Air America:1-29-07 New York Real Estate Mogul (not Republican Trump) to file to buy out Air America, Franken leaving

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

There's a difference between investing and subsidising. Eventually investments pay off.

Nice try (really). But wrong - much of the right-wing media has had *subsidies* not *investments*. Of course you may only notice the ones that eventually do pay off, but that doesn't mean they're the whole story. There are others which get ongoing subsidies. Go look at the donor recipients from Richard Mellon Scaife, for example.

Air America is young relative to a lot of right-wing media - but you are not judging them by the same standards because you are some combination of biased and ignorant of the history.

Take Fox, for example - Murdoch's deep pockets which Air America lacks - and which are not 'market forces' for Fox in terms of consumer demand - helped it get a start when the market was not going well. From Wikipedia:

To accelerate its adoption by cable companies, Fox News paid systems up to $11 per subscriber to distribute the network. This contrasted with the normal practice, in which cable operators paid stations carriage fees for the programming of channels.

Right-wing political connections also helped Fox get into the market - for example, in New York:

Time Warner selected MSNBC as the secondary news network, instead of Fox News. Fox News claimed that this violated an agreement to carry Fox News, and Ailes used his connections to persuade Mayor Giuliani to carry Fox News and Bloomberg Television on two underutilized city-owned cable channels, which he did.

New York City also threatened to revoke Time Warner's cable franchise for not carrying Fox News.

You are using bias in your comments for right-wing media and against Air America.

By the way, Air America carries perhaps my favorite talk radio show, Thomm Hartmann - check him out.

Radio web page

Re: Fox... Murdoch's deep pockets got things started. Yeah. That is called an investment. And it paid off as Fox is now the #1 cable news network in the US and pays for itself in addition to returning the initial seed money. And those ARE market forces at work. They wouldn't be #1 if nobody watched.

If Murdoch was still paying in and Fox had ratings in the MSNBC region, was losing money hand over fist and showed little promise of ever improving, then he would be subsidising. That's the situation AA finds itself in today.

If AA can't find new investors one has to ask why. If they had a decent business model and a good product I would think people would be falling all over themselves to prop the thing up. In fact, their ratings have been very low for quite a while now. They haven't gone out of their way to improve the product (they still use a lot of the original hosts). So why would you invest in a radio network with low ratings and no apparent vision of how to improve them? Even Fox shakes up its line-up every so often, ditching shows that don't get the ratings and opening up new programming that does.

I have never denied that there are successful left-wing radio hosts. What I'm pointing out is AA's failure as a business. One would think that AA would try to net some of those guys and replace the talent they currently have that can't draw a sufficient audience. But they aren't doing that. They are sticking with the same people.

There are others which get ongoing subsidies. Go look at the donor recipients from Richard Mellon Scaife, for example.

Link please? I know that Scaife donates TONS of money to right-wing causes. He's the right's version of George Soros. But I don't see where he's propping up radio networks with flagging ratings.

 

[ayabe]

The reason convservative talk radio thrives is because there are a lot of angry white men in this country.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The reason convservative talk radio thrives is because there are a lot of angry white men in this country.

Given the message traffic on this forum, and others, there are plenty of liberals, and Americans in general, who are not terribly happy about the Bush Admnistration...there is a huge demographic of angry liberals out there too...so don't kid yourself.

Air America failed because it was a poor business model...it really is as simply as that.

Look at all of the successful radio broadcasters out there...Rush and Howard Stern come to mind as the two most prominant...in both cases, they started out small, and over time, slowly crafted a show that appealed to a base audience...and then slowly expanded to capture that base audience in other markets.

Air America simply went national under the assumption that liberals would rally to an untested and relatively poor defined product...with Al Franken being the poster boy for the product, which in my opinion was a poor choice...this is the comedian that gave us the classic SNL character Stuart Smalley after all.

And please don't dismiss me as a NeoCon simply because I don't agree with you...my pop culture and political commentary preferences range from Howard Stern to South Park to the Daily Show.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ayabe
The reason convservative talk radio thrives is because there are a lot of angry white men in this country.

