
> (at
> > different
> > times) on that very station.
> >
>

 

[Gnarlodious]

it's about the passion...

It occurrs to me that the reason people are so devoted to AAR is that it just plain makes them feel passionate about politics. One sees the same evangelical devotion to Thom Hartmann to a more extreme degree.

I listened to Limbaugh for the entire show today. I'm sorry to say that from an outsider's point of view all he really does is ramble incessantly about how great he is and all his self-justifications. The dimensionality of his thinking is flat, like his affect and his tonality. He doesn't inspire passion, only loyalty.

I believe the liberal talkers inspire passion. Except for Springer. No passion there. Even Franken inspires more passion than Springer. Randi Rhodes, of course, is the queen of passion. Mike Malloy is a close 2nd. Probably the only rightist talker who has a handle on the passion is Michael Savage.<P ID="signature">______________
• K5ZN</P>

 

[bierkenstock]

>
> WGN is no doubt huge. But some core differences between WABC
> and WGN is that they are completely different stations. WABC
> is syndicated from 11:45a to 6PM and from 8P-10PM. WGN is
> all live and local. In addition, WGN gets a HUGE
> cume/ratings booster for 6 months out of the year due to the
> Cubs. Also, WGN is not really a political talk station like
> WABC. Rush, Hannity and Ingraham are 100% political talk.

Exactly. And that is what makes WGN a more successful station - and a better station - than WABC.

The top talk stations are (1) not JUST political and (2) more LOCAL.
I don't know to what extent the Cubbies help of hurt. It does appear that many stations around the country are backing off on play by play sports. Of course, since the Chicago Tribune owns both WGN and the Cubs, the station may not have much choice.

The other factor that occurs to me is the most successful talk stations have hosts , especially in morning drive, who wear well. Non-confrontational and non-ideological. Nice guys, everybody's friend. The late J.P. McCarthy of WJR, Detroit is a prime example. So was WGN's Wally Phillips. Rush is able to get away with being political by being self-deprecating and by remaining civil with callers. Rush spent close to two decades as a jock (including morning drive) and he learned the lesson (which the stand-up comedians, lawyers and Guardian Angels have not): The audience has to LIKE you. Political agreement is not enough.

 

[gr8oldies]

Everybidy doesn't have to be cookie cutter. hey do have to know, or learn, how radio works. Pacing, timing, what it takes to get and keep listeners. What's going to make someone hesitate to get out of their car because of what's coming up after the commercial. The first time I heard Al Franken, I was struck by the fact that he was interviewing someone (Joe Biden), and for 45 minutes didn't identify him.

There's a long list of potential hosts who "tried this at home. Mario Cuomo, Oliver North, several politicians that WLS hired in the 90s.

 

[Scribbler]

> Thanks for a thoughtful response. But I'd quibble with your
> statement that WABC is the "most successful political talk
> station in the country." They are in the number one market
> which might make them automatically the biggest and even the
> top billing in ad sales.

If they have the most listeners and the top billing of any political talk station in the country, it seems to me that's a pretty good indication that they're the "most successful" political talk station. The fact that other stations with different formats beat them in the ratings in NYC is irrelevent in this context.

 

[dampier]

> This seems to be unique to AAR. The same kind of response
> does not seem automatically to occur for posts about non-AAR
> progressive hosts or Democracy Radio. In fact, the rest of
> the progressive talk community often seems treated with mild
> indifference by comparison.
>
> For many it seems, AAR is a crusade (for or against).

Your reflection on AAR vs. Democracy Radio proves the point I have made all along. I see very little pro-AAR comments starting message threads. Since its inception, the right wing echo chamber has seen AAR as a major threat, while also telling us it's no threat because nobody listens to it. In an effort to try and bring down the first organized full schedule format devoted to breaking a virtual monopoly on conservative talk, AAR has been attacked before it even launched. There is an obsession among the critics of AAR, and what you are seeing are people who aren't just going to sit back and let the BS attacks go unanswered.

