Even by the chaotic standards of a new media company, Air America Radio's first two months of broadcasting have been convulsive.

The fledgling talk-radio network has replaced five top executives, been taken off the air in two of its top three markets and lost several crucial producers. By late April, current and former executives said last week, the company was perilously close to running out of money. It has since received an infusion of cash, though it has not disclosed how much or from whom.

The roiling in Air America's front office has undercut its continuing assurances that it has the financing and leadership to survive past the presidential election in November, in pursuit of its goal of establishing a permanent liberal counterpart to Rush Limbaugh and his radio cohort on the right.

In a sign that the privately held company's financial woes have not fully abated, Al Franken, the network's best-known star, said in an interview last week that he had agreed not to draw a salary, however temporarily, making him "an involuntary investor.''

"We had some bad management,'' Mr. Franken said. "Then we got some good management.''

Still, Mr. Franken, his tongue only partly in cheek, added, "It's a little fuzzy to me exactly who's in charge.''

The turmoil has shed light on the network's corporate culture, laying bare a mismatched collection of managers and investors, including Democratic Party fund-raisers, Internet entrepreneurs and radio veterans who, as it turned out, did not get along especially well. Even as the network was finding an audience with its blend of humor and commentary, many of the principals' business relationships were dissolving in a flurry of charges and countercharges. The most serious concerned how much money Air America actually had on hand when it went on the air on March 31.

In early March, the network's chief executive, Mark Walsh, said that the company had raised more than $20 million, enough to keep it broadcasting for months, if not years, before making a profit. At the time, Mr. Walsh said that the network's primary backers included Evan M. Cohen, a venture capitalist who was the network's chairman, and Rex Sorensen, a business partner of Mr. Cohen's who was the chairman of Progress Media, the parent company of Air America.

But in an interview on Friday, Mr. Walsh said: "I was misled about that number.'' Mr. Walsh refused to say who had misled him, but he said that he had resigned in April because "the company wasn't transparent'' and "I was unable to decipher how it was being operated.''

Less than a month later, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sorensen, who had previously operated radio stations together in Guam and Saipan, resigned under pressure from the company's other investors. David Goodfriend, who served as general counsel and later as acting chief operating officer of Air America, resigned about a week ago, having done his best, he said, to hold the company together in the wake of the departures of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Walsh. (Separately, Dave Logan, executive vice president for programming, also left, in late April.)

Jon Sinton, the president of Air America and one of the few top executives who remains from the day it went on the air, underscored Mr. Walsh's comments by saying, in a separate interview, that he, too, had been misled about the company's resources and that a cash crunch had ensued as a result.

"Financing wasn't as available for operational issues as we'd thought it was,'' he said. Reached on Friday, Mr. Cohen declined to comment on the state of the company's finances under his watch.

Despite the intrigue concerning its management - and the abrupt pulling of its programming last month from stations in Chicago and Los Angeles, in a contract dispute - there are early indications that, where it can be heard, Air America is actually drawing listeners. WLIB-AM in New York City, one of 13 stations that carry at least part of Air America's 16 hours of original programming each day, even appears to be holding its own with WABC-AM, the New York City station and talk radio powerhouse that is Mr. Limbaugh's flagship.

For example, among listeners from 25 and 54, whom advertisers covet, the network estimates it drew an average listener share (roughly a percentage of listeners) of 3.4 on WLIB in April, from 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays, according to the company's extrapolation of figures provided by Arbitron for the three months ended in April. (Arbitron, which does not provide ratings in monthly increments, said the network's methodology appeared sound, although such figures were too raw to translate to numbers of listeners.)

By contrast, according to Air America's figures, WABC-AM drew an average share of 3.2 during the same period in April for the same age group. That time period includes the three hours in which Mr. Limbaugh was pitted head to head against Mr. Franken.

Phil Boyce, the program director of WABC , cautioned against drawing conclusions from preliminary data. "If they end up doing that well when the final number is out, which is two more months, I'll give them a congratulations," Mr. Boyce said.

While the network is awaiting the release of similar figures from Arbitron for other cities, KPOJ-AM, the Clear Channel station that carries its programming in Portland, Ore., informed Air America executives by an e-mail message in late April that its ratings appeared to have tripled last month, according to the station's informal survey. (A station executive, Mary Lou Gunn, did not return a telephone message left at her office on Friday.)