Angry about paying their fair of taxes?

 

[Red Dawn]

Air America failed because the demographic they were going after doesn't listen to talk radio, they read.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what happens when you put out a product nobody likes. People dont buy it and you go out of business.

True, America likes going down the tubes the Republican way.

Oh come on... Have you ever listened any of their programs? They come off as angry, bitter little trolls. Randi Rhodes especially. But all of them in their own way. Nobody wants to listen to that. The constant drone of negativity eventually wears on people.

Yes, just like me, an angry bitter American because watching a Country you love be destroyed by Republicans is not an easy thing to watch.

:roll: because its only the republicans. this country has been going down the shitter for a long time. it isn't one sides fault.

dave this is your cue for your regular song and dance, "oh, so it's clinton's fault?"

this country has been slowly eroding since the commie witch hunts in the 50s. not doing the right thing during the korean "conflict" that they now call it. fscking up the bay of pigs, pvssying out and causing us to loose face. the vietnam war problems can be seen two ways; either being to political and causing our soldiers to fight with their feet tied together, or just being there in the first place. (i am proud of what our soldiers did). the list could go on and on. the biggest problem that i have is that with each new administration the old problems are swept under the carpet and not dealt with only to have the problem rear its ugly head 10-30 years later. too short sighted, in for 8 years max.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what happens when you put out a product nobody likes. People dont buy it and you go out of business.

True, America likes going down the tubes the Republican way.

Oh come on... Have you ever listened any of their programs? They come off as angry, bitter little trolls. Randi Rhodes especially. But all of them in their own way. Nobody wants to listen to that. The constant drone of negativity eventually wears on people.

I have to agree. Admittedly, when I was a young Republican I loved Rush's TV show. He was hilarious. Unfortunately, he started taking himself seriously and became a troll. But he had a captive audience that didn't have my benefit of maturing past puberty.

Admittedly, I've never heard any of Air America's programming. Seems like most people with any intellectual competence or curiosity is too busy working or reading to bother with talk radio.

 

[Craig234]

Whoozyer,

Please stop distorting what I post.

I made the statement clearly that while the right is trying to argue that there's a lack of audience for Air America, holding it to a standard that from day one it has to be profitable purely by having a lot of listeners, they are failing to note the history of their own media successes as having had a lot of assistance when they got started outside of any such 'market appeal'.

The subsidies for Rush, the exceptional step of *paying cable networks to carry Fox* when the norm was for the cable networks to pay the content provider, are examples where the right-wing media had advantages Air America doesn't - in other words, you were seeing Fox fall on its face, too, without the big money to prop it up early on.

In still other words, Air America isn't any different than the right-wing success shows in having difficulties early on, though they don't have right-wing propaganda funding to prop them up the way the right-wing shows have had (I'm talking degree, not a complete absense of sympathetic funding).

You misrepresented my post by implying that my comments which applies specifically to whether there was enough of a listening audience for the show to make money without being subsidized early on, were disproven by *later* market appeal, and that the market forces which I specifically defined as about the number of listeners included subsisidies by Murdoch, which they did not include.

So, you are here spouting falsehoods in the comparisons, ignoring the facts that are positive about Air America and turning around the facts which show that the right had no more 'popular support' for its shows than Air America as they started. Tell the truth about the history.

Analogy: compare Fox News to The Monkees. The Monkees made a profit; they also had a network who funded their creation and promotion. Are The Monkees better than other bands who lacked that support, just because they made more money? Common sense will tell you that the netowrk could have picked from a number of bands, and many of them could have made a profit with the level of promotion they got. The Monkees are not necessarily a 'better' band than others who did not have that backing.

And Fox News is not necessarily 'better' than other shows or networks without the same level of financial support to get them market share.

Of course, The Monkees and Fox News had to have some level of market appeal to make the profits they eventually did, but it's wrong to say that they are only about market appeal, and hide their subsidies while comparing them to other products which did not have those subsidies.

