http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_e...bankruptcy

Can we search back and see people's predictions for how long they'd last?

I'm curious if anyone came close.

Shocking...with all the exciting personalities they have on there. 3 hrs. of Al Franken, jeanine garofalo?

who'd a thunk it?

Three hours of Al is the defintion of redundancy. Take any 10 minutes, repeat 18 times. And yes, I have listened to him. Terrible.

Edit: I have listened to others on AA also. I believe in hearing and evaluating a variety of viewpoints. But in the the end, all of them boiled down to only one viewpoint. HateBush. The entire network is devoted to hating Bush. I welcome intelligent presentation of opposing viewpoints, and occasionally get that here, but that whole network is just one big hate fest. I was wondering what they would do when Bush went out of office. Now maybe it is moot.

What is Air America??

ShoreBuc Wrote:What is Air America??

Too late. lmfao

Yeah, good thing it will be off the air soon, I mean, how can we let ANYONE have an opinion other than the rightwing propaganda machine.

RobertN Wrote:Yeah, good thing it will be off the air soon, I mean, how can we let ANYONE have an opinion other than the rightwing propaganda machine.

It's not the fact they have an opinion, it's the fact that the free market had said their opinions blow and they don't want to hear them.

You of all people should be used to that.

ShoreBuc Wrote:What is Air America??

It is a "Progressive" a/k/a Liberal Radio Network that is currently in Chapter 11 Reorganization. They cater to the left wing fringe.

Too bad they don't have a "conservative" creditor. A good Republican Bankruptcy Attorney would have fun with them. Obvious mismanagement. They lost 19 million in 1 year. Get a Chapter 11 Trustee appointed, or get the case converted to Chapter 7 and then play "follow the money." That would be very interesting to see where the money ended up.

I heard a commentator commenting (!) on this. In his opinion, the problem is that most of the AA hosts had no idea how to be entertaining. They thought that just by presenting their opinions over and over, that people would want to listen to them, but it got boring. Rush is #1 not because he is conservative, but because he is entertaining. There are lots of conservatives who would fail as talk show hosts because they cannot make it entertaining. In this respect he said Al Franken was probably the best that AA had, since he was occasionally entertaining, while Randi Rhodes, Garafolo, etc, just ran their mouths. Just because you are a Hollywood personality doesn't mean you have a personality.

I listened a few times just to see what it was, and it was quite terrible to listen to.

I didn't even disagree with some of the stuff that they were saying, but when all of your conclusions are Bush is satan over and over and over... well its not much longer before I tune to static. I couldn't listen more than 5 minutes.

Here's an idea to save AA, as RobertN and a few others would want:

All the wealthy (defined as an income of over 200K by the democrats) Democrats and Liberals should donate all the tax money they save using tax breaks for the rich (defined as any deduction or exclusion other than the standard deduction) to AA. Not only would this reduce(not eliminate) the stain of hypocrisy on them, it would fund AA easily. Just the Kerrys and Soros would be enough, but throw in the Kennedys, Striesand, Baldwin, Penn, Robbins, Sarandon, Sheen, Pelosi, and thousands of others, and they could fund hundred's of Air Americas with their tax break money alone.

I'm surprised none of these philanthropists has not thought of this. Of course it uses their money instead of someone else's, but why would that deter them?

Franken, Garafolo, et al could donate their salaries, unless the Liberal Talk show Host's Union objects.

Just FYI:

NYC TALKRADIO RATINGS
JULY-SEPT, SUMMER 2006
HOST'S PEAK HOUR
AGES 12+

LIMBAUGH 342,000
HANNITY 322,900
CURTS/KUBY 318,600
IMUS 279,600
GAMBLING 257,100
LEVIN 245,700
OPIE/ANTHONY 197,100
SAVAGE 175,600
O'REILLY 157,800
INGRAHAM 127,600
AL FRANKEN 122,300
RANDI RHODES 115,300
LIONEL 86,700

That was the NYC market (Which I believe is more liberal than most).

I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

GrayBeard Wrote:I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

Well, I didn't see their plan so I can't say for sure. I don't think the premise was terrible. There is nothing wrong with presenting a liberal viewpoint. The problem was in the execution. If they could have been funny or remotely interesting or informative I would have listened.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

Well, I didn't see their plan so I can't say for sure. I don't think the premise was terrible. There is nothing wrong with presenting a liberal viewpoint. The problem was in the execution. If they could have been funny or remotely interesting or informative I would have listened.

Back to the entertainment theory presented above.

I think they really had no plan at all, just an expectation that if they presented liberal viewpoints, liberals would listen. They seemed to think that was how the conservatives were doing it.

another viewpoint is that you can liberal thought from a variety of other sources, so they were competing against CBS, CNN, etc as much as they were competing against Rush.

I have always enjoyed the point/counterpoint type shows the best. Here in this market we used to have a liberal show from 3-5, followed by a conservative from 5-7, lots of times with lapovers and joint shows. Lasted a couple of years, but the liberal (who i liked better as a person) eventually was canceled. Ratings rule.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

Brookes Owl Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

Well, I didn't see their plan so I can't say for sure. I don't think the premise was terrible. There is nothing wrong with presenting a liberal viewpoint. The problem was in the execution. If they could have been funny or remotely interesting or informative I would have listened.

Back to the entertainment theory presented above.

I think they really had no plan at all, just an expectation that if they presented liberal viewpoints, liberals would listen. They seemed to think that was how the conservatives were doing it.

I think there is alot to that notion. I also believe that you have to present a hopeful message. You can't just bash cons, and complain how bad things are. You have to convince people that your way offers hope and opportunity. FDR did this. JFK did this. Today's Libs seem bent on bashing success and painting doom and gloom:

Global warming will destroy the world
Don't build a home or hope to build a home, that pollutes
Don't drive, that pollutes
Nuclear power is bad too, so don't think it can get better
Big business hurts the everyman, and should be eliminated
but Outsourcing is taking away most good jobs
Immigrants are taking away the rest
but Immigrants should have your full rights

Every plank is negative, and many are even contradictory. I think that people recognize the inconsistency of the broader liberal movement, and its a nagging sensation that means you can't think about it too much.

Brookes Owl Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

Well, I didn't see their plan so I can't say for sure. I don't think the premise was terrible. There is nothing wrong with presenting a liberal viewpoint. The problem was in the execution. If they could have been funny or remotely interesting or informative I would have listened.

I guess I should clarify my "business plan" statement.

Think about, the tried to start a whole new National Radio Channel with Air personalities that did not even have a local draw.

How did Rush start out? He started in a local market and grew from there. It wasn't a here we are all across the country thing. Instead it was a start small and grow. You don't just get a huge following over night and that is what Air America needed to sustain itself. That my friends is a bad business plan.

GrayBeard Wrote:I will say it again.

It was a terrible business plan, but then again, libs tend to be anti-business.

I have a PACER subscription. I can't wait to see their Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement. I doubt that they will be able to confirm a Plan