Air America Radio Files for Chapter 11 [Archive]

furie

10-13-2006, 03:50 PM

<a target='blank' href=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aM1aUsIz4gvk&refer=us> Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Air America Radio, the liberal talk and news radio network, sought bankruptcy court protection after losing $40.9 million since May 2004.

Air America, featuring comedian Al Franken, will keep broadcasting after receiving court permission to use $900,000 in financing from Democracy Allies LLC today, Tracy Klestadt, a bankruptcy lawyer for the company, said in an interview.

``I think they're not going to make it in this current form,'' said Paul Levinson, media studies chairman at Fordham University in New York. ``It's a sad day because we need as much political diversity in our media as possible.''

The decision to seek legal protection from creditors came after a creditor froze the bank accounts of Piquant LLC, which operates as Air America, the court filing shows. Piquant said Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Inc. ``restrained all of the Debtor's bank accounts,'' leaving Air America with no funds. Piquant said the bankruptcy filing will free the frozen funds.

A spokeswoman for Multicultural was not immediately available to comment. Court papers show Piquant owes Multicultural $550,245.

Not Entertaining Enough </a>

i never really listened so i can't say I care all that much.

Evilpete

10-13-2006, 04:09 PM

their shtick radio doesn't work, AA programs were reactive to conservative programmings, not proactive like they should have been. ALso when they are bashing what teh conservatives say rather than mentioning points to challenge what the conservatives say, that gets old REAL fast would be nice to have a real lefty radio network, but AA I dont' think "get" how to be

WRESTLINGFAN

10-13-2006, 04:50 PM

God dammit!!! Its a right wing conspiracy!!!!!

DarkHippie

10-13-2006, 05:04 PM

Eh, their only good shows were Mark and Mark and Steve Earle's music show.  Its no big loss.

Sheeplovr

10-13-2006, 05:10 PM

i listnd every day till ron and fez came back and i got xm and some
times id put it on for majority report but janean disspeared alot and
sam seder never wanted to make jokes anymore so id only then listen
when they had guests i liked one time i put a thong in photo shop on sam seders leg and they laughed onthe air and janene called me a true artist really its ron and fez's fault they took away one of there listeners

Bulldogcakes

10-13-2006, 05:17 PM

First, they could have hired people with experience in how to do radio shows (Besides RR)Second, they should have focused less on hating Bush and more on entertaining people and attracting an audience regardless of politics.  Third, was doomed to fail anyway. Radio's bread and butter are commuters heading back and forth to work. Folks who work for a living (and pay taxes) for the most part aren't as liberal as these people. They're too busy paying the bills for all their bright ideas.

Marc with a c

10-13-2006, 05:24 PM

<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" width="100%" border="0"><tr><td> </td><td>Air America Radio Files for Chapter 11 </td></tr></table> they seem to  always do that.

HBox

10-13-2006, 05:36 PM

Third, was doomed to fail anyway. Radio's bread
and butter are commuters heading back and forth to work. Folks who work
for a living (and pay taxes) for the most part aren't as liberal as
these people. They're too busy paying the bills for all their bright
ideas.<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/rolleyes.gif" />

SinA

10-13-2006, 05:57 PM

hippies don't have radio's on their electric mopedsor, couldn't generate enough ad income because there are only two brands of granola.

HBox

10-13-2006, 06:20 PM

There aren't any radios on the welfare line. And the radios at the abortion clinic aren't tuned to talk radio.

UnknownPD

10-13-2006, 06:42 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Third, was doomed to fail anyway. Radio's bread and butter are commuters heading back and forth to work. Folks who work for a living (and pay taxes) for the most part aren't as liberal as these people. They're too busy paying the bills for all their bright ideas.    The Grandaddy of conservative talk is Limbaugh. He built his empire from 12-3 hardly commuter time.

BLZBUBBA

10-13-2006, 06:52 PM

Only listened to Franken with regularity.  Wasn't bad.  He had decent guests and provided a chuckle now and then.  The rest of it?  Let's just say once O&A and Ron and Fez got to 202 I just completely tuned out other talk shows.  And come to think of it...Franken hardly ever took calls.  That whole politics thing is just depressing as hell.  What a sorry lot we have in DC.  Just pathetic.  Who wants to hear about those jerks day in and day out?  Just sickening.  Air America,  despite their best intentions,  is merely preaching to the choir.  Same as Rush and Hannity,  but maybe a bit more honest.  And none of them are swaying opinion.BUSH IS A JERK!  CLINTON'S A JERK!  BUSH IS A JERK!  CLINTON'S A JERK!  Alright.  We get it!

