Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you sick of New York City? Can't tune in Air America among the big buildings??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's break this down okay!
You say... "Whomever wrote that is totally ignorant. AA died quite awhile back due to poor management."
Er..hmm...Not quite so! Air America died for one reason. It was an attempt at a commercial radio venure and when the sponsors who provide the commercials saw that none of the ratings indicated people were paying attention they got a bit disheartened and that was that. They pulled the plug effectively. Let's look at what are called "major media markets". They don't get much more "major" that the town you're so sick of, New York:
The Big Apple Snubs Air America By: Byron York OUCH! The Hill | Thursday, May 05, 2005
"[This show is about...relentlessly hammering away at the Bush administration until they crack and crumble this November because, don’t get me wrong, friends, they are going down!”
So said Al Franken, the comedian-turned-radio host-turned-political prognosticator, opening his very first show on the liberal Air America radio network March 31, 2004.
Well, as it turned out, George W. Bush didn’t go down in November. But Air America’s ratings did.
The numbers are now in for Air America’s first year of broadcasting, and they aren’t good.
For one thing, the network is only on the air in about 50 of the nation’s 285 radio markets. And in most of those, it is broadcast on small stations, often with weak signals. So it is impossible to compare Air America’s ratings to those of its conservative competitors, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who are heard on hundreds of stations.
But we can compare them in at least one place — New York City.
Last year, Franken, whose program airs on WLIB in New York, boasted that he was beating Limbaugh, who is heard on WABC.
“We beat him,” Franken said of Limbaugh in June 2004. “The period we’re opposite Rush, we — we beat WABC, so we think we beat Rush.”
Turns out that wasn’t the case. When the final ratings came in, Limbaugh remained unscathed.]"
So much for "poor management" . Poor management can be blamed for the time I read that BOTH their mens and ladies rooms in the studios; simultaneously, ran out of toilet paper. That could be called poor management.
Then you opined..."Everyone went on to bigger and better gigs over the past year or two. I'm still listeneing to all of them on other stations, online and via satellite radio." Streaming online radio and subscription radio are NOT the same as AM/FM commercial radio in the marketplace. When they were in the commercial marketplace I had a friend returning from southern California tell me a funny story. He was just outside of Barstow and tweaking his AM radio trying to get something...anything...and in the Mojave desert area on I-15 headin' to Vegas and he hears that fat-mouth 'No-name' Schultz come roarin' in through the speakers. He'd just announced the show opening and that he was started it rolling and as quick as it faded in, it faded out! True story. Sort of like one of those Area 51 type experiences.
So where are they all now?
Al Frankenstein (did you know that was his real name?) headed for the more fertile political fields of Washington, DC where he knew he could hobknob with all manner of lobbyists in doing "the peoples' business" and score bigtime by simply letting them know that his pockets were always wiiiiiide-open. Funny fellow that Al.
Then there's the d*ke diva Rachel Maddow. She/he got a gig with that ultra-right operation MSNBC(MisanthropesSlappingNewbornBabiesandConserva tives) and took off with HER/HIS OWN show. How about that? Unfortunately she/he took off into the ratings dumper. About the only one she/he beats is her/his compadre on that station Keith Olbermanic.
Then there's 'No name' Schultz, the pompous and bellicose voice of progressive radio made 15 minute famous by his latest outrage defining himself. Oozing a brucine-like disposition he offers us this..
"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are." Ahhhh The refreshing voice of progressive liberal civility and reason. Here's an update on lardbutt:
As Ratings Sink for TV Show, Ed Schultz Gets Shrill
One might observe that when he got bumped for the Commie understudy/law partner of the late Wild Bill Kuntsler, Ron Kuby...that he might have taken the hint that the end was near.
Who else of significance was there? Randi Rhodes Leftwing Nova M Radio Folds; Randi Rhodes MIA
By P.J. Gladnick
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 09:57 ET
Alert Bill Press and the other liberals who want to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine." The free market continues to be at work weeding out shows that most folks don't want to listen to. The latest casualty is Nova M radio which syndicated such shows as Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. The reports are now coming in fast and furious about the demise of Nova M so here is the latest from Brian Maloney of The Radio Equalizer:
You know where you can catch Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow on TV. We even have an Air America guy sitting in the Senate.
