Why Is Right-Wing Talkradio obsessed by AA?

[HHH]

I listened to Hugh Hewitt today, and he went on and on about Air America losing their Philadelphia affiliate to "low ratings" (the tiny WHAT on 1340 which is barely heard outside of the city), how Catherine L. is leaving the Al Franken show, and how "it is all over for Air America and liberal talk on the radio.....this is a good thing...blah blah blah". O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity and others have been talking about AA's "demise" before the service even signed on. Hannity keeps harping on their "shady business practices" as if it is a current situation and they never cleaned house, and called for the shutdown of the network. There are several right-wing blogs which have run pointers on how to "hassle your local AA affilate" through intimidation, prank calls, etc.

I have said this before, but I still find it remarkable: Why is these right-wingers so crazy over this service and why do they want it destroyed? If it really is as unimportant as they keep claiming, then why worry? Like I said recently, even extreme left-wing services like Pacifica (which makes AA look positively conservative!) have never called for the specific destruction of right-wing talk radio or encouraged ways to hassle and intimidate it.

Why is the right so crazy over AA?

By the way, Catherine L. is leaving the Franken show because Franken is relocating (and will originate the show from) Minnesota in a few months, and she needs to stay in New York (Hewitt didn't mention this). <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HHH on 09/30/05 12:20 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[coolidge]

> I listened to Hugh Hewitt today, and he went on and on about
> Air America losing their Philadelphia affiliate to "low
> ratings"

1.) Why are you using scare quotes? Do you actually believe AAR's ratings aren't low?

2.) To answer your silly question, it's called schandenfreude.

3.) This doesn't belong on the Boston board. Why don't you take this over to the news/talk board where all the AARistians keep trying to convince everyone that water isn't actually wet and fire won't burn you?

 

[morescrapple]

> > I listened to Hugh Hewitt today, and he went on and on
> about
> > Air America losing their Philadelphia affiliate to "low
> > ratings"
>
> 1.) Why are you using scare quotes? Do you actually believe
> AAR's ratings aren't low?
>
> 2.) To answer your silly question, it's called
> schandenfreude.
>
> 3.) This doesn't belong on the Boston board. Why don't you
> take this over to the news/talk board where all the
> AARistians keep trying to convince everyone that water isn't
> actually wet and fire won't burn you?
>
hmmm... 2 Boston stations carry A.A.R's programming, right?

Funny that background bridge during O'Reilly sure looked like Zakim.

 

[raccoonradio]

> I listened to Hugh Hewitt today, and he went on and on about
> Air America losing their Philadelphia affiliate to "low
> ratings" .

Schadenfraude--taking delight in the miseries of others. It's
how Red Sox fans would feel if the Sox made the playoffs but the
dreaded and despised Yankees didn't.

Nothing wrong with having liberal and conservative talk radio. Conservatalk
thrived partly because much of the media (newspapers, TV) had a liberal
bias and conservatalk finally got the Right's views out there. You had
Fox News presenting an alternative viewpoint--I'd like to think the news
coverage is fair and balanced while the opinion shows tilt slightly to
the right, or are equal, like Hannity and Colmes. And the liberals got all
upset. Hey, tons of liberally biased TV media. Can't the conservatives
have their own channel?

I'll tell you why conservatives are delighting in the follies of Air
America--because liberals have been so loud and shrill in condemning
Bush et al. Sure, conservatives did the same thing to Clinton, but the
level of condemnation--bordering on utter hatred--is really high. I don't
remember seeing conservatives leading protest marche, saying "Clinton
is Hitler", or conservative talk hosts arguing that Ted Kennedy should
be killed.

Liberals are getting their views out there. Just look at C-SPAN last Saturday
and the peace rally, with "Impeach Bush" signs (nice way to butter up
the guy, folks), LOUD and SHRILL speakers, nary an American flag in
sight, sponsored by a group with ties to the Socialist Workers Party, etc.
You tell 'em, Comrade!
Admittedly, the far left fringe of the liberals, but the views are out there.
And if these people did talk shows that got ratings, then great. If they
attract listeners, they'd wind up on bigger and better stations. WRKO
would be the Air America affiliate, if they felt it would get ratings.
Many libtalk shows have been dismal failures. Ann Coulter details this
in "Slander".

Admittedly you do have conservative blogs saying how you can harrass
AAR affiliates by posting on their website messageboards but guess what:
liberals do the same type of tactics. Am sure they encourage their own
to post on conservative boards like Free Republic, and some have.