SatCam

10-13-2006, 07:36 PM

who would've thought a group of democrats would have trouble managing money?

mikeyboy

10-13-2006, 07:42 PM

I can't believe they went bankrupt just because Sheepy stopped listening.

furie

10-13-2006, 08:01 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Evilpete wrote: would be nice to have a real lefty radio network, but AA I dont' think "get" how to be <hr color="cococo" align="left">

other than NPR you mean, right? <img src=http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smilewink.gif>

This message was edited by furie on 10-14-06 @ 12:01 AM

narc

10-14-2006, 12:10 AM

Doesn't help that Al Franken hasn't been funny in years.

shamus mcfitzy

10-14-2006, 12:14 AM

i can't say this is really that surprising. I try to listen to Al Franken but they did kinda sabotage the station in NY in my mind by getting rid of Mark Maron in the morning and now recently moving Sam Seder to middays where i think he loses a big college audience. Oh and then theres the fact that people supposedly don't get paid by the people that run it. Liberals deserve better. And thats saying a lot...

legroommusic

10-14-2006, 01:01 AM

they had a show with chuck d without the rap. I'm sure if he rhymed more, people would've been into it. also it helps when you don't talk down to people because you are self richeous in your beliefs. Elitist whiteys.

Coach

10-14-2006, 01:41 AM

My Brother in Law donated 5,000 to this effort...and sis wonders why I never talk to him....

Yerdaddy

10-14-2006, 02:38 AM

They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some.

Bulldogcakes

10-14-2006, 04:12 AM

UnknownPD wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Third, was doomed to fail anyway. Radio's bread and butter are commuters heading back and forth to work. Folks who work for a living (and pay taxes) for the most part aren't as liberal as these people. They're too busy paying the bills for all their bright ideas. The Grandaddy of conservative talk is Limbaugh. He built his empire from 12-3 hardly commuter time. Because he's nationally syndicated. Thats an easier spot to get in any market, but its not when most people are listening.And Yerdaddy, there's another basic flaw to the model that has nothing to do with anything you've said. You get 10 Liberals in a room, they might agree with each other on 2 issues. And even those two they'll argue over the details to the point where they'll hate each other. And the Democratic party is mostly a collection of special interest groups (Feminists, Minorities, Unions, etc) that care little about each other's problems. Conservatives tend to believe in a few things that they can all agree upon, and tend to fall in line according to rank. That makes it easier for them to put out programming that their listeners want to hear.BTW-Not just Liberals listen to NPR, or here in NY, WNYC. I do. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 10-14-06 @ 8:44 AM

Bulldogcakes

10-14-2006, 04:37 AM

HBox wrote:  And the radios at the abortion clinic aren't tuned to talk radio.  <blockquote />  They're tuned to WSDB. The "Screaming Dying Babies" channel.

Yerdaddy

10-14-2006, 04:38 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  UnknownPD wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: Third, was doomed to fail anyway. Radio's bread and butter are commuters heading back and forth to work. Folks who work for a living (and pay taxes) for the most part aren't as liberal as these people. They're too busy paying the bills for all their bright ideas.  The Grandaddy of conservative talk is Limbaugh. He built his empire from 12-3 hardly commuter time.  Because he's nationally syndicated. Thats an easier spot to get in any market, but its not when most people are listening.And Yerdaddy, there's another basic flaw to the model that has nothing to do with anything you've said. You get 10 Liberals in a room, they might agree with each other on 2 issues. And even those two they'll argue over the details to the point where they'll hate each other. And the Democratic party is mostly a collection of special interest groups (Feminists, Minorities, Unions, etc) that care little about each other's problems. Conservatives tend to believe in a few things that they can all agree upon, and tend to fall in line according to rank. That makes it easier for them to put out programming that their listeners want to hear.      This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 10-14-06 @ 8:26 AM All that is true too.

Gvac

10-14-2006, 09:27 AM

I honestly didn't know Air America was still around.  I tried to listen the first week it launched.  It was impossible.