You'll read next to nothing about AAR on this forum unless and until one of the anti AAR folks posts or reposts some article claiming that AAR has done something evil, or has no ratings, or is under investigation. Then we look at the "article" and discover it almost always is heavily slanted (if not outright wrong) and when fact checking reveals the dishonesty, when that gets posted, it's another huge AAR debate thread.

Democracy Radio is more about individual shows, and for whatever reason, most of the conservative blogs don't perceive Schultz & Miller et al., as big of a threat so they are usually not attacked. That's why you won't see as much discussion about DR here. Typically threads reach hurricane strength in here when someone posts an uninformed or moronic attack and then it gets answered. The threads typically burn out when the original premise of the hit piece post gets successfully challenged (and rarely does the original poster stick around to defend the post) and then the show is over. By a week later, it's time for another attack post. Rinse and repeat.

I don't mind challenging the nonsense because I actually go out and do the research that so many who write these things originally never do, learning things along the way. It's easy to be the Unequalizer and to quote from the guy, because he can just make stuff up. It's a little harder to actually find facts and report those, but it's also more useful.

 

[dampier]

Re: Franken and Rhodes

> I think those two are more like Michael Savage and Bob
> Grant in style than the relatively mild-mannered
> Hannity and Limbaugh.

Oh please... get inside immediately... you've had too much sun. Sean, who was caught whining on a backhaul feed about how much he hates and loathes Democrats during the Schiavo debacle or Rush, who made a career out of making people hate those they disagree with - are not even slightly comparable to Al Franken. Randi has NY attitude, but the premise of her show is to push back as hard as the other side has pushed her.

 

[bierkenstock]

Top performing talk stations

It just means they are in the biggest city. They have more listeners because they are in the market with largest population. They have more revenue because New York ad rates are higher than other markets, possibly excluding LA. By your standard, WOR would be the second most successful talk station in the country.

Compared to other news-talk stations around the country, WABC does OK but not great (in audience market share and share of market revenue).

And personally, I have never been all that impressed with local New York radio. The top performing stations on my list always seemed to reflect and represent their cities. New York radio has always seemed to me very corporate. The one New York station that sounds New York is 1010 WINS. WABC pretty much could be satellite delivered from nowhere to anyplace (and most of the time, it is).

>
> If they have the most listeners and the top billing of any
> political talk station in the country, it seems to me that's
> a pretty good indication that they're the "most successful"
> political talk station. The fact that other stations with
> different formats beat them in the ratings in NYC is
> irrelevent in this context.
>

 

[Scribbler]

Re: Top performing talk stations

> It just means they are in the biggest city. They have more
> listeners because they are in the market with largest
> population. They have more revenue because New York ad
> rates are higher than other markets, possibly excluding LA.
> By your standard, WOR would be the second most successful
> talk station in the country.

By my standard, stations with the most listeners and the best
billings are the most successful. WOR trails talk stations
in other markets in both listeners and billings and therefore
is obviously NOT the second most successful talk station in
the country. In fact, it's not really a political talk station,
since it broadcasts non-political shows such as Dr. Joy Browne,
Joan Hamburg, Rocco DiSpirito, Jim Cramer, and Dr. Ronald
Hoffman (all Monday through Friday shows).

 

[OldAkronite]

Random Thoughts on AAR vs. Jones/DR, etc.

> Everybidy doesn't have to be cookie cutter. hey do have to
> know, or learn, how radio works. Pacing, timing, what it
> takes to get and keep listeners. What's going to make
> someone hesitate to get out of their car because of what's
> coming up after the commercial. The first time I heard Al
> Franken, I was struck by the fact that he was interviewing
> someone (Joe Biden), and for 45 minutes didn't identify him.

Two points to gr8oldies.

See, I'm one of those radio people who scratched his head at the "let's throw comedians and movie stars on the air" attitude at AAR, especially in the beginning. In their debut lineup, they had exactly ONE person who'd been doing the job for a long time...Randi Rhodes. (OK, maybe two if you count Mark Riley, but he basically got brought on because of the deal with AAR/Inner City at his local home station, later AAR flagship, WLIB.) That's it.