The network, which is also carried on the satellite radio providers XM and Sirius, has found an audience on the Internet. In its first week, listeners clicked on the audio programming on the Air America Web site more than two million times, according to RealNetworks, the digital media provider.

"It's clear the audience is there,'' Mr. Franken said.

The conventional wisdom in the radio industry had been that, unlike the conservatives who dominate commercial talk radio, liberals could not entice and hold listeners.

"This shows there's an appetite out there,'' said Tom Taylor, editor of Inside Radio, an industry newsletter whose publisher is owned by Clear Channel. "There's a good chance they'll right the ship businesswise and keep going forward.''

In addition to Mr. Franken, the Air America lineup includes Janeane Garofalo, an actress and comedian, and Lizz Winstead, a former head writer of "The Daily Show'' on Comedy Central.

Air America's stumble outside the studio in its early weeks was partly a function of the ambitious task it had assigned itself. While Mr. Limbaugh quickly found a niche on AM radio beginning in the late 1980's - he is now heard on more than 600 stations - he began syndicating his program at a time when AM radio was thought to be dying, thus presenting him little competition.

Now, in an era of media consolidation, AM and FM stations alike are thriving. Few are for sale (Air America had initially hoped to buy five, but has yet to buy one), and few have enough air time available for lease or barter to accommodate Air America's block of programming.

But interviews with more than a dozen people currently or formerly affiliated with Air America made clear that the network had been hobbled by the failure of its early principals - some of whom had been drawn to the venture by ideology, others for business reasons - to forge common ground.

The idea for a liberal talk-radio network was first hatched by Sheldon and Anita Drobny, venture capitalists from the Chicago area who had a lot of experience raising money for the Democratic Party but no real radio expertise. They were led to Mr. Sinton, who has 30 years experience in the radio business, and Mr. Franken, who has made a cottage industry of writing best-selling books that skewer the right.

In Air America's current incarnation, Mr. Sinton, the president, reports to the network's new chief executive, Doug Kreeger, an early investor whose entrepreneurial efforts have included founding a chain of outerwear stores (Kreeger & Sons) and investing in a New York restaurant (City Bakery).

For chief operating officer, the company has selected Carl Ginsburg, a former news producer at NBC and CBS. Ms. Drobny is its chairwoman, Mr. Sinton said.

Mr. Sinton said that the company was seeking to expand the number of stations carrying its programming - which includes Burlington, Vt.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; and Sacramento - to new markets in Colorado Springs, Santa Cruz, Calif., and Reno, Nev. It is also seeking new outlets in Chicago and Los Angeles, having settled its contractual dispute with the owner of the stations where it had first leased air time.

Mr. Sinton and Mr. Franken refused to say how much money the network had now, but said they had received assurances that the network would have no problem staying on the air through November, and beyond.

"No one is promising things they can't promise,'' Mr. Franken said. "But it appears to me that from the other people that are stepping up, the financing will be in place.'' He added: "Imagine how we're going to do when we know what we're doing.''
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/business/media/31air.html?ei=5062&en=707bcb9a3dc0e5f9&ex=1086580800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/business...print&position=</a>

UC,

You have stated that you think the New York Times is biased and liberal, and consequently you don't read their publication. You have called into question, on numerous occasions, information from publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Salon, as well as a whole host of other media outfits. Your claims have been that these media outfits are liberal, hate George Bush, love Saddam and therefore these media outfits are not trustworthy for basing arguments and opinions by posters. You are, in effect, calling information contained in liberal media outfits pubications and internet sites as "false."

Since this is your position, posting New York Times articles to bolster your views and opinions destroys whatever credibility you had or wish to build on this forum. You are contradicting your position(s) by posting this article, which suggests you arbitrarily designate some media outfits as liberal and untrustworthy, and false.

The media outfits in question are either trustworthy or not, so you need to make up your mind instead of waffling on the issue.

I suggest either re-evaluating your position, or cease altogether relying on media outfits whom you deem untrustworthy, such as the New York Times.

Your cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated. :D

So what is wrong with posting a article on Franken regardless of where is is from?...I never said I didn't read those newspapers...I just watch what I read and try and limit my "article consumption" to those newspapers to 1 per day. :D Wasn't there some reporters that got into trouble for making some information in their articles? I rest my case

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:So what is wrong with posting a article on Franken regardless of where is is from?...I never said I didn't read those newspapers...I just watch what I read and try and limit my "article consumption" to those newspapers to 1 per day. :D Wasn't there some reporters that got into trouble for making some information in their articles? I rest my case

Do you have a learning disability?