JimBeam

10-14-2006, 10:20 AM

So the liberals don't get it done, to quote the great Drill Instructo Hartman, because they are " unorganized grab-asstic pieces of amphibian shit " ?Bulldog does bring up a good point. While I dont think all conservatives agree on the same issues it is easier to get more people to agree on religion ( although in conservative arenas Catholics and Protestants would have different views ), state's rights kinda issues and some version of family values.That said I never ever listened to these filthy Commie Air America guys and I've grown even more tired of conservative talk or at least most of it.I can still listen to Pat Buchanan when he's on Imus or something but Hannity & Mark levin make me sick to my stomach.I heard Levin the other day say that we shouldnt be worrying about Foley becasue a war's being fought.I wish I could've asked him what was the difference between this and going after Clinton.He couldnt possibly have an answer that would make any sense.By the way I believe that the Clinto wone should've been investigated as it was and surely this one should be as well.Thats what I hate about politics. You can have 10 years serperate the same issue and each side would have a different perspective on the same action(s).

TheMojoPin

10-14-2006, 10:55 AM

Meh.  I think I've maybe listened to 10 minutes of Air America since it started up.  Bad radio is bad radio...I'm not going to listen to something I might agree with if the quality of the content is awful.  If I want "political talk" on the radio, I'll stick to the news station.  I'll never understand the mentality that makes people think that just because some schlump has a microphone his opinions matter more than someone else's.

johnniewalker

10-14-2006, 01:51 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some. If only liberals had that biological trait of hatred and lust for power.  I can't follow that somehow liberals are just too nice or too clean to follow conservative "practices" of misinformation.  Its a nice thought that there is some genetic twist in approx. half the population.     By the

narc

10-14-2006, 02:25 PM

johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some. If only liberals had that biological trait of hatred and lust for power. I can't follow that somehow liberals are just too nice or too clean to follow conservative "practices" of misinformation. Its a nice thought that there is some genetic twist in a

johnniewalker

10-14-2006, 02:42 PM

narc wrote: [quote]johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some. If only liberals had that biological trait of hatred and lust for power. I can't follow that somehow liberals are just too nice or too clean to follow conservative "practices" of misinformatio

narc

10-14-2006, 03:04 PM

johnniewalker wrote: [quote]narc wrote: [quote]johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some. If only liberals had that biological trait of hatred and lust for power. I can't follow that somehow liberals are just too nice or to

furie

10-14-2006, 08:06 PM

Hannity i can't stand because he's the ultimate yes-man. he'll never break from the party line.

he sickens me.

WRESTLINGFAN

10-14-2006, 09:12 PM

There was a documentary on Air America Radio shown on HBO, It was doomed from the start

Yerdaddy

10-15-2006, 10:03 AM

johnniewalker wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: They were never going to match the kind of hate talk that the conservative networks put out. Limbaugh came up with such all-encompassing pejoratives like "feminazis" (all feminists are nazis), and "soccer moms: (the claim that there is a class of mothers who have nothing better to do than drive their kids to school and get involved with liberal causes, and that they were somehow unfit to make their own political decisions and were destroying America). Air America was a reaction to the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda industry in misinforming, marketing and motivating the whole ideology and keeping it motivated long after its extreme side had obtained high levels of political powers and kept power even after conducting the kind of massive failures, like Iraq, that would have been rejected by the American people in any other era of American history. From what I heard from Air America in the last few months in the States, they were trying to replicate right-wing radio but were never willing to put out the kind of vitriol and bald-faced lies that the right wing stations put out every day. They would ridicule the administration or politicians - the types of people whom it has always been acceptable in American culture to insult - and try to expose failed policies and public lies. Sometimes they got their facts wrong or missed the point, but they didn't seem to be able to act with complete disregard for the truth, the way Limbaugh and Hannity do. They were never willing to just sit and demonize and make up facts on each and every public issue that is in the day's newspapers. If they had, and had done so in the late 80s when you were first allowed to say whatever crazy shit you want on the public airwaves, maybe they could have captured the crazy left and cultivated it into the heart of the ideology like the conservatives did. But instead Air America tried to cultivate a view among liberals that they were the mainstream, not the neglected outsiders that they have traditionally thought themselves and that the conservative pundits have convinced their audience that they are now. Hardcore liberals don't want to view themselves as maintream. They want to be the persecuted minority. And moderate mainstream liberals already have NPR for information and don't really have a taste for political entertainment. As several studies over the last few years - some posted on the board - have shown, people who get their news from NPR score higher on current affairs quizes than any other news sources except print media. So what do we need Air America for?In the end, I think Air America is a cheap and half-assed copy of what the conservative movement has done with the freedom to broadcast any crazy-talk you want, and they stink at it. And I'm glad. The growth of conservative extremism and obsolescence of liberal extremism enabled me to outgrow ideology and look for objective sources of information that liberal ideology had told me not to look for. Now I'm capable of hating both ideologies. And, instead of wanting a liberal media that can compete with right-wing radio and Fox News, I only hope that the utter failure of the hard-liners in the Bush administration and congressional leadership will make conservatives consider their sources of information and see their propaganda for what it is: malicious propaganda and opportunistic lies for cash. Then maybe they can go back to actually caring about their traditional core issues: small government, national security, fiscal responsibility, real family values and the lives of our own soldiers.I don't have much hope, yet, but some. If only liberals had that biological trait of hatred and lust for power.  I can't follow that somehow liberals are just too nice or too clean to follow conservative "practices" of misinformation.  Its a nice thought that there is some genetic twist in