The morning drive, along with Riley, featured and still features a neurotic comedian. Middays are now occupied by trash TV's Jerry Springer, still learning the radio ropes. Franken will never, ever be a top flight radio talk show host. An interviewer? Perhaps. A solo performer? Never. I haven't heard Janeane "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" Garafolo, but she was actually one of the more decent non-pro hosts, and Sam Seder did well when he filled in for Randi Rhodes.

And of course, former WLS and WSB host Mike Malloy does late nights - making him the SECOND AAR M-F host with full-time radio talk experience.

That all out of the way... I do not listen to most of the above, because they still struggle on the radio and are still grappling with being entertaining and running a professional show. It's not political. And aside from the radio aspects of it, it's nothing I have against AAR directly...just the way they've chosen to program their hosts.

I listen to talk shows, as I've said before, from all sides of the political spectrum. I'll dip into Randi's show from time to time, and listen pretty regularly to Stephanie Miller. Again, yet another non-AAR host who has actual talk radio experience, and lots of it, in a top market (Los Angeles). I'll also listen to local conservative host Howie Chizek (WNIR/Akron), and occasionally to Premiere's Glenn Beck (heard locally on WHLO/Akron and other stations).

What's the common factor of all of those hosts, from Randi and Stephanie on the left, to Howie and Glenn on the right? ENTERTAINMENT. If they entertain me, if their show is lively, if they don't go "um" and "ah" all the time and sound like they're uncomfortable on the air, I'm there.

I'm not saying that non-radio people can't eventually become talented hosts. KFBK/Sacramento's Tom Sullivan was a stockbroker doing business reports. KOGO/San Diego's Roger Hedgecock was a politician. But...I don't want to hear hosts' radio growing pains in prime time slots. If Al Franken was Al Smith, he would be doing a weekend show.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[OldAkronite]

AAR "Crusade" - Explained

> For many it seems, AAR is a crusade (for or against).

I've talked about the radio end of it in a message below...now, here's the other side of it.

AAR attracts extreme fanaticism for several reasons.

* It was the first, and most publicized, attempt to overhaul talk radio to offer liberal talk nationwide.

* Its "big name" is comedian Al Franken, who has already drawn fire from the right for his previous non-radio efforts (like his anti-Rush book).

But most importantly...even more so than Democracy Radio, which is run by the husband of a U.S. Senator (Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan), the AAR launch was fueled with talk about how it was important for them to be there, in part, because they were looking to influence the upcoming election in November.

Though the DR folks are certainly of like mind, they were not trying to get Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller on the air to try to get President Bush out of office. They were there to get on as many stations as possible, to grow the show and eventually make money.

It's not saying that Schultz and Miller don't get on the air going after the current administration, and not saying they didn't want the president out of office any less than the AAR folks did, but the business plan for DR was a business plan...like a traditional radio syndication plan.

Of course, underneath this was the fact that DR was actually FUNDED with money from Democratic political contributors. But they went professional with their radio operations, enlisting well-known syndicator Jones Radio Networks to sell their shows like they sell WSB/Cox's Neal Boortz and Clark Howard.

Even now, long after the 2004 presidential race, it's thought by many that AAR is still in it for "election change", and not moneymaking. This comes off on the air...while Schultz and Miller sound like they're trying to do pretty straightforward (or in Miller's case, humorous) radio shows, AAR hosts often sound like the 2006 midterm election is a mission, and they happen to be doing a radio show around that mission.

And as such, that stirs up the passion of those who agree with that "mission", and the emnity of those on the right who put AAR in the same category as New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>

 

[Oldbones]

Re: it's about the passion...

>
> I believe the liberal talkers inspire passion. Except for
> Springer. No passion there. Even Franken inspires more
> passion than Springer. Randi Rhodes, of course, is the queen
> of passion. Mike Malloy is a close 2nd. Probably the only
> rightist talker who has a handle on the passion is Michael
> Savage.
>


If you say so. One man's "passion" is another man's ranting idiot.