They're all still on the air. I listen on radio and stream some of the shows. Are you that unaware of what is on the airwaves? I suppose you would be if all you tune into is far right wing propaganda.
Air America was not properly funded from the beginning and they stupidly let go of their best talent. They are still broadcasting every day on other stations.
No matter what conservative talk show hosts may claim, the demise of Air America does not mean there is anything wrong with progressive talk radio today.
You've got to be kidding! How much funding is required? They had enough to get on the air.That is all that is needed. They EARN the right to stay on the air after that.
Any commercial tv or radio works for ratings. low rarings, no advertisers. No advertisers, off you go.
Even after the democrat party pumped money to keep them alive, they failed.
I don't think anybody said there was anything wrong with progressive talk radio. They, for the most part, can't lure and keep an audience.
I am all for competition. Let the free market decide. In this case Air America could not attract enough of an audience for advertisers to stay with them.
Ok to the above you really do not think through your analysis before you speak do you. I have several points.
1, this definatively proves that liberals do not have the money right wing has. Rightys quotte Sorros this and that. Well there was no one to put up a few measly million a year for this venture. Whereas Ruppy the enquirer sleeze king who made his money in sleeze papers he inhereted. His opening media in the USA was the "star". he was bleeding hundreds of millions on his tv venture till it began stopping the bleed 3 or so years later. For example Olin third generation trust fund kid put his entire 250 million inheritance to right wing media propaganda starting in the 70s. You have Richard Mellon scaife another trust fund kid buying media and supporting right wing causes with his trust fund money, he also was the financier of hit books on clinton as well as he financed the Paula jones lawsuit from the beginning as well as her nose job.
Point being seems the right wing claims of Sorros types is just another right wing play the victim game.
2, Use your brain, of the fortune 1000 how many of those companies are going to advertise on a partisan liberal media. Ya right the richest companies in the US the oil, gas, energy, defense, medical, insurance, banking, finance and so on are going to advertise on a partisan liberal show. Give me a break.. thus it has nothing to do with listeners it has to do with revenue.
3, examples of more, do you realize Murdoch has never made money with his new york trash paper. he has owned that for what 10-20 years? and just bleeding. Do you know that same is true with the washington paper owned by righty rev sun young moooonie. the right wing korean who has ties to North Korea. It is noted he has never made a profit there.
4, I remember in Phoenix that the station AAR was on went from nothing in ratings to top i think ten in a year. The station was then bought out by a religious station and canned AAR. the station went back to nothing ratings.
the two of you said about the same thing. CNN had lou dobbs a partisan righty, Paula Zahn a partisan righty who went to Fux, hemmer a partisan right who went to fux, Caferty who is a partisan righty, Larry King a not so partisan righty but righty, Nancy grace a partisan righty. and not one partisan liberal by themselves ever. If you want to know what a partisan liberal is because you do not have the intellectual ability look at Ed Schultz a former republican for a good example or Huffington another former republican, or david Brock another former republican.
ABC has no partisan liberals, and is owned by a right wing company that allows trash on their radio stations like Sean Hanity, Huckibee, levin, scarborough and so on. No liberal would ever put that kind of trash on any part of a broadcast. In the worst case they would put in equally as partisan for balance. No way would any liberal controlled media put filth like that in front of humans. ABC fired a libertarian by the name of Bill Mahr for his free speech during his political show that he always allowed two right wing partisans on every show. I actually liked coulter on his show, as well as Rev falwell. that reminds me how many right wing religious networks are out there with no balance. my god that liberal media...
NBC would be almost laughable if you really could think without your lemming leaders telling you to play the victim game of liberal media. NBC is owned by a defense contractor, medical, banking company. If you think the employee tells the CEO how the job is run and what they are going to do you obviously live in fairytale land. Even in their small distribution of of MSNBC they fired their higherst rated talent because he was a liberal not long ago, he being Phil Donahue who was not that political on his shows, but at the time he was fired the highest rated show and only mild liberal. of cource they much later hired a token liberal because the dems were winning some offices back, and when the dems even won more branches of government well they knew they had to put more partisan liberals on their small station. and when the presidency now 3 out of 4 well they knew there would be the fairness doctrine coming back at ya. and they do not want to lose control of the big one NBC. again use your brain, right wing idiots have been saying liberal media yet, the right eliminated the fairness doctrine and does not want it back. only if you do not have the advantage would you not want it. if you would ever stop and use a little common sense you could figure that out, you don't have to regurgitate what rush et al tell you.