Davios

10-15-2006, 10:37 AM

I remember trying to listen when it first came on here in New York, and it was fucking abysmal. There was just a whole air of fucking arrogance by all of the personalities. Even Franken, who for the most part I enjoy, got tired with his constant taunting of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Radio wars between shows like O&A and fucking JV and Elvis are one thing, but I would at least expect that a show which is trying to represent a political viewpoint would focus on current events rather than concentrating on pathetic jabs at the competition.

badmonkey

10-15-2006, 12:19 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: The liberal media, by comparison, is not capable of reaching and thus influencing nearly as many people, as demonstrated by the failure of Air America. I also believe that the most popular of liberal pundits do not stoop to the malicious and vitriolic levels that the most popular of conservative pundits. Show me one thing that has been said by one of the four or five most popular and influential liberals that is as mean-spirited and irresponsible as equating motherhood with anti-Americanism, which is what the term "soccer moms", as it was created by conservative taking heads, was meant to imply? Or "feminazis", which implies all feminists are nazis?  You somehow missed the constant "Bush Crime Family" promos every 15 minutes on Air America all day long and the hosts screaming the words "liars", "scumbags", "lying bastards",  "murderers", etc.  Air America is being killed by the same foolish decisions being made in satellite radio as well as "Free-FM":  Paying big names HUGE contracts to perform jobs they aren't remotely qualified to do simply because they have big name.  See: David Lee Roth, Oprah, Martha Stewart, etc. I will miss cringing at Robert "Crying Bobby" Kennedy's horrible voice when all this is over.Badmonkey

Yerdaddy

10-15-2006, 01:22 PM

badmonkey wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: The liberal media, by comparison, is not capable of reaching and thus influencing nearly as many people, as demonstrated by the failure of Air America. I also believe that the most popular of liberal pundits do not stoop to the malicious and vitriolic levels that the most popular of conservative pundits. Show me one thing that has been said by one of the four or five most popular and influential liberals that is as mean-spirited and irresponsible as equating motherhood with anti-Americanism, which is what the term "soccer moms", as it was created by conservative taking heads, was meant to imply? Or "feminazis", which implies all feminists are nazis?  You somehow missed the constant "Bush Crime Family" promos every 15 minutes on Air America all day long and the hosts screaming the words "liars", "scumbags", "lying bastards",  "murderers", etc.  Air America is being killed by the same foolish decisions being made in satellite radio as well as "Free-FM":  Paying big names HUGE contracts to perform jobs they aren't remotely qualified to do simply because they have big name.  See: David Lee Roth, Oprah, Martha Stewart, etc. I will miss cringing at Robert "Crying Bobby" Kennedy's horrible voice when all this is over.Badmonkey First of all, criticism of a president is an American tradition going back to Washington. That includes satire and outright insults. Are you claiming that insulting Bush is as bad as accusing mothers of being anti-American? Or, in fact, as most of the conservative pundits I know of have done and continue to do, aaccusing all liberals in general of being anti-American? Are you saying they are equally insulting and hateful?And would you say that these things said by the hosts of Air America have had the same amount of influence over liberals that "feminazis" and "soccer moms", and the other little bits of disinformation coming from the Bill O'Rielys, Shawn Hannitys, and Ann Coulters, have had on conservatives? I can list a dozen conservative pundits who are national political figures due to the size of their audience who spew the same level of hateful lies about everyone non-conservative enough for them. I can't name a host other than Al Franken on Air America. Are you seriously equating the two sides in terms of impact on their audiences? If so, make the case. I'm making specific points of arguments here, with specific claims of fact. The crazy hate-mongers on the left are fewer on the left and they are infinitely less dominant of the ideology than the right. On the right they've dominated the right-wing media and have come to dominate their political party and the American government. Those are broad, sweeping claims. Prove me wrong. Here's a hint: It's fucking true!

