Olbermann and MSNBC being smart.

[Balta1701]

No, actually, it's pretty typical of liberals. 

Actually I'd say that I didn't know that myself, I just grabbed that from a press release. Does the money from his $50 memberships go to charity as well?

[Balta1701]

Oh, and Kudos to Al Franken and Randi Rhodes for out-drawing O'Reilly's mediocre radio show in ultra-liberal New York City.  How are they doing against Rush and Hannity in more moderate parts of the country?  :rolly

Given that, once again, Air America is only on in some 80 markets in the country, while Limbaugh and Hannity are on in something like 500 a piece, I'll let you know once we have time to actually get the network fully developed, integrated, and launched everywhere.

 

Seriously, are you still trying to argue that liberal talk radio cannot work when there is a network out there right now proving that statement wrong?

 

And are you actually arguing that Liberal talk cannot succeed because it is only doing well in liberal markets, yet somehow Conservative talk seems to do fairly well in those same markets?

 

And if you were trying to build a liberal talk radio network, would the first place you set up shop be NY, San Francisco, or some county in the middle of Alabama? You're trying to judge their growth and demean their ability to be profitable less than 2 years into the project because they're only really successful in liberal markets? Are you surprised by this? If I were running a network that's the exact business plan I'd use too - get myself a foothold in the likely best markets, and then use that to fund expansion into smaller markets.

[WCSox]

Actually I'd say that I didn't know that myself, I just grabbed that from a press release.

 

Nice to know that you're so well-informed. :rolly

 

Does the money from his $50 memberships go to charity as well?

 

I don't think so, but at least he's giving members articles and on-demand streaming radio for $50. That's more than I can say for Air America and their cyber-panhandling. Then again, it's the typical liberal ask-for-a-handout-and-offer-nothing-in-return philosophy, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[WCSox]

Given that, once again, Air America is only on in some 80 markets in the country, while Limbaugh and Hannity are on in something like 500 a piece, I'll let you know once we have time to actually get the network fully developed, integrated, and launched everywhere.

 

Seriously, are you still trying to argue that liberal talk radio cannot work when there is a network out there right now proving that statement wrong?

 

(1) I'm not saying that it can't work. I'm just saying that most people who listen to talk radio are closer to conservative than liberal.

 

(2) Why is liberal talk radio 15 years behind conservative talk radio? Have they not tried before? I'm sure they've had to... they're not stupid. Or do the demographics in point (1) just not support them?

[Rex Kickass]

So, why does Air America need to beg its listeners for money?  The aforementioned talk-show hosts simply have items for sale... that's a hell of a lot different than begging.  Why can't they simply offer to sell something to their listeners?  Is it because they're so broke that they can't afford the manufacturing/printing costs? 

 

I think its smart. You're selling psychological ownership. Building a loyal following and making money at the same time isn't desperate, it's frankly brilliant.

[Balta1701]

(1) I'm not saying that it can't work.  I'm just saying that most people who listen to talk radio are closer to conservative than liberal.

 

(2) Why is liberal talk radio 15 years behind conservative talk radio?  Have they not tried before?  I'm sure they've had to... they're not stupid.  Or do the demographics in point (1) just not support them?

2. There have been a couple of attempts. For example, Thom Hartmann I believe attempted to launch a national show about a decade ago, but well, I for one still am not a big fan of him, and he wasn't that successful.

 

There's never really been a good chance for liberal talk radio to actually "Grow" in the way Limbaugh's show did...he started off in the early 80's & was able to go national by handing his show out for free to station execs. He was rapidly able to build a solid audience out of that, and that audience has really helped the conservatives hold a strangle over talk radio.

 

Give you a few examples...lots of networks have attempted to see what would happen if they put a centrist or a liberal on during daytime hours to provide balance, but they end up hearing angry responses immediately from Rush's listeners, and so the shows don't have time to build into an audience. Think about it this way...if you have the choice of putting on Franken or Hannity right after Limbaugh...which one is going to better hold Rush's audience?

 

Furthermore, there have almost certainly been simple ideological barriers - a guy named Mike Malloy used to have the late-night shift on WLS in Chicago, and he actually had the highest share of the audience of any radio show in Chicago (fewer listeners than rush because of hte hour though), but WLS fired him, supposedly because he wasn't drawing enough listeners. They replaced him with shows which have since then continued to garner lower shares of the audience than he did.

 

So you have a number of elements...you have attempts to launch nationwide things like the Hartmann show which failed, you have a lack of access to local channels because listeners don't like to hear the topics change, and sometimes you have outright ideological moves.

 

That's why Air America probably has the best chance to succeed...they're not pushing it rapidly onto 500 stations, they're letting their hosts get used to the medium, removing shows that aren't working, building on the shows that are, and they're gradually expanding outwards into new markets. They're limited right now by the quality of their signal in many places, which was a necessary disadvantage of launching in places like NY - you can't exactly launch a new network with the world's most powerful transmitter if you don't have the funds, but those things will likely come with time.

 

On the rare occasions I'm in a car these days, I listen to Air America since I get it. But back when I was in Chicago selling vacuums, I spent hours each day in my car, and wound up having to listen to the conservative talk on WLS because there often wasn't anything else on to listen to, if the sports channels didn't have an interesting host on and Q101 was playing garbage. I was an unserved market, and at least for now I no longer am.

[WCSox]

I think its smart. You're selling psychological ownership. Building a loyal following and making money at the same time isn't desperate, it's frankly brilliant.

