Political leanings on the USMB Board

[boedicca]

Air America failed because it didn't have the backing of a huge conglomerate capable of bringing it into every living room in America. It could only be heard on a few stations, and by the time they figured out that they needed the entertainment factor to keep it interesting, they'd lost their best people to more visible arenas.

It it hadn't been so gawawfully dull, it would have gotten plenty of syndication deals. It's not that they didn't have name recognition.

 

[American Horse]

Because the right doesn't have a stranglehold on radio? Or a foothold in television?

Let me guess, the left "controls the internet" too?

Air America failed because nobody wanted to listen to it. You could have supported it if it were important to you. NPR receives government handouts and has a very liberal editorial viewpoint. It's not the right's fault that the left can't run a viable business on the radio.

A foothold in television is just that "a foothold" - the majority of editorial content on TV is left leaning.

The internet, thank GAWD, is wide open territory. The low overhead of running a website makes it the most "democratic" form of media on the planet - anybody can post news stories and commentary. We should all hope it stays that way.

Air America failed because it didn't have the backing of a huge conglomerate capable of bringing it into every living room in America. It could only be heard on a few stations, and by the time they figured out that they needed the entertainment factor to keep it interesting, they'd lost their best people to more visible arenas.

So you're buying that pablum? Sorry Maggie, but your comment indicates a willingness to believe what you are being fed, while failing to take into account the "taste" it leaves in the mouth even while it is being fed to an audience hoping for something different rather than the same old stuff. It is very uninspiring EXCEPT to the purveyors, who think it just "sparkles."

I used to look for liberal talk, and back when Larry King was on the AM band, I was no more likely to miss him than Rush. He was entertaining, but not in the least bit able to innovate for his audience; and he "got mad" at callers who challenged him.

 

[MaggieMae]

Air America failed because it didn't have the backing of a huge conglomerate capable of bringing it into every living room in America. It could only be heard on a few stations, and by the time they figured out that they needed the entertainment factor to keep it interesting, they'd lost their best people to more visible arenas.

It it hadn't been so gawawfully dull, it would have gotten plenty of syndication deals. It's not that they didn't have name recognition.

Well, it was one of those chicken/egg things. How could they add entertainment value to make the programs more interesting without syndication deals? Their startup money and donations were running dry. Frankly, I'm not disagreeing that it was dull. A few times C-Span did simulcasts of radio programs and so I got to watch and listen to Air America and you're right, it was too drawn out--long pauses in between discussion of issues du jour. I did thoroughly enjoy one of those, however, when it was hosted by Bill Press who always has something interesting to say.

 

[RadiomanATL]

This board has always leaned right of center, in general. Still it is one of the more diverse boards that I have posted on. It is one of the few in which political affiliation is not even considered for staff selection.

Don't you mean staph selection?







/ducks.

Staph infection? :lol

Nah, staph selection. Gunny gets to decide who gets infected with staph. Otherwise known as admin/mod disease.

 

[boedicca]

Well, it was one of those chicken/egg things. How could they add entertainment value to make the programs more interesting without syndication deals? Their startup money and donations were running dry. Frankly, I'm not disagreeing that it was dull. A few times C-Span did simulcasts of radio programs and so I got to watch and listen to Air America and you're right, it was too drawn out--long pauses in between discussion of issues du jour. I did thoroughly enjoy one of those, however, when it was hosted by Bill Press who always has something interesting to say.

They had their supposed talent. And ferchrissake - radio stations have been on the internets for years. That's a pretty low overhead distribution model. It doesn't take much imagination to create a scenario in which they could have made a good go of it if the programming were interesting. It was hyper shrill and, worst offense of all, Not Funny. Successful infotainment makes people laugh at least part of the time.

 

[RadiomanATL]

A conservative throwing private charities/donations under the bus. You don't see that every day.

I'm not disavowing the validity of charities - just pointing out that NPR is a charity case which is not self-sufficient without hand outs.