When The Beatles and The Monkees were both releasing albums, I understand The Monkees sold more albums. But who was the better band?

 

[Lemon law]

No it just proves liberals are smarter than people who listen to Rush Limbaugh type stations.

Have you ever looked at all the merchandise Rush hawks---EIB clothing---super expensive and overpriced---and Rush listeners will pay Rush to tell them lies and then
spend a small fotune buying his junk just to prove how dumb they are. Money rolls in---runs in black due to telling lies and listerner stupidity.---just proving ditto heads can't think for themselves---and have to rely on a phony like Rush to do their thinking for them---and seek clothing to label themselves as part of a crowd of idiots---too dumb to not know how dumb they are.

And Liberals listen to air America radio---and say--I already knew most of that already---but won't open their wallets to buy overpriced clothing or trinkets that screams phony. They have the inner serinity of having a mind that processes data and independently reaches conclusions. Not enough money changes hands, station goes broke, just proving liberals are smarter people. And won't pay to hear lies and spin---and won't waste money to learn what is already apparent to everyone with two eyes, two ears, and an open mind.

So stupidity makes money---and intelligence does not---whats new?

 

[sandorski]

Listened to it a few times, a few of the hosts were ok, others were ranters I'd like to reach through and smack around.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Listened to it a few times, a few of the hosts were ok, others were ranters I'd like to reach through and smack around.

As I said, try the Thom Hartmann show. Free on the web as well.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sandorski
Listened to it a few times, a few of the hosts were ok, others were ranters I'd like to reach through and smack around.

As I said, try the Thom Hartmann show. Free on the web as well.

Thom Hartmann is the absolute smartest man on the radio today. He actually PREFERS to interview/calmly debate right-wingers. He takes their arguments and talking points and systematically picks them apart and usually leaves them mumbling, especially David Horowitz a few weeks back.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sandorski
Listened to it a few times, a few of the hosts were ok, others were ranters I'd like to reach through and smack around.

As I said, try the Thom Hartmann show. Free on the web as well.

Thom Hartmann is the absolute smartest man on the radio today. He actually PREFERS to interview/calmly debate right-wingers. He takes their arguments and talking points and systematically picks them apart and usually leaves them mumbling, especially David Horowitz a few weeks back.

That would have been good.

Wonder if there could ever be a debate between Michael Medved and Thom Hartmann.....

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No it just proves liberals are smarter than people who listen to Rush Limbaugh type stations.

Have you ever looked at all the merchandise Rush hawks---EIB clothing---super expensive and overpriced---and Rush listeners will pay Rush to tell them lies and then
spend a small fotune buying his junk just to prove how dumb they are. Money rolls in---runs in black due to telling lies and listerner stupidity.---just proving ditto heads can't think for themselves---and have to rely on a phony like Rush to do their thinking for them---and seek clothing to label themselves as part of a crowd of idiots---too dumb to not know how dumb they are.

And Liberals listen to air America radio---and say--I already knew most of that already---but won't open their wallets to buy overpriced clothing or trinkets that screams phony. They have the inner serinity of having a mind that processes data and independently reaches conclusions. Not enough money changes hands, station goes broke, just proving liberals are smarter people. And won't pay to hear lies and spin---and won't waste money to learn what is already apparent to everyone with two eyes, two ears, and an open mind.

So stupidity makes money---and intelligence does not---whats new?

What a bunch of bull ******. Give it up. Have you really listened to Rush? When he is talking about issues he is as good as anyone in the country of selling his point of view.

When Rush went big in 90 or 91 there was no Fox News and therefore nothing but a liberal point of view on every TV news station. He was the first nationwide host with conservative values and that is why his show exploded. People like myself who never got to hear their points of views on the TV or Radio finally had a place to go and listen to someone who they could agree with. Rush didn't create the conservative market, it was already there, he just filled the void. Fox News did the same thing. CNN played to the left and we had no other choice, but once a network came along that showed the news in a more balanced view the right flocked too it.