> Why is the right so crazy over AA?

Schadenfraude! The ultimate thing about all this is the ratings. If conservative shows do well with the audience, perhaps because they provide an alternative
to leftist bias elsewhere, and it shows in the ratings, then great. If
the Al Frankens and Air Americas of this country put out a better mousetrap,
then the world would beat a path to their door, as the old saying goes.
So if a liberal network/stations can put out a good product and it succeeds,
more power to them. I have no problem with AAR succeeding, or not succeeding,
and admittedly some hosts like Hannity are having a little TOO much fun
with bashing Air America (maybe a reaction to the fun liberals have bashing Bush). But if Franken, Miller, Schulz, etc. were to attract enough listeners,
they'd get on bigger stations and do the type of ratings Rush does.

Liberals dominate the media in TV, newspapers, movies, and more. Talk radio is once place where they have yet to make their mark--and someday maybe they
will. But again, conservatives like Hannity are kind of doing the AAR-bashing as a reaction to the Bush-bashing.

<P ID="signature">______________
I am the REAL raccoonradio (2 c's). Accept
no substitutes!</P>

 

[AllForADeuce]

In case you've NEVER noticed, the Right use aything it can to debunk, belittle and discredit the Left, and vice versa. Neither party is whitey whitey clean but it is typical of politics.

 

[HHH]

> > I listened to Hugh Hewitt today, and he went on and on
> about
> > Air America losing their Philadelphia affiliate to "low
> > ratings" .
>
> Schadenfraude--taking delight in the miseries of others.
> It's
> how Red Sox fans would feel if the Sox made the playoffs but
> the
> dreaded and despised Yankees didn't.
>
> Nothing wrong with having liberal and conservative talk
> radio. Conservatalk
> thrived partly because much of the media (newspapers, TV)
> had a liberal
> bias and conservatalk finally got the Right's views out
> there. You had
> Fox News presenting an alternative viewpoint--I'd like to
> think the news
> coverage is fair and balanced while the opinion shows tilt
> slightly to
> the right, or are equal, like Hannity and Colmes.

Not so sure.

When Bush gave his speech in N.O. and mentioned that there were failures on the
local, regional, and national levels (a very fair assesment and I give him credit), Fox summarized the story in their newscasts (not commentary) later by saying (this is a direct quote) "The President said that there were failures on the local and regional level, and that there were some failures on the national level". Now maybe I'm just being Fox-sensitive, but where did the word "some" come from? Bush (again to his credit) said that everyone screwed up, but Fox used the tempering term "some" only to refer to the national component. The same word was placed in front of all references to the national response on all Fox newscasts all weekend. Hit me as sort of strange.

Also, have you seen the print ads for Hannity and Combs? On the Hannity page, his banner reads something like "Outspoken. Patriot. Spokesperson for the true American". Over the Combs page it reads (I kid you not) "He may be a Liberal, but he's not crazy". I couldn't imagine ABC marketing George Will's Sunday morning appearences on "This Week" by saying "He's a conservative, but he's not crazy".


And the
> liberals got all
> upset. Hey, tons of liberally biased TV media.

Like what? Do you think CNN / CBS / ABC / NBC news (as a whole in editorial) is as overtly liberal as Fox is overtly conservative? But that's not my beef. Fox TV News does not bother me really, because TV is very diverse and there are lots of opinions. It is RADIO that lacks a balancing element.



>
> I'll tell you why conservatives are delighting in the
> follies of Air
> America--because liberals have been so loud and shrill in
> condemning
> Bush et al. Sure, conservatives did the same thing to
> Clinton, but the
> level of condemnation--bordering on utter hatred--is really
> high.


What? You don't remember Whitewater, where we were forced to spend 60 million to find out if the Clinton's made a couple of hundred grand on a land deal? Conservatives HATED Clinton, and hassled him like crazy.


I don't
> remember seeing conservatives leading protest marche, saying
> "Clinton
> is Hitler",


You never saw Rush's TV show, where Bill and Hillary were portrayed in sickening characterizations. Conservative talk radio (I am trying to stay on radio here) HATES Hillary with a PASSION. Complete, unbridled HATRED.


or conservative talk hosts arguing that Ted
> Kennedy should
> be killed.


What Liberal talk show host advocated Bush being killed? It's Pat Robertson who wants to assasinate leaders of nations, remember?