badmonkey

10-15-2006, 02:35 PM

I stand corrected.  There is no hateful or malicious vitriol from Air America, at least nothing that comes close to anything as heinous as "soccer mom". I promise to listen to conservative talk radio with the appropriate level of outrage from now on.  Badmonkey

Bulldogcakes

10-15-2006, 03:52 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:The liberal media, by comparison, is not capable of reaching and thus influencing nearly as many people, as demonstrated by the failure of Air America.  Conservatives would argue that MOST of the rest of the mainstream media leans to the left, and it comes through in the topics they discuss, the language they use, and how they frame the debates. Watchdog groups like Brent Bozell's <a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/newscol/welcome.asp" target="_self" title="Media research group">Media research group</a> have been complaining about this for years. They see Fox news and Talk radio as the ONLY outlets they have to get their message across to the public, and to get a fair hearing. I will admit that when I tune in to talk radio, I often get a perspective I hadn't heard before no matter how much mainstream/public media I had consumed to that point. Sometimes its misleading and/or biased. Sometimes its simply dismissed by the gatekeepers of news who tell us what they think is important and omit the rest. And when you're dealing with an institution (the mainsteam media) that votes 80% Democratic in presidential elections, you certainly are getting their bias along with it. Bias and point of view go hand in hand.  I also believe that the most popular of liberal pundits do not stoop to
the malicious and vitriolic levels that the most popular of
conservative pundits. Show me one thing that has been said by one of
the four or five most popular and influential liberals that is as
mean-spirited and irresponsible as equating motherhood with
anti-Americanism, which is what the term "soccer moms", as it was
created by conservative taking heads, was meant to imply? Or
"feminazis", which implies all feminists are nazis? Show me these
terms' equivalent in - terms of maliciousness and popularity of use -
coming from the left. "Soccor Moms" was a term created by the Clinton administration to explain the voting block that delivered him the election. Conservatives certainly picked up on it, but it was NOT their invention. "Feminazi" is a term which specifically DOES NOT apply to all feminists, just the most radical elements of feminism. The ones that claim all sex is rape, that marriage is an institution designed to subgigate women, etc, etc. And the person that coined it, Limbaugh has made that clear a bazillion times.  And who exactly ARE the most popular Liberal pundits? Al Franken? Noam Chomsky? Jesse Jackson? Would you like me to pull out some of their quotes describing Republican initiatives? Or maybe House Minority leaders Pelosi's gems? They've accused Republicans of poisoning the air and water supply, destroying Social Security and Medicare, Reagan was going to start WW3, Bush 1 was a "wimp" (a highly decorated WW2 veteran) and on and on. I guess you wouldn't see that as pegoritive if you accept them as facts, which they are not. The reality is both sides use the most imflammatory language possible to stir up their base and help themselves politically. The only problem is otherwise intelligent, reasonable, decent people like you keep falling for it.  <blockquote />

TheMojoPin

10-15-2006, 04:06 PM

I think there are key differences between the "liberal" and "conservative" blocs that you're ignoring, BDC.  One of things Yerdaddy mentioned that I agree with is liberals tend to be much less centralized in their beliefs and organization than liberals.  Liberals tend not to look to something like Air America or the pundits you mentioned as "their" voice.  The team mentality seems to have originated from the Right, especially the idea that pundits are seemingly official spokespeople that speak for large segments of or even all of a particular political persuasion.  Liberals will agree with other liberals when it's convenient, but don't typically single people out as "oh, they speak for me."  I'm not saying this is necessarily right or wrong, but there are fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives view pundits, and it's an assumption that continues to baffle me that someone like, say, Al Franken or Jesse Jackson somehow speak for all liberals when most liberals probably ignore them on a daily basis or aren't even aware of what they're saying or doing.  Conservatives seem to want to have clearly defined pundits and spokespeople that can often "represent" them and their opinions...liberals either don't want that or just can't pull it off.  Whatever the reason, it makes both sides very different when it comes to these kind of people.

torker

10-15-2006, 04:06 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:   "Soccor Moms" was a term created by the Clinton administration to explain the voting block that delivered him the election. And to make Internet porn searches easier.