Air America failed because of two things, the market they are going after isn't very large. The Democratic Party is a party made up of a bunch of small parts working together, and they work together rather well, you have the labor groups, the black groups, and the progressives, which I think is what Air America aimed for. There just aren?t enough progressives who want to listen to talk radio. Look at our own group, how many of you on the left listen to Air America?

Another reason they failed is that they WAY over paid the talent. Al Franken is not worth the million plus he makes a year for the small audience he has.

As someone else suggested if they had signed up a bunch of liberal talk radio people and started small and worked up maybe they could have made it. However, they went in with both feet, signed big cost talent and then never got the revenue to pay for that talent.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No it just proves liberals are smarter than people who listen to Rush Limbaugh type stations.

Have you ever looked at all the merchandise Rush hawks---EIB clothing---super expensive and overpriced---and Rush listeners will pay Rush to tell them lies and then
spend a small fotune buying his junk just to prove how dumb they are. Money rolls in---runs in black due to telling lies and listerner stupidity.---just proving ditto heads can't think for themselves---and have to rely on a phony like Rush to do their thinking for them---and seek clothing to label themselves as part of a crowd of idiots---too dumb to not know how dumb they are.

And Liberals listen to air America radio---and say--I already knew most of that already---but won't open their wallets to buy overpriced clothing or trinkets that screams phony. They have the inner serinity of having a mind that processes data and independently reaches conclusions. Not enough money changes hands, station goes broke, just proving liberals are smarter people. And won't pay to hear lies and spin---and won't waste money to learn what is already apparent to everyone with two eyes, two ears, and an open mind.

So stupidity makes money---and intelligence does not---whats new?

What a bunch of bull ******. Give it up. Have you really listened to Rush? When he is talking about issues he is as good as anyone in the country of selling his point of view.

When Rush went big in 90 or 91 there was no Fox News and therefore nothing but a liberal point of view on every TV news station. He was the first nationwide host with conservative values and that is why his show exploded. People like myself who never got to hear their points of views on the TV or Radio finally had a place to go and listen to someone who they could agree with. Rush didn't create the conservative market, it was already there, he just filled the void. Fox News did the same thing. CNN played to the left and we had no other choice, but once a network came along that showed the news in a more balanced view the right flocked too it.

Air America failed because of two things, the market they are going after isn't very large. The Democratic Party is a party made up of a bunch of small parts working together, and they work together rather well, you have the labor groups, the black groups, and the progressives, which I think is what Air America aimed for. There just aren?t enough progressives who want to listen to talk radio. Look at our own group, how many of you on the left listen to Air America?

Another reason they failed is that they WAY over paid the talent. Al Franken is not worth the million plus he makes a year for the small audience he has.

As someone else suggested if they had signed up a bunch of liberal talk radio people and started small and worked up maybe they could have made it. However, they went in with both feet, signed big cost talent and then never got the revenue to pay for that talent.

Rush is a waste of Time/Space and always has been. The so called "Liberal" media pre-Rush had nothing like Rush. What it had was exposure to a wide spectrum of ideas, Conservative, Liberal, the Fringes of growing movements(environmentalism, Technology). The only thing that made the Media "Liberal" was the exposure of new ideas. Social Conservatives find many new ideas threatening and are/were apalled to see them on TV. That's why the Media got named "Liberal".

Rush was a whole different story. He didn't bring "balance", he brought blatant partisanship in the name of bringing "balance". No one in the "Liberal" media came close to being as partisan as Rush. Since he came on the scene partisanship has grown on both sides.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what happens when you put out a product nobody likes. People dont buy it and you go out of business.

True, America likes going down the tubes the Republican way.

Oh come on... Have you ever listened any of their programs? They come off as angry, bitter little trolls. Randi Rhodes especially. But all of them in their own way. Nobody wants to listen to that. The constant drone of negativity eventually wears on people.