>
> Liberals are getting their views out there. Just look at
> C-SPAN last Saturday
> and the peace rally, with "Impeach Bush" signs (nice way to
> butter up
> the guy, folks), LOUD and SHRILL speakers, nary an American
> flag in
> sight, sponsored by a group with ties to the Socialist
> Workers Party, etc.
> You tell 'em, Comrade!
> Admittedly, the far left fringe of the liberals,


...wow...thank you! I certainly don't consider certain extremeist neo-cons
as real representatives of all conservatives. By the way, C-Span shows everything, including many pro-right events.


but the
> views are out there.
> And if these people did talk shows that got ratings, then
> great. If they
> attract listeners, they'd wind up on bigger and better
> stations. WRKO
> would be the Air America affiliate, if they felt it would
> get ratings.
> Many libtalk shows have been dismal failures. Ann Coulter
> details this
> in "Slander".


Uh oh. You are losing points when you bring up Ann Coulter. Here is
someone who considers all Liberals to be "traitors". If she is serious (I think she is just doing schtick, by the way) she seriously wants to deport and/or jail pretty much (according to the last election) half the country?
Kinda spooky. She also called Walter Cronkite (direct book quote) "an idiot".
Ann Coulter vs. Walter Cronkite in a political debate? Bets anyone?


>
> Admittedly you do have conservative blogs saying how you can
> harrass
> AAR affiliates by posting on their website messageboards but
> guess what:
> liberals do the same type of tactics. Am sure they encourage
> their own
> to post on conservative boards like Free Republic, and some
> have.
>
> > Why is the right so crazy over AA?
>
> Schadenfraude! The ultimate thing about all this is the
> ratings. If conservative shows do well with the audience,
> perhaps because they provide an alternative
> to leftist bias elsewhere, and it shows in the ratings, then
> great. If
> the Al Frankens and Air Americas of this country put out a
> better mousetrap,
> then the world would beat a path to their door, as the old
> saying goes.
> So if a liberal network/stations can put out a good product
> and it succeeds,
> more power to them. I have no problem with AAR succeeding,
> or not succeeding,
> and admittedly some hosts like Hannity are having a little
> TOO much fun
> with bashing Air America (maybe a reaction to the fun
> liberals have bashing Bush).


This is my point. They are so powerful with Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc, yet they are obsessed with wiping out Air America, which is the only commercial liberal talk network. What are they afraid of? It would be like WBZ ranting and raving about 1150-Salem's lousy ratings. It is just strange to me.



But if Franken, Miller, Schulz,
> etc. were to attract enough listeners,
> they'd get on bigger stations and do the type of ratings
> Rush does.


Rush started on small stations and worked his way up. People seem to forget that. He was on, what, WPAT or something in New York for the first two or three years with virtually no ratings.


>
> Liberals dominate the media in TV, newspapers, movies, and
> more. Talk radio is once place where they have yet to make
> their mark--and someday maybe they
> will.


I hope so. I am really a moderate more than a kool-aid drinker from either side. But when I listen to commercial AM talk radio, aside from AA, I only get one side. That's wrong. That's all that I am saying.


<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HHH on 09/30/05 09:19 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[HHH]

> 1.) Why are you using scare quotes? Do you actually believe
> AAR's ratings aren't low?


Of course they are low. They are on a 1KW Class IV crapper on 1340 with a signal that makes WXKS look like WBZ! You can't make decent ratings on a station with ANY kind of programming that does not reach most of the survey area! <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HHH on 09/30/05 09:34 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[coolidge]

> Of course they are low. They are on a 1KW Class IV crapper

There are no more "Class IV" stations.

Since there's no Boston related material in this thread, take it elsewhere please. The obsessives have been having this debate on the news/talk board for a year.

 

[Oldbones]

> I have said this before, but I still find it remarkable:
> Why is these right-wingers so crazy over this service and
> why do they want it destroyed? If it really is as
> unimportant as they keep claiming, then why worry? Like I
> said recently, even extreme left-wing services like Pacifica
> (which makes AA look positively conservative!) have never
> called for the specific destruction of right-wing talk radio
> or encouraged ways to hassle and intimidate it.
>
> Why is the right so crazy over AA?
>

OK, then why does Franken obsess with every "lie" Rush tells on his show? I don't see him dissecting Randi Rhodes' show for her "lies". This works both ways.