Wow. I think you've stumbled across the definition of non-profit and non-commercial radio. Congrats.

That says a lot about its programming and its inability to support a proper business model.

No it doesn't. IT'S A NON-COMMERCIAL RADIO STATION. Jesus...by the very definition you just stumbled on above, they MUST rely on charitable donations.

I bet you like to disparage charities for accepting handouts too. It's just as stupid.

 

[boedicca]

Asked and answered.

NPR is a charity case that only exists due to the kindness of strangers.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Asked and answered.

NPR is a charity case that only exists due to the kindness of strangers.

There was no question asked.

Just further proof that yer a 'tard is all I guess.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Because the right doesn't have a stranglehold on radio? Or a foothold in television?

Let me guess, the left "controls the internet" too?

Air America failed because nobody wanted to listen to it. You could have supported it if it were important to you. NPR receives government handouts and has a very liberal editorial viewpoint. It's not the right's fault that the left can't run a viable business on the radio.

A foothold in television is just that "a foothold" - the majority of editorial content on TV is left leaning.

The internet, thank GAWD, is wide open territory. The low overhead of running a website makes it the most "democratic" form of media on the planet - anybody can post news stories and commentary. We should all hope it stays that way.

Air America failed because it didn't have the backing of a huge conglomerate capable of bringing it into every living room in America. It could only be heard on a few stations, and by the time they figured out that they needed the entertainment factor to keep it interesting, they'd lost their best people to more visible arenas.

Wrong again!

lol. Jesus. It has nothing to do with ideology, it has nothing to do with not enough financial backing. It has EVERYTHING to do with piss-poor decisions made by non-broadcasters and by putting a non-broadcaster as the friggin' centerpiece of your network.

 

[boedicca]

Utter nonsense.

They had high name recognition talent. If the programming were interesting, they would have had plenty of capital. But go ahead, pretend nobody ever heard of Al Franken.

The sad fact was that Air America was not Good Enough, Not Funny Enough, and Goddammit, Nobody Liked It.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Air America was like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs put together in one place, but on the left.

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't

The reason it failed is that rational people don't want to listen to that kind of BS, except for occasional entertainment purposes, and the left (wrong or right), prides itself on being more rational than their counterparts.

Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

 

[RadiomanATL]

How could they add entertainment value to make the programs more interesting without syndication deals?

Syndication deals don't make things entertaining.

Hiring an actually entertaining broadcaster in the first place does.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Utter nonsense.

They had high name recognition talent. If the programming were interesting, they would/have had plenty of capital. But go ahead, pretend nobody ever heard of Al Franken.

Nobody is pretending that. Strawman much?

Al Franken was not a radio broadcaster. HE was the centerpiece, and that was a BIG mistake 'cuz he sucked hard because he was not a radio broadcaster.

'Course the whole experiment was a big mistake. You can not shake & bake something like this and expect success within a year like they did.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, Air America failed because only 21% of our citizens identify with their loony agenda. Advertisers weren't going to pony up to reach such a small fan base. After all, biznezz is biznezz!

21% of the population would be quite a bit more than enough to keep a radio station going I think.

The thing is, there's a difference between mostly believing in an ideology, and believing in an ideology so much that you're willing to spread BS propaganda to further your cause.

Air America was like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs put together in one place, but on the left.

The reason it failed is that rational people don't want to listen to that kind of BS, except for occasional entertainment purposes, and the left (wrong or right), prides itself on being more rational than their counterparts.

The only reason MSNBC survives is that it attracts enough crazy radical loons on the left to keep it going. And don't even get me started on FoxNews.

MSNBC survives because General Electric has kept it afloat. I believe GE is in the process of selling it and perhaps the new owner or owners will also choose to keep it afloat. With its tiny ratings, it sure isn't turning a profit UNLESS it is selectively choosing advertisers who want a particular demographic rather than larger numbers. Fox, by contrast, with a HUGE market share for a cable program, has advertisers lined up waiting to snag one of the more coveted timeslots.