KlutzDio I Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:So what is wrong with posting a article on Franken regardless of where is is from?...I never said I didn't read those newspapers...I just watch what I read and try and limit my "article consumption" to those newspapers to 1 per day. :D Wasn't there some reporters that got into trouble for making some information in their articles? I rest my case

Do you have a learning disability?

No but I am sorry you do...Hard headed

Allow me to ask the same question that you seem to want to avoid...
So what is wrong with posting a article on Franken regardless of where is is from?

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Allow me to ask the same question that you seem to want to avoid...
So what is wrong with posting a article on Franken regardless of where is is from?

And allow me to answer your question....AGAIN!

UC,
You have stated that you think the New York Times is biased and liberal, and consequently you don't read their publication. You have called into question, on numerous occasions, information from publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, Salon, as well as a whole host of other media outfits. Your claims have been that these media outfits are liberal, hate George Bush, love Saddam and therefore these media outfits are not trustworthy for basing arguments and opinions by posters. You are, in effect, calling information contained in liberal media outfits pubications and internet sites as "false."
Since this is your position, posting New York Times articles to bolster your views and opinions destroys whatever credibility you had or wish to build on this forum. You are contradicting your position(s) by posting this article, which suggests you arbitrarily designate some media outfits as liberal and untrustworthy, and false.
The media outfits in question are either trustworthy or not, so you need to make up your mind instead of waffling on the issue.
I suggest either re-evaluating your position, or cease altogether relying on media outfits whom you deem untrustworthy, such as the New York Times.
Your cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Strange that the article didn't mention that Al beat Rush head-to-head in NY in the Arbitron rankings. :D

Oddball Wrote:Strange that the article didn't mention that Al beat Rush head-to-head in NY in the Arbitron rankings. :D

Al also debated Bill O'Reilly into a corner back in the spring of 2003 on C-SPAN 2's Book TV!

'Ol Bill was so flustered, as soon as the debate ended he left the stage and headed out of the door. He wouldn't even sign any autographs for his book, which is what Franken and Molly Ivins did with their books after the debate.

Al was interviewed by the C-SPAN tv lady, and he asked all watching (all 5 of us) to tune in to the O'Reilly factor on Monday to see if Bill would show him being summarily defeated by Al, his nemisis. Al speculated that Bill would try to play the hero on the Fox network, castigating the evil Franken in an open debate.

Well, I watched the Factor that Monday night after the book event, and Bill did show clips of the debate. As usual, the clips were portions, taken out of context during the debate itself, and each attempted to show O'Reilly thumping Al. Had you watched the entirety of the 49-minute debate that day, you'd realize that O'Reilly was lying through his freaking teeth. So much for fair and balanced!

O'Reilly did his usual thing at the end of the segment telling the audience that he invited Al to come on the show that night, but Al refused. Al said two nights later on CNN's Crossfire that he was watching the Factor from his NYC home that night and was flabbergasted. He then assailed O'Reilly's email in box, along with help from friends Tina Fey, Jeneane Garafalo, Paul Begala and a dozen other of his minions, with messages about how he WAS NOT CONTACTED NOR INVITED TO BE ON THE FACTOR, but Al did say he discovered an untimely voice mail message from the Factor's producers on Wednesday, two days after the Monday show.

That Thursday, apparently someone got in trouble about it all at Fox, and O'Reilly said in between commercials that Al was contacted to do the Factor that Monday, but they contacted him 15 minutes prior to shoot time, and had to leave a message on his voice mail inviting him to be on the show.

That O'Reilly is a big phoney. Before Fox he was doing tabloid TV, now he's doing GOP TV! :roflol: What a step up Bill!

Oddball Wrote:Strange that the article didn't mention that Al beat Rush head-to-head in NY in the Arbitron rankings. :D

What are you talking about? The article did mention that WLIB's extrapolation of Arbitron numbers put Al ahead of Rush.

But give it time. Air America is new, and there is novelty.

I'm more interested in the implosion, which I think will repeat itself. Liberals have less cohesion than conservatives. One group wants to protect laborers...another could care less, just "save the planet." One group says "Earth first!"...another gives old beater cars so inner-city folks can drive to better paying jobs. One group advocates for homosexuals...another advocates for immigrant rights for folks whose religion/culture hates homosexuals. Each group wants "tolerance"...THEIR WAY.