 

[Cowboy]

For some of y'all that think Fox News is so right-biased, y'all obviously haven't checked out the CBN and TBN newscasts. Now that's some ultra-right-wing bias there. It makes Fox look like the Free Speech Television Network.

 

[classicradionut]

First off... I'm moving this to the talk radio board. It really doesn't relate to Boston radio specifically. Thanks.

> ...wow...thank you! I certainly don't consider certain
> extremeist neo-cons
> as real representatives of all conservatives. By the way,
> C-Span shows everything, including many pro-right events.
>

My only comment here is that there's too much extremism in both parties. And it's a strange kind of extremism in that on the GOP side, they are mainline big business supporters, however there's barely a shread of conservatism... as much as Bush has spent, he's actually made the Clinton administration look like conservatives. On the Democrat side, they are moral extremists, in that they have no morals whatsoever, yet they are preaching balanced budget, which SHOULD be a Republican mantra.

And... both parties are so shrill they are turning many of us off to poltics altogether. Some of the worst accusations and threats are coming from Bush cronies, but the Democrats are stretching the truth to such lengths that they appear to be outright liars - prime example is AAR. And they wonder why the network is in trouble. From suggestions that it might be a good idea to assassinate the president to some of the junk we hear Franken speak about, Air America deserves all the financial troubles it seems they are having. Not to be outdone, Limbaugh seems to be out there lately with his attacks on all things Democrat.

I really wish people on both sides of the political discussion would tone it down. It's turned into a lot of noise that nobody really wants to hear. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[mwebster]

Because they are [edit..name calling]

First off, Salem has no room to talk about anybody else's small audience. Now that that's out of the way...

If these <font color="red">[edit...name calling]</font> (conservative hosts) had kept their mouths shut, there's a chance progressive talk radio (and Air America Radio) would have come and gone without notice. Instead, they shouted from the house stops: Somebody wants to start a liberal talk network and it will fail! Then: The liberal talk network is failing. Newspapers picked it up (in cities where progressive talk could not be heard). You couldn't buy that kind of free publicity. And they are still promoting AAR. AAR in their earliest statements talked like they were going to take over talk radio from the get-go. Fortunately, that was over-whelmed by conservative hosts who set expectations for AAR so low, that mere survival became a victory.

Talk radio thrives on attack. It needs a villian. Communists. Terrorists. Or the political opposition. Rush took off when he had Clinton in power to attack. Now with Bush in power conservative hosts have to find someone/something else to rant about and progressive talk radio fills the bill (not too well; that's why ALL talk radio audience numbers are down since the election). Likewise, AAR is entirely too tepid and smart ass in attacking the Evil Little Twerp to really touch, move and inspire a potential audience. (Anybody remember, "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?")

What's wrong with bias? Listeners (conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, or fed up with the whole thing) go to radio (and other mass media) for confirmation, not information - for agreement, justification, validation and for someone to articulate their emotions in political terms. To paraphrase David Ogilvy: People use talk radio (and news) the way a drunk uses a lamp post. More for support than illumination. Don't worry, there is a body of research going back to before World War II that mass media doesn't change anybody's mind about anything. If it did, with all that bias, everybody here would have been converted long ago.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 10/02/05 01:46 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[KeithE]

> My only comment here is that there's too much extremism in
> both parties. And it's a strange kind of extremism in that
> on the GOP side, they are mainline big business supporters,
> however there's barely a shread of conservatism... as much
> as Bush has spent, he's actually made the Clinton
> administration look like conservatives. On the Democrat
> side, they are moral extremists, in that they have no morals
> whatsoever, yet they are preaching balanced budget, which
> SHOULD be a Republican mantra.

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, and Jack & Bobby Kennedy are spinning in their graves over what total crap both parties have turned into in the last few years.

> And... both parties are so shrill they are turning many of
> us off to poltics altogether. Some of the worst accusations
> and threats are coming from Bush cronies, but the Democrats
> are stretching the truth to such lengths that they appear to
> be outright liars - prime example is AAR. And they wonder
> why the network is in trouble. From suggestions that it
> might be a good idea to assassinate the president to some of
> the junk we hear Franken speak about, Air America deserves
> all the financial troubles it seems they are having. Not to
> be outdone, Limbaugh seems to be out there lately with his
> attacks on all things Democrat.