NPR is run by who ever the administration puts in. we just had 8 years of republican trash. NPR is as balanced as one can be in general. In fact I thought it was always funny how rightys can not tell balance. I remember a pew research poll that of republicans surveyed about 18 percent of them thought Fux was liberal. I remember way back and I would listen to Rush how right wing callers would call in and say he was a liberal.
do you have any clue that real journalists the professional ones can do their jobs correctly. we are not talking Fux who lies to us dauily even making a mockery of journalism stating they are fair and balanced with a straight face.
are you aware that not long ago the CIA agreed to stop paying journalists having them on their payroll. That was over 400 that they admitted to. Needless to say they did not say they would not be using journalists, just not paying them. But even that was a conditional thing. again this was 400 reporters on the payroll of the cia. my guess is they probably have more than that that use their cover as so called liberals. Just look at the CIA background assistance the owners of the NYT and Washington Post have had in their history. what a cover for a agent. Maybe that is why Judith Miller had that inside CIA information helping start a war.
lets see the largest circulation papers are the wall street journal, ultra partisan ruppy murdoch owned, and the USAToday, owned by Ganett who also owns many military papers. Please stop playing the victim game. Chicago tribune, long history with the military family the McCormicks, wasn't obama the first liberal EVER endorsed by the tribune. Look at the right wing trust fund family the Hearst's and their holdings. Ever seen what righty canadian Lord Black was doing to the liberals in the media with his ownership? was it westinghouse a defense contractor owning media for a few decades? right wing trust fund kid owner of the only paper in Vegas. How many southern red state papers or utah, montana, dakotas, Iowa, Oklahoma, texas, Arizona, Idaho, alaska papers are liberal?
such victims.
I actually tried reading your rebuttals...and couldn't understand it based on all the supposedly clever names you put to anything "not left". Speak English, and write using the proper words for things. We're not in grade school and you ain't that funny!
Perhaps this is why the liberal media doesn't do well. They try to be clever and funny...they intimidate opposing views.
Would you provide support that the the conservative media lies, instead of just barking back all the stuff you hear on TV.
I try to get my news from different sources. Mostly I read it and watch C-Span
One time, I watched Rachel Maddow...
OMG!!! She had fake pictures from the tea parties, made up fake stories and went on and on as though she was quoting real news. That was horrible! Like you, just because she can be mean, doesn't mean she's right. She lost me as a viewer in one show.
Many liberals thought Sarah Palin really was on SNL doing the skit. They continue to quote "I can see Alaska from my house" while they snicker and laugh calling her stupid.
Jon Stewart and SNL enjoy the comfortable spot of being comedy shows. They then bark out random bits of news and enjoy the spotlight of the "Yeah!" from the audience. Liberal TV and radio rides the "Parody" wave so much, its popularity sends the confusing message to the Liberals that the "news" is popular opinion.
But most people go for their news using the typical outlets. Air America was not a typical outlet and was not news.
Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio for a long time and is popular for many reasons. He's not easy to listen to. It's hard to laugh and think he's being funny. I haven't listened to him since the 80's, but I can tell you that his listeners listen for news and commentary and wouldn't stand for "made up" news. His listeners hold his feet to the fire and don't always agree with him. I can't listen to him because argument gets me worked up while I drive.
I don't normally watch Fox, I did watch it a lot a few years ago. I have never heard of a lie coming from that station either. I've met many liberals being interviewed on that station and they were always treated with respect. They don't always treat Fox with respect and embarrass themselves with childhood antics (like yours)
After Obama complained about Fox, I watched it for an entire week in a row and saw nothing wrong with it. It was the same Fox I new. Some shows I didn't really like, but there was no lying. If you find lying, prove it and call them on it.