Rush Limbaugh on the other hand has lost some market share to some pretty heavy competition out there, but he has lost it to other conservative commentators/hosts. He isn't losing it to anybody on the Left. And he nevertheless remains solidly #1 in all ratings with a command of his pick of time slot on any station that features him. And he is featured on more radio stations than any other radio personality except perhaps Paul Harvey. Now that Huckabee has replaced Harvey, I haven't checked to see how his audience is holding up.

What accounts for Rush's success and Air America's demise? Rush knows who he is, what he believes, can articulate it well, and he does his homework. He mixes entertainment with just enough substance to retain interest to those who are probably driving or working or otherwise going about their day with the radio on. The 20 to 30 million or so who listen regularly or now and then are not motivated to change the radio station.

The few people Air America had who could do that quickly moved on to more high profile markets. Those that were left were like many of the juvenile leftwing poster on the internet--taking snarky shots at anybody on the right, doing sloppy research, parroting the assigned talking points of the day, and being unable to articulate any concept or idea. It was boring as hell. Even people of like mind found it tedious, and very few wanted to advertise on it. As George Soros and his colleagues eventually accepted that it was a beached whale and gradually withdrew support for it, it could not survive.

My observation is that USMB is as successful as it is because it has enough intelligent people on both the Left and Right to peak the interest of intelligent people. You can find funny, interesting, clever, insightful, and thought provoking posts among the sound bites, schoolyard taunts, personal insults, and other less riveting contributions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Air America was like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs put together in one place, but on the left.

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't

The reason it failed is that rational people don't want to listen to that kind of BS, except for occasional entertainment purposes, and the left (wrong or right), prides itself on being more rational than their counterparts.

Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

I figured it failed because liberalism isn't entertaining, except in a schadenfreude sort of way.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Air America was like a bunch of Rush Limbaughs put together in one place, but on the left.

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't

The reason it failed is that rational people don't want to listen to that kind of BS, except for occasional entertainment purposes, and the left (wrong or right), prides itself on being more rational than their counterparts.

Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

I figured it failed because liberalism isn't entertaining, except in a schadenfreude sort of way.

Well, thats wrong too then. So add a d) to my previous post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Almost, but not quite. Rush is entertaining and provocative. Air America, outside of Randi Rhodes, wasn't



Nope.

The arguments that

a) Air America failed because no one wants to listen to liberal ideology
b) Air America failed because liberals don't listen to what other people tell them to think
c) Air America failed because liberals like more intellectual radio

are all wrong.

I figured it failed because liberalism isn't entertaining, except in a schadenfreude sort of way.

Well, thats wrong too then. So add a d) to my previous post.

No, it's not wrong. Air America was not the first attempt at leftist talk radio. It was just the largest. And every damned one of them failed because they weren't entertaining and no one wanted to listen, except for people who were marginally amused by how pitiful they were.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I figured it failed because liberalism isn't entertaining, except in a schadenfreude sort of way.

Well, thats wrong too then. So add a d) to my previous post.

No, it's not wrong. Air America was not the first attempt at leftist talk radio. It was just the largest. And every damned one of them failed

Except for the ones that didn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, thats wrong too then. So add a d) to my previous post.

No, it's not wrong. Air America was not the first attempt at leftist talk radio. It was just the largest. And every damned one of them failed

Except for the ones that didn't.

And those would be . . . ?

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, it's not wrong. Air America was not the first attempt at leftist talk radio. It was just the largest. And every damned one of them failed

Except for the ones that didn't.

And those would be . . . ?

Bernie in San Fran, Tom Hartmann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Rachel Maddow (yes, she has a radio show), Michael Jackson (not the dead pop singer), Bill Press, Stephanie Miller (actually daughter of a late Republican congresscritter so I bet THAT dinner conversation used to be a bit awkward), Dave Ross...


Those are the ones who I can think of off of the top of my head. All have been successful.