Totally, it is the worst radio station I've ever listened to. Bitter angry trolls sums it up perfectly

 

[Lemon law]

To Prof John,

For what its worth---I do sometimes listen to Rush---and I examine his logic---or for that matter the logic of anyone regardless of what conclusion they are reaching---and you either respect logical processes for the most part---no one is ever perfect---or your logic is missing---and that is where Rush fails---logic is totally replaced by spin and double standards.
And Rush is also somewhat a binary thinker---either something is right---or wrong---totally evil or totally good---and in the real world things are not that simple. Because your decision on point A suddenly impacts a decision on point B---which impacts point C---and in the real world---your decision on A being good---suddenly means B+C---which you also like will get knocked down if you are logically consistant---

Case and point----Rush's drug abusers should always go to jail---never be let out---the ACLU is always against American values---Rush abuses oxicoten---gets caught---and runs to the ACLU.

 

[Lemon law]

 

[ProfJohn]

Sand everything you said about liberal vs. conservative radio and media is based on your own point of view.

You watch a story and think it is neutral while I watch the same story and bitch that it is slanted to the left. That is human nature.

Perfect example is the Dan Rather memo-gate story on Bush being AWOL.
The left on here watched the story and said: ?I knew it!!!?
While the right watched it and said ?The documents are fake you idiots!!!?

Another example, when watching the 1994 election returns you could almost see the hurt in the faces of the big three network guys as they announced that the Republicans were taking over. They looked as if they had lost themselves.

Yes Rush is a commentator, but Rush also brought out the news in a conservative way with a conservative spin. He would take what the networks were saying and fill in the facts and info that the networks were leaving out. Before him we did not get that from any where.

Anyway, enough about Rush etc. Air America failed because the audience is not there and they over paid their talent for what audience that there was. Don?t be surprised if Al leaves and Randi Rhodes drops her asking price in order to the keep the network on the air.

 

[Craig234]

You watch a story and think it is neutral while I watch the same story and bitch that it is slanted to the left. That is human nature.

No, it's one or both sides having bias.

Perfect example is the Dan Rather memo-gate story on Bush being AWOL.
The left on here watched the story and said: ?I knew it!!!?
While the right watched it and said ?The documents are fake you idiots!!!?

Wrong. The fact is, that the story had all kinds of solid evidence other than the one memo which show the story is true and which the right is unable to dispute.

There's some question on the one memo - but even if, indeed, it was phony, planted with Burkett and CBS included it in a rush without checking it enough, the story still stands fine on the rest of the info. But you are right, the right wing is so partisan that they are unable to see the rest of the story and evidence, and scream "the documents are fake!"

Of course, they screamed that before there was much info to justify it, and they continue to scream it now that the multi-million dollar investigation by a neutral and a reapublican authority said that the document's authenticity cannot be proven or disproven. So, as usual, they let politics make up the facts for them.

Another example, when watching the 1994 election returns you could almost see the hurt in the faces of the big three network guys as they announced that the Republicans were taking over. They looked as if they had lost themselves.

Now there's a matter of opinion and bias. That's not how I remember it. You appear to read their being very serious about a huge change as their beind 'hurt' by the news.

(Of course, any good American has huge reason TO be hurt for the sake of our country by the result, but the anchors should not exhibit that).

Yes Rush is a commentator, but Rush also brought out the news in a conservative way with a conservative spin. He would take what the networks were saying and fill in the facts and info that the networks were leaving out. Before him we did not get that from any where.

He goes far beyond that and constantly lies and misleads. The fact that you fail to criticize him for that and only compliment the right-wing news angle is wrong.

Anyway, enough about Rush etc. Air America failed because the audience is not there and they over paid their talent for what audience that there was. Don?t be surprised if Al leaves and Randi Rhodes drops her asking price in order to the keep the network on the air.

What were the salaries of the hosts, exactly? What were the audience numbers, compared to other stations for their audience size and host salaries? I'm sure you have this info and are not just making up the facts.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sand everything you said about liberal vs. conservative radio and media is based on your own point of view.