 

I'd agree ifthey would've asked for donations right off the bat, rather than after they were far in the red. It's my understanding that isn't the case. Also, they'd be wise to offer people something in return for their donation... at least a calendar or a coffee mug. Geez, even PBS does better than that.

[Balta1701]

I'd agree ifthey would've asked for donations right off the bat, rather than after they were far in the red.  It's my understanding that isn't the case.  Also, they'd be wise to offer people something in return for their donation... at least a calendar or a coffee mug.  Geez, even PBS does better than that.

I'm still missing 1 point...where do you get the data saying that they're "Far in the red"?

 

And as far as I know, they give away bumper stickers, tote bags, and on-air mentions in return for donations...signup page right there says it clearly.

[WCSox]

2.  There have been a couple of attempts.  For example, Thom Hartmann I believe attempted to launch a national show about a decade ago, but well, I for one still am not a big fan of him, and he wasn't that successful.

 

That's what I thought.

 

There's never really been a good chance for liberal talk radio to actually "Grow" in the way Limbaugh's show did...he started off in the early 80's & was able to go national by handing his show out for free to station execs.  He was rapidly able to build a solid audience out of that, and that audience has really helped the conservatives hold a strangle over talk radio.

 

Give you a few examples...lots of networks have attempted to see what would happen if they put a centrist or a liberal on during daytime hours to provide balance, but they end up hearing angry responses immediately from Rush's listeners, and so the shows don't have time to build into an audience.  Think about it this way...if you have the choice of putting on Franken or Hannity right after Limbaugh...which one is going to better hold Rush's audience?

 

A local station where I used to live aired Alan Colmes right after (in reverse order) Laura Ingraham, Hannity, Rush, and Neil Bortz. The fact that they'd even broadcast Colmes speak volumes. Even radio stations that have an almost completely-conservative audience are giving liberals a shot.

 

Blaming it on Rush and his listeners is just flat-out silly. Liberal talk radio is a lot like the NHL in America: it has a very supportive "cult" following, but this following isn't large enough to make it a dominant force. IMO, this limited success is due to the fact that most people who listen to talk radio don't want to listen to liberals. This also carries over into cable news channels, as evidenced by Fox News' dominance over MSNBC.

[WCSox]

I'm still missing 1 point...where do you get the data saying that they're "Far in the red"?

 

And as far as I know, they give away bumper stickers, tote bags, and on-air mentions in return for donations...signup page right there says it clearly.

 

If they're asking for donatins, they're short on money. IIRC, they've been dumped from several stations already because of dismal ratings. They're also under investigation for using misappropriated government funds.

 

But it's nice to know that they're actually giving something in returns for donations now. It's my understanding that they weren't doing this a couple months ago.

[Rex Kickass]

I wouldn't go far as to say that they are profitable. Their overhead is considerable considering that a lot of the deals that they signed with early affiliates was basically brokering 24 hours a day from the station to give them control without buying the station itself.

 

The first founders of Air America radio had a s***ty business plan and outright lied about the funding they had. They were broke before they launched. I'm willing to say that they aren't anywhere close to the days in April, May of 2004 where their existence seemed to be a day to day question mark.

 

Having listened to them and hearing that their commercial load is much closer to full capacity than first launch, combined with a deal with Clear Channel (that put them on 25 new affiliates) that they engineered this past spring, leads me to believe that they are doing just fine.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the million dollar Boys and Girls Club loan that was the big thing for the Freepers this time last year. They paid that off. If you're about to sound the deathknell from debt, those kind of debts are the last you're likely to get current on before filing bankruptcy or closing your doors. You also wouldn't have added 14 more affiliates since November 1. AFTRA wouldn't be putting Randi Rhodes and Al Franken on the air. XM wouldn't have signed an exclusive deal for the network.

 

I don't know the actual ins and outs of the finances of AAR, but I'd be willing to say they're doing fine... and that the Associate program is looking to pay for new stations the network can buy rather than pay any additional bills - if it isn't just straight going to the bottom line.

 

Doesn't WFMT have a listener drive every year as well? They don't ever seem to go broke.

[WCSox]

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the million dollar Boys and Girls Club loan that was the big thing for the Freepers this time last year.

 

Yep, and the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is under criminal investigation and has had their NYC-supported funding suspended. The Boys and Girls Club of America has also disowned them.

 

Apparently the unethical government funding of liberal media isn't confined to PBS and NPR anymore.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes. The loan has been repaid by the way, and the person responsible for the loan on the AAR side is no longer with the company.

[WCSox]

Yes. The loan has been repaid by the way, and the person responsible for the loan on the AAR side is no longer with the company.

 

Yeah, I heard. It was the right thing to do.

[Rex Kickass]

It was the right thing to do.

 

Damn right it was.

 

I was no big fan of AAR. I thought that they were doomed to failure because of a horrid biz model. But they seem to have turned it around.

[mr_genius]

it's not about being smart, its about being entertaining...

 

 

smart can be very entertaining.

[mr_genius]

oh yea, Olbermann was on ESPN radio claiming "no one cares about the White Sox" and "they'll never be anywhere near the Red Sox".

 

hey olbermann:

 

[Middle Buffalo]

oh yea, Olbermann was on ESPN radio claiming "no one cares about the White Sox" and "they'll never be anywhere near the Red Sox".

 

hey olbermann:

 

I don't recall him saying that. When talking about the stories of the year in sports, Olberman said it was steroids in baseball. He also said that he wished that the story was the White Sox winning the World Series, but it wasn't. He also said there is not