Yerdaddy

10-16-2006, 06:52 AM

Conservatives would argue that MOST of the rest of the mainstream media leans to the left, and it comes through in the topics they discuss, the language they use, and how they frame the debates. Watchdog groups like Brent Bozell's Media research group have been complaining about this for years. They see Fox news and Talk radio as the ONLY outlets they have to get their message across to the public, and to get a fair hearing.Conservatives would state this. They don't argue it because I've been challenging conservatives here on the board and elsewhere to back that claim up with evidence. The most compelling response I've ever recieved is the occasional anecdote: "Dan Rather had that one story... with the forged documents about Bush's National Guard thing... so... yeah! It's true! Liberal media!" Or they link me to someone's book or website and tell me to read it. No offense, but this Brent Bozell guy? I clicked on one essay of his that consisted of a bunch more of the clices and truisms that are completely meaningless exept his own true believers. "There are moments where it becomes painfully apparent that the media elites think that the only thing redeeming about Western culture is its ability to regret its existence.""Media elites"? Does that include Bob Novak, who is personal friends with Cheney? Does he hate western culture? George Will? Charles Krauthammer? These guys would fit any dictionary definition of media elites except the conservative one. Or Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Al Roker? Haters of western cultre? Or is it the liberal-oriented pundits who've expressed an opinion that doesn't fit this guy's views of things? Of course that's who he's referring to! We all know this just from the first sentence of his article. We've read it or heard it a thousand times. But, any objective reader expect that this guy is about to make a rational, evidence-based case that these people, based their words or actions, truly "regret" the "existence" of western culture? No. Any rational, objective reader is alread finished reading the article after the first sentence because it's just unbearably obvious what this guy is going to write. Now this guy doubtlessly has a readership of loyal, unquestionably conservative readers who will read this article thinking to themselves "Yeah! Yeah! You tell em, Bozell! Tell those commies what's what!" But he's not telling anyone anything they don't already "know". Because they already believe the truisms of the "liberal media" and "media elites". The best this guy can hope for is that one of his faithful will link some like-minded conservative to his site and that person will be titilated by his unfounded accusations about these mythical anti-American liberal "media elites", and that person will buy some worthless crap from his website, or donate some cash, or whatever. So, yeah, this guy, and others just like him have been "complaining for years". But, seriously, who gives a fuck? Because none of them have been able to put together a substantial case for the "mainstream media", or "MM" as I see it's now called by the converted masses, is in fact liberally biased in any significant way. They simply say it is so. They often spin current stories about the media as examples of it being so, but they can't actually build an argument convincing enough for any of their converts to be able to reconstruct that argument in response to my challenges over the last five years. All I get is links. Links to the same old meaningless hyperbole and dogmatic drivel. The left-wing radicals do the same thing; Chomsky is constantly citing the New York Times as the "record of the elite" - ie. right-wing biased - as sources for his own claims. "See? If they said it, and they're conservative, and it's critical of the "establishment", then it must be true!" But what they're really saying is "The New York Time

epo

10-16-2006, 07:39 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Conservatives would argue that MOST of the rest of the mainstream media leans to the left, and it comes through in the topics they discuss, the language they use, and how they frame the debates. Watchdog groups like Brent Bozell's <a title="Media research group" href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/newscol/welcome.asp" target="_self">Media research group</a> have been complaining about this for years. They see Fox news and Talk radio as the ONLY outlets they have to get their message across to the public, and to get a fair hearing. Saying Brent Bozell thinks that the conservative viewpoint isn't given a fair shake would be like Steinbrenner complaining the Yankees don't get enough media coverage.  Bozell isn't exactly a non-partisan watchdog.  More like a gigantic rightwing nutbar.