Limbaugh's been falling flat on his face for the last few months. He's been ranting more than usual - something he normally doesn't do. His arguments have been weak (unusual for him) and his Democrat-bashing has gotten absolutely ridiculous. He'll always bash Democrats, but normally he has more class than he's showing lately, even with his parodies and semi-insulting nicknames. At least he still bases his arguments on facts, something AAR has serious problems doing.

I don't listen to AAR very often, mostly because they are a big bunch of hooey 90% of the time. They're all rant and very little substance. Of course, they don't corner the market on BS on either side of the political aisle, but they spew more venom than just about everybody else other than Savage.

AAR has every right to broadcast (and conservative hosts have no right whatsoever to bash them - it's called "competition" and "free market"), but they are just a flat-out bad radio network. If they make it, fine. If not, there are other liberal talk shows that will fill the void (and are already starting). I think if Al Franken decides to run for office in Minnesota (and props to him if he does - most show-biz liberals aren't willing to take the plunge or the pay cut - Franken's apparently willing to do so and he gets my respect for that), then I think AAR as a business entity will be finished.

> I really wish people on both sides of the political
> discussion would tone it down. It's turned into a lot of
> noise that nobody really wants to hear.

Noise, ranting & raving, venom, and BS is good for talk radio and cable news channels, but bad for national political debate. A radio version of C-SPAN would just be boring. NPR can be boring enough at times.

 

[RBA]

LOL, Rush Limbaugh bases his arguments on facts and AAR bases theirs on Lies? You can't be serious.

 

[coolidge]

Re: Because they are [edit name calling]

> Talk radio thrives on attack. It needs a villian.
> Communists. Terrorists. Or the political opposition. Rush
> took off when he had Clinton in power to attack.

Actually, Rush's show had already "taken off" before Clinton took office. Many observers suggested that Clinton's election would presage a decline in Limbaugh's success.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by cabradio on 10/02/05 01:51 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[KeithE]

> LOL, Rush Limbaugh bases his arguments on facts and AAR
> bases theirs on Lies? You can't be serious.

Limbaugh's arguments are more fact-based than any AAR host most of the time. I didn't say he gets his facts right 100% of the time because he certainly doesn't.

My point is that Rush has been letting his emotions get in the way lately - and I think he knows it and doesn't care at this point.

 

[RBA]

> > LOL, Rush Limbaugh bases his arguments on facts and AAR
> > bases theirs on Lies? You can't be serious.
>
> Limbaugh's arguments are more fact-based than any AAR host
> most of the time. I didn't say he gets his facts right 100%
> of the time because he certainly doesn't.
>
> My point is that Rush has been letting his emotions get in
> the way lately - and I think he knows it and doesn't care at
> this point.
>
You say you don't listen to AAR, but you know that they are 90 percent based in lies. Isn't it ironic that your own arguement is factless.

 

[coolidge]

> You say you don't listen to AAR, but you know that they are
> 90 percent based in lies. Isn't it ironic that your own
> arguement is factless.


First of all, since this is a written medium, he didn't "say" anything. Secondly, he did not write that he "[didn't] listen to AAR." Therefore, who's "arguement" (sic) is factless - yours or his?

 

[KeithE]

> You say you don't listen to AAR, but you know that they are
> 90 percent based in lies. Isn't it ironic that your own
> arguement is factless.

I said I don't listen to them often. I didn't say I didn't listen to them at all. In fact, I have my car radio button #1 programmed to alternate between conservative KFYI 550 (carries Rush and Hannity) and liberal KXXT 1010 (Phoenix's AAR station) so I can go back and forth.

 

[robmidmi]

> > You say you don't listen to AAR, but you know that they
> are
> > 90 percent based in lies. Isn't it ironic that your own
> > arguement is factless.
>
>
> First of all, since this is a written medium, he didn't
> "say" anything. Secondly, he did not write that he
> "[didn't] listen to AAR." Therefore, who's "arguement"
> (sic) is factless - yours or his?

From Dictionary.com, this is an excerpt for the definition of the word <a target="_blank" href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=say>"say"</a>:
6. b.To give nonverbal expression to; signify or embody. This means RBA was correct in using "say" in that sentence.

I am not to excusing RBA for misspelling, however, <a target="_blank" href=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=arguement&btnG=Google+Search>do a google seach for "arguement"</a> and you will find "about 1,990,000" Web pages where people have spelled the word "argument" wrong, as well.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by robmidmi on 10/01/05 07:11 PM.</FONT></P>