You watch a story and think it is neutral while I watch the same story and bitch that it is slanted to the left. That is human nature.

Perfect example is the Dan Rather memo-gate story on Bush being AWOL.
The left on here watched the story and said: ?I knew it!!!?
While the right watched it and said ?The documents are fake you idiots!!!?

Another example, when watching the 1994 election returns you could almost see the hurt in the faces of the big three network guys as they announced that the Republicans were taking over. They looked as if they had lost themselves.

Yes Rush is a commentator, but Rush also brought out the news in a conservative way with a conservative spin. He would take what the networks were saying and fill in the facts and info that the networks were leaving out. Before him we did not get that from any where.

Reading this thread has reminded me of Rush's short lived TV show. Its been years since it was on the air - but today's The Daily Show follows a very similar forumla: mixing comedy and polictics, using video clips and sound bites to make points and punchlines. TDS does take the direction of mimicing a news program in format.

Maybe the answer to "rush" would be a "john Stewart" radio show...hmmm....

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Sand everything you said about liberal vs. conservative radio and media is based on your own point of view.

You watch a story and think it is neutral while I watch the same story and bitch that it is slanted to the left. That is human nature.

Perfect example is the Dan Rather memo-gate story on Bush being AWOL.
The left on here watched the story and said: ?I knew it!!!?
While the right watched it and said ?The documents are fake you idiots!!!?

Another example, when watching the 1994 election returns you could almost see the hurt in the faces of the big three network guys as they announced that the Republicans were taking over. They looked as if they had lost themselves.

Yes Rush is a commentator, but Rush also brought out the news in a conservative way with a conservative spin. He would take what the networks were saying and fill in the facts and info that the networks were leaving out. Before him we did not get that from any where.

Reading this thread has reminded me of Rush's short lived TV show. Its been years since it was on the air - but today's The Daily Show follows a very similar forumla: mixing comedy and polictics, using video clips and sound bites to make points and punchlines. TDS does take the direction of mimicing a news program in format.

Maybe the answer to "rush" would be a "john Stewart" radio show...hmmm....

Rush's show was launched during a different cable media market. Plus the daily show is a comedy show, not a new opinion show. I think the main reason Rush's is show left the air is that it could not get decent air times.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What were the salaries of the hosts, exactly? What were the audience numbers, compared to other stations for their audience size and host salaries? I'm sure you have this info and are not just making up the facts.

Actually, I don't have the numbers right in front or me but read that on some web site that was rather anti-Air America in nature. But I think their reporting on the facts was right on.

A June, 2004 Wall Street Journal investigative report on Air America stated Al was making "over $1 million a year". That was accurate, but not for long.

That was just a quick Google search.
Seems he may be close to 2 million now.
"To determine what a person heard on between 50 and 100 relatively small stations might make, the Radio Equalizer surveyed syndicated hosts. While such information is usually closely guarded, one national personality told me base compensation of $75,000 to $100,000 would be typical.

Why so little? "Because many national advertisers don't even begin to consider your show until it's heard in many more than just 100 markets," according to the talk host."

Like I said this is from an anti-Al blog, but I think the data is pretty correct.

I think it should be pointed out that the three top radio shows in the country are conservative in nature. There just doesn't seem to be a market for liberal radio.

 

[marvdmartian]

Barbara Streisand just did a concert there and she had a heck of a time trying to express her 1st ammendment right to criticize the direction of the Country and told a screaming Republican audience member to "shut the fvk up".

Yeah, isn't it amazing that it was okay for her to express her 1st amendment rights, but when someone else tried to do the same, she felt it was okay for her to tell them to 'shut the fvck up'?!?

My guess is that, being a celebrity, Barbara believes that we're all equal.....but that we should remember that she is MORE equal!! :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Notice I gave Prof John a very good Rush logic example regarding drug abuse----notice Prof John never replied---but changed the subject to the highly speclative analysis of
network news facial expressions.-------something subliminal vs direct statements not to be confused regarding statements by Rush.