Yerdaddy

10-16-2006, 08:50 AM

I think there are key differences between the "liberal" and "conservative" blocs that you're ignoring, BDC.  One of things Yerdaddy mentioned that I agree with is liberals tend to be much less centralized in their beliefs and organization than liberals.  Liberals tend not to look to something like Air America or the pundits you mentioned as "their" voice.  The team mentality seems to have originated from the Right, especially the idea that pundits are seemingly official spokespeople that speak for large segments of or even all of a particular political persuasion.  Liberals will agree with other liberals when it's convenient, but don't typically single people out as "oh, they speak for me."  I'm not saying this is necessarily right or wrong, but there are fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives view pundits, and it's an assumption that continues to baffle me that someone like, say, Al Franken or Jesse Jackson somehow speak for all liberals when most liberals probably ignore them on a daily basis or aren't even aware of what they're saying or doing.  Conservatives seem to want to have clearly defined pundits and spokespeople that can often "represent" them and their opinions...liberals either don't want that or just can't pull it off.  Whatever the reason, it makes both sides very different when it comes to these kind of people.In terms of what you're saying about how liberals and conservatives view issues, I think you're actually agreeing with what BDC said on the previous page. He said liberals are less likely to agree on individual subjects than conservatives. I think that's true to a point, but I think what's more characteristic of liberals is that they have as many pet issues as they have chicks with hairy legs. Every country with someone who's not happy with their lot in life is a liberal cause. Every issue, from poverty to prisons, to women's salaries still being unequal to men's, to species exctinction and global warming, to corporate power in Washington - these are all issues that, in liberal views, have to be "tackled". By comparison, conservatism, (or at least traditional conservatism), has more of a world view - an idea of the way things should be and should be done - based on a few core principles like small government, low taxes, benefits that encourage people to form traditional families, national security, etc. Where does human rights and independence in East Timor fit into that? It doesn't. Where does the extinction of a species fit in to that? Well, as shown in popular cases in the past, conservatives believe human needs and/or wants should win that conflict. So the way it works is: the issue comes along, some conflict that needs resolution, and you see how it fits into the world view, and you pick a side. While I don't find this method of dealing with issues ideal - which is why i still consider myself a liberal despite the fact that I cant stand liberal ideologues - I don't think it's intrinsically a wrong way to go about things.However, of the pundits that BDC listed, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky and Jesse Jackson, they all do have a certain following among liberals. Franken probably has the least. Count his Air America audience - just enough people to keep the network functioning in Chapter 11, and those who buy his occasional liberal book - what are they now? Two? Jackson probably comes next with politically active blacks. All three of them. KIDDING! Anyway, except when he ran for the Democratic nomination, I've never actually known a white liberal who paid any attention to him. And then come the Chomskyites. Fuck! What an annoying lot these fuckers are! (Again, used to be one of them.) Chomsky is a brilliant man. His early career revolutionized the field of linguistics much the way Freud revolutionized psychology. But then he got into politics. What he's done with his endless stream of political books and lectures is build this model of the way things w

empulse

10-16-2006, 08:30 PM

Wow. So little actually being said.  Air America isn't going under.  Chapter 11 is a Debt restructuring program.  So they stay in business, and there debt (some 60%) gets eliminated and they get another shot @ it. There is already a new investment group involved and in charge and there is currently an interim CEO. I have a problem with alot of what is being said here about them.  Why is questioning Bush/Bush Admin logic BASHING Bush?   Thats bullshit.  If you fact check anything thats said on their Network I bet you could find hardly one error.  Facts. Not opinions. Facts. Your opinion and theirs don't matter.  Right wing talk is 90% bullshit.   If you wanna refrute that then pay for a subscription to the Lexus Nexus and fact check what every politician says... what each one of the Sean Hannity / mAnn Coultier / Rush Limbuagh have to say, and you will find they are completely devoid of any facts, or basis in reality.   Back to AAR.  The idea is great, just 30 years late.  As for the former investors in AAR who lost their asses, because of Danny Goldberg (see Nirvana), some have a new idea / venture which I believe is the correct one.  They want to buy up smaller stations, and put on local talent.  Start small, think in terms of longevity, build your empire slow.  Altho if any of you in here listened to Morning Sedition on AirAmerica, no matter what your political leanings, that show was fucking hilarious, and why AAr didn't pounce when Stern left and David Lee Roth was shitting the bed ... its beyond me. And remember FoX NeWs took almost 10 years to turn a profit (Actually losing 80+ Mill. annually for a couple years).  MSNBC i think took 3 years, and CNN to only a couple before they were in the black making millions.   FauX NeWs never filed chapter 11 because it really did have political money behind it, unlike the lying fucks who claim AAR was some DNC project.  Only if it was, maybe if Dem leadership would have supported it the way Bushco has FoX we would all be better off,   that's unless you want a one party system, and only want to hear one voice, and only think one thought.But i am realistic too, in the end AAR will probably just suffer a prolonged death, but i look at it as the birth of liberals / progressives finally participating in the media game.  The media is 98% right wing.  and we could stand to hear some info that isn't filtered to make Iraq look like a beach party, and someone who might actually look at the President and say " ....are you shittin me?   thats the most batshit crazy thing i have ever heard.."   (((bOnk))) cowbell ((bOnk))