If you like your media, pay for advertising on it and it won't fail. Simple.
But, I won't pay for someone to call names because I have a dissenting opinion. Call me a repug, a RW freak, a whatever. It won't change my mind. I have real reasons for my political positions. I don't want to sway my neighbors opinions, but I have the right to have these opinions.
(You haven't converted a man, simply because you've silenced him)
You've got to be kidding! How much funding is required? They had enough to get on the air.That is all that is needed. They EARN the right to stay on the air after that.
Any commercial tv or radio works for ratings. low rarings, no advertisers. No advertisers, off you go.
Even after the democrat party pumped money to keep them alive, they failed.
I don't think anybody said there was anything wrong with progressive talk radio. They, for the most part, can't lure and keep an audience.
I am all for competition. Let the free market decide. In this case Air America could not attract enough of an audience for advertisers to stay with them.
They lost their audience and support when the talent left and the listeners followed the talent. I've given the links to the shows in previous threads. Air America had bad management. Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller and others are still broadcasting every day. I listen to Randi, Mike and Thom on a regular basis. Randi Rhodes is now based right in the belly of the beast in Washington D.C. Air America listeners tuned into other stations quite awhile ago. Only someone not familiar with Air America thinks that their demise is news. Ed Schultz and Ron Reagan were the only ones left and Ed Schultz is now on TV along with Rachel Maddow. As I said in another post, only a person that only tunes into rar right wing propaganda would not be aware of this. There is an Air America guy sitting and putting forth his progressive agenda in the Senate, but you already know that.
When you need to resort to cheap homophobic references such as this, you immediate lose any credibility.
As for Dr. Maddow, she's light years down the road from most pundits.
And one other thing, you do realize that all the various font sizes and colors on your posts actually make them much harder to read?
Yeah! She's not really as popular as she could be. I heard she's very smart.
She's popular for the same reason reality TV is popular.
She's not news.
She's loud and abrasive and the premise of her shows are to draw emotional response, that's it. The liberals LOVE getting all emotional and name-calling and she fills that need.
Yeah! She's not really as popular as she could be. I heard she's very smart. .
She's as smart as they come
Quote:
Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[13] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University.[14] Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons.
She's popular for the same reason reality TV is popular.
She's not news.
She's loud and abrasive and the premise of her shows are to draw emotional response, that's it. The liberals LOVE getting all emotional and name-calling and she fills that need.
I can appreciate that you may not care for her politics, but you're way off base here.
Clearly you have never even watched her. Because Rachel Maddow is many things. But loud and abrasive she's not. And it's not close.
You can disagree with her all day. But at least be accurate. Compare an interview of hers to any other pundit. She's polite, respectful and courteous to her guests. She does not interrupt her guests. Try finding another pundit of either political persuasion that can claim that.
And one other thing, the woman does her homework.
Here's an example of her interviewing style.
And in this conversation, she obviously has strong emotional ties to this issue. You show me where and when she's brash, loud or abrasive?
I can appreciate that you may not care for her politics, but you're way off base here.
Clearly you have never even watched her. Because Rachel Maddow is many things. But loud and abrasive she's not. And it's not close.
You can disagree with her all day. But at least be accurate. Compare an interview of hers to any other pundit. She's polite, respectful and courteous to her guests. She does not interrupt her guests. Try finding another pundit of either political persuasion that can claim that.
And one other thing, the woman does her homework.
Here's an example of her interviewing style.
And in this conversation, she obviously has strong emotional ties to this issue. You show me where and when she's brash, loud or abrasive?
I've watched her already and won't EVER again. She was loud abrasive and rude to the opposition
On the story about "You Lied!", she only produced half the facts. The quoted section of the Bill was not proof that illegals wouldn't be covered.
Of course, in that version of the Bill, illegals were allowed coverage. So, she was wrong. Dead wrong! But all the Liberals believed her because she's so smart and does her homework. But in a Bill that was 18-1900 pages long, it wasn't that simple.
I watched it shaking my head asking "who watches this??"
She's produces fake pictures from the tea parties and had actors singing a negative song. If you didn't wait to the end, you would think she was providing the news.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OUCH!
Air America Bankrupt?