I've said from the beginning that Air America will be a failure and cost alot of money. That's not meant as an insult toward the on-air personalities, or their abilities. The market just won't support such a product for a long time.

DrTorch Wrote:I'm more interested in the implosion, which I think will repeat itself. Liberals have less cohesion than conservatives. One group wants to protect laborers...another could care less, just "save the planet." One group says "Earth first!"...another gives old beater cars so inner-city folks can drive to better paying jobs. One group advocates for homosexuals...another advocates for immigrant rights for folks whose religion/culture hates homosexuals. Each group wants "tolerance"...THEIR WAY.

I've said from the beginning that Air America will be a failure and cost alot of money. That's not meant as an insult toward the on-air personalities, or their abilities. The market just won't support such a product for a long time.

First off, that is a convenient characterization of the Democratic Party. I agree to a point, but by and large registered Democrats who spout off the crap you described likely don't vote at all. They're mostly pissed off and want to ruffle feathers.

For the really deep, thinking individuals espousing what you say, such as one group wanting butt sex, the other group wanting cars that run on banana peels (smokin' banana peels sounds like this......melllow......mellow.....I'm so mell--looooow!) probably lean more toward third party fringe groups such as the Greens. Since some of these folks may actually put two and two together, they do realize they can never get their guy (or gal) elected and do not have a voice with the mainstream media. By remaining among the fringe is fruitless for their cause(s), therefore they ally themselves with the Democratic Party--to get their issues out there (and most of these are really non-issues).

There's a converse of this phenomenon. Evangelical Christians aren't too cozy with the Republicans automatically, but they realize Billy Swaggart is just too damn old to run for Prez, Sen. or whathaveyou. They'd like for James Dobson to run, but they full well know that most Americans would run screaming in fear from that dude's tent.

After hearing about GW Bush's and Bob Dole's transformation in front of an alter, speaking in tongues and whatnot, they start signing checks over the RNC thinking those dudes are genuine.

I've heard lately they are rather peeved at Gee-Dub and many House and Senate Repoobs, and want their money back so they can shop around for another candidate (certainly not Kerry or any other Dem--it's simply out of the question).

So does this show that the Dems aren't a solidified front? Perhaps, but I think for the most part, fringe, issue-based whack-jobs ally themselves with the Dems (and the RNC on the other extreme) simply out of convenience, and devoid of a national, media grabbing voice that are as easy as allying themselves with the two major, national parties.

As for Air-America, there's probably Franken and Garafalo whom I really like, and I respect their work and research (yeah, I know Franken's recent book-garbage is out on a limb), but for the most part there just isn't a market there because real, true blue-blooded Dems are too busy car-pooling the kids around and reading substantive books to listen to talk radio. Either that or just working their fingers to the bone and cannot drive around listening to talk radio all day.

Also, and this is somewhat related as far as a listening audience goes. Consider that GOP and far-right wing talk shows are popular because you have a lot of hardcore liberals listening in. While I don't paint myself as a hardcore liberal, I do lean left as exhibited by my posts. I do, however, have some hardcore liberal friends and we all agree that listening to Savage Nation is a real hoot.

Say you have to drive from Jackson to Oxford. That's two and a half hours in the car. I'm sick of all my Dead boots, so I listen to Savage and laugh my arse off all the way to Sorority Row--because that shee-aht is so freakin' funny.

Since the radio market overall is smaller than the TV market, Savage is 10 times funnier than O'Reilly because Savage can get away with it!

KDI, I agree w/ your characterizations. It's tough to make generalizations that allow for things to be concise. But, I think your characterizations lead to the same consequence. The fringe folks you talk about are too splintered to agree for long. I'm not trying to make this a judgement statement. It's just that most of these folks have conditioned themselves to separate and march when they have a disagreement.

As for the moderate democrats, I don't think they want to hear Franken and Garofolo b/c they are so extreme.

Final consequence is small audience.

Quote:There's a converse of this phenomenon. Evangelical Christians aren't too cozy with the Republicans automatically, but they realize Billy Swaggart is just too damn old to run for Prez, Sen. or whathaveyou. They'd like for James Dobson to run, but they full well know that most Americans would run screaming in fear from that dude's tent.