TheMojoPin

10-16-2006, 08:38 PM

Wow. So little actually being said.Wow.

epo

10-16-2006, 08:48 PM

As for Fox News's being broadcast despite no profits for years, that's completely understandable.  They are owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp which is one of the 5 largest media companies in the world.  They had the cash to avoid embarrassing Chapter 11 type manuevers.  When you talk about media bias and your perception of it, forget it.  The media is mainly a corporate media that has corporate interests.  If the right wing is better for them, they are gonna sell the conservatives.  If the left wing is better for business, they will sell the liberals.  I wanna puke everytime I hear somebody bitching about the "liberal media".  I believe Yerdaddy mentioned the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine leading to a shift in the media & he's right it was a factor.  The other larger factor has been the stripping away of Media Ownership Rules that began in the 80's.  Please note both factors were began by Reagan.  Folks, the American media ain't your media.

Yerdaddy

10-17-2006, 02:40 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" target="_blank">An article about the relationship between right-wing radio and the White House.</a><img src="http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/17/us/17radio_lg.jpg" border="0" /><div class="credit">White House photo by Eric Draper</div>President Bush discussed his policies with conservative radio hosts last month at the White House, including, from left, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — On an overcast Friday morning last month, White House aides ushered an influential group of conservative radio hosts into the Oval Office for a private audience with the president.For an hour and a half, Mr. Bush discussed his case for the war in Iraq, his immigration proposals and even the personality of his Scottish terrier Barney, who scratched on the door during the session until the president relented and let him into the office, according to several hosts who attended. The meeting, which was not announced on the president’s public schedule, was part of an intensive Republican Party campaign to reclaim and re-energize a crucial army of supporters that is not as likely to walk in lockstep with the White House as it has in the past.Strategists on both sides agree that the party’s greatest hope for holding control of Congress now rests with its ability to get core Republicans to vote, and that talk radio, which reaches millions of them, is crucial to the task.Democratic strategists say talk radio remains a fearsome Republican advocacy force for which they have little direct answer. (Air America, which features liberal hosts, including Al Franken, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week.) The top two rated conservative hosts, Mr. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have done more than their part to rally their listeners this year, especially during the Foley scandal, to the great relief of Republican Party officials. And even those critical of Mr. Bush or the party on specific issues still consider themselves major supporters in general, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Savage.[quote]“When conservatives are agitated at the president, radio hosts feel pressured to stand with the conservatives against the president to prove their independence,” said Tim Graham, an analyst at the Media Research Center, a conservative news monitoring group. But, Mr. Graham said, “realizing what life would be like if we lost the House is concentrating people’s minds.”The White House and the Republican National Committee are hammering home that point in interviews, talking-point bulletins and a healthy dollop of pomp that only a White House can provide. The effort will peak on Oct. 24, when the administration will hold something of a talk-radio summit meeting, inviting dozens of hosts to set up booths on the White House grounds, where top cabinet officials are expected to sit for interviews. The party chairman, Ken Mehlman, has already been working overtime on the talk radio circuit. From Wednesday to Friday of last week, he was interviewed a total of 20 times in Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio, promoting party stances on tax cuts and terrorism.But, several hosts said, the most telling development so far this year was the White House decision to invite some of the most popular hosts to the Oval Office for off-the-record time with the president.Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the meeting was among the latest examples of the administration’s effort to put Mr. Bush in front of more news media as his own best spokesman. The president also gave interviews recently to several television anchors and held an Oval Office chat with a group of conservative writers. And Mr. Bush granted an on-camera interview to Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel. The first of three parts ran Monday n