After hearing about GW Bush's and Bob Dole's transformation in front of an alter, speaking in tongues and whatnot, they start signing checks over the RNC thinking those dudes are genuine.

I've heard lately they are rather peeved at Gee-Dub and many House and Senate Repoobs, and want their money back so they can shop around for another candidate

While I certainly can't speak for all evangelicals everywhere, I do know this audience fairly well. This 'split' is greatly exagerrated. I did see an aritlce on Yahoo! suggesting the same thing, but it was sparse w/ details...for good reason. This sentiment just is not widespread. Moreover, it's not coming from the mouthpieces for this group.

That's not to say that every evangelical gives a 100% approval rating to GWB, but most are not chucking it in by any means.

Why is it you're so emotionally invested in the demise of liberal talk radio, Professor? I get the feeling you're just wringing your clammy little hands in anticipation, muttering something about "First Al Franken, and next the NAACP. Muhahahahaha!"

Freak. You're a total and complete neo-con freak.

Anyway, liberal radio is making quite a dent for the short time it's been on the air. Thom Hartmann's still my favorite and he pulls some serious numbers.
-----------
"In the radio field, Hartmann worked from 1968 to 1978 as a DJ, reporter, news anchor, and program director for a variety of commercial radio stations, and today hosts a daily nationally-syndicated talk show. He’s also contributed to the American economy: in the business world he has founded seven corporations, which have generated over a quarter-billion dollars in revenue.

Coming back behind the microphone, Hartmann began a radio talk show syndicated on stations owned by Northeastern Broadcasting, reaching Vermont and New York. That show was picked up in April, 2003 by the i.e. America Radio Network, where it now reaches listeners across America on terrestrial radio stations, is carried on the Sirius satellite radio system, and is streamed live on the internet.

The father of three grown children, he lives in Vermont with his wife Louise, to whom he's been married for over 30 years.

"With 1.7 million RadioPower.org users, the Thom Hartmann show is one of our most highly rated programs. He regularly loads our servers to capacity and the quality of his discussions keeps them coming back for more!"
-- Shelby LaPre, Station Manager

"There's a buzz growing around nationally syndicated talk show host Thom Hartmann, whose nationally syndicated daily program is drawing high marks by those who are on the lookout for talk radio's "Great Liberal Hope."
                 --Talkers Magazine

The Thom Hartmann Radio Program is nationally syndicated on radio stations across the USA daily from noon to 3 pm EST, is also broadcast on Stream 143 on the Sirius satellite radio ("Sirius Left" - their progressive talk channel), and streamed live on the web from http://www.radiopower.org (click here to hear the program live).

To enter the chat room, click here. (When you get into the Forum, click on the "Chat" button.)

To get Thom's program on your local radio station, click here.

"Putting a liberal host on opposite Rush Limbaugh's show is great for our market, and really allows us to cover the entire political spectrum. If we're starting a national trend here at Clear Channel in Grand Rapids, I'm proud it started here."
--Phil Tower, WTKG, Clear Channel in Grand Rapids, MI

"Thom Hartmann is number one in our market, both in terms of numbers and revenue."
--Fred Sena, KTRC, Santa Fe, NM

"Thom's program is my favorite show: educational and fun. And advertisers are going out of their way to get in touch with us since we put on the Thom Hartmann Program!"
--Tom Sebourn, KGOE, Eureka, CA

"Thom's show is critica and necessary to our times and our country right now. It's commonsense, factual, and informative, providing an entertaining voice for our radio audience."
--George Koch, WSDS, Ann Arbor/Detroit

"We picked up the Thom Hartmann Program to offer balance to our lineup, and to reach out to the many people who vote Democratic. He’s done a great job of presenting his ‘radical middle’ viewpoint, building a listener base among Democrats and liberals, yet bringing along our conservative listeners who also listen and call in to his show."
--Nancy Engel, Partner, WINI, Carbondale IL


"The Thom Hartmann Show ... is liberal talk radio with a rational perspective, solid facts, and grounded in the history of America."
--Radio Ink magazine 

DrTorch Wrote:While I certainly can't speak for all evangelicals everywhere, I do know this audience fairly well. This 'split' is greatly exagerrated. I did see an aritlce on Yahoo! suggesting the same thing, but it was sparse w/ details...for good reason. This sentiment just is not widespread. Moreover, it's not coming from the mouthpieces for this group.

That's not to say that every evangelical gives a 100% approval rating to GWB, but most are not chucking it in by any means.

What I've seen, and heard, read, viewed from non-mainstream info sources (not yahoo) is that the Evangelicals in Texas are ready to jump the GWB ship. Evangelicals in other areas are especially peeved at the prez's junta on many issues, namely immigration.

I would tend to think that many of the fringe groups stick with a candidate in a national election because they see that candidate as the lesser of two evils. For the Evangelicals, many will see Kerry as evil incarnate, while the converse is true for the Dems and their following of fringe radicals, especially this election year.

What I witnessed quite close-up in 2000 was that many Dems were jumping on the McCain coatails, especially when GWB began to distance himself from the other primary candidates and personally attack the fine Senator from AZ. I would ask Dems why they'd support McCain when they've been critical of many of his GOP ideals. The responses were mainly that he was a moderate and would unify people.

After the primary, or when it was clear GWB won out, the same Dems I know were backing Gore because he was the lesser of two evils in their view.

It is this kind of phenomenon in the two-party system that pisses me off, but I accept it.

I agree with your statements about generalizing. Too often the case lately is that anyone critical of GWB is a commie sunuvabee-atch who would rather have Saddam as prez, and Hillary suckin him off. Over-the-top characterization of course, but some fringe GOPpers I know, really really believe this.

As for Garafalo and Franken on the radio, really liberal people that I know just don't have time for it, and read books instead. These liberals of course don't even listen to Savage because they are easily offended and have no sense of humor. I know more liberals who would listen to the evil, scum suckin liberal duo mentioned above if it were as funny as Savage, and available in this area.

<Insert more hilarity about liberals and money handling>

<Insert another joke about liberals wanting to tax the rich (people that fund this crap) more and more and more>

Three things:

1. Al mentioned on his show yesterday that he is being paid just fine, thankyouverymuch. They have gotten a ton of new major advertisers this week alone.

2. The ratings prove that the Repugs claims that there is "no market" for liberal talk radio is utter b.s. One Clear Channel executive was even quoted that even if in the conservative-wet-dream scenario of AAR folding, that a number of syndicators would step in to pick up the brand now that it has been shown to be a ratings winner. So don't expect it to vanish from your radio dial any time soon...

3. Dismissing AAR's high ratings as a "novelty" is a mistake, because radio usually doesn't work that way. Start-ups usually take years to build an audience, not weeks. It took El Rushbo nearly a decade to build a credible-sized audience.

Papa Lou BSU Wrote:One Clear Channel executive

Anybody quoting any executive in that anti-trust suit waiting to happen aka Clear Channel loses credibility.

Quote:2. The ratings prove that the Repugs claims that there is "no market" for liberal talk radio is utter b.s. One Clear Channel executive was even quoted that even if in the conservative-wet-dream scenario of AAR folding, that a number of syndicators would step in to pick up the brand now that it has been shown to be a ratings winner. So don't expect it to vanish from your radio dial any time soon...

Did Republicans claim that there was no market for Liberal radio? Never heard that before. If they did, it's no more ridiculous than libs claiming that Americans are force fed Rush, Hannity, Bortz, Fox News, etc.

I hope as many people as possible listen to Air America. The more people hear what whacked out libs really think, the better off we all are.

Lethemeul Wrote:

Quote:2. The ratings prove that the Repugs claims that there is "no market" for liberal talk radio is utter b.s. One Clear Channel executive was even quoted that even if in the conservative-wet-dream scenario of AAR folding, that a number of syndicators would step in to pick up the brand now that it has been shown to be a ratings winner. So don't expect it to vanish from your radio dial any time soon...

Did Republicans claim that there was no market for Liberal radio? Never heard that before. If they did, it's no more ridiculous than libs claiming that Americans are force fed Rush, Hannity, Bortz, Fox News, etc.

I hope as many people as possible listen to Air America. The more people hear what whacked out libs really think, the better off we all are.

No, but I did.

And I still do.

Papa Lou...most radio shows don't get the free pub that Air America did/does.

But, this is one experiment that will get to play out. No point in arguing, just see what happens. I just stated which horse I bet on.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Papa Lou BSU Wrote:One Clear Channel executive

Anybody quoting any executive in that anti-trust suit waiting to happen aka Clear Channel loses credibility.

BTW, you don't build a monopoly by lucking into crap. They may be slimy, but they obviously have some idea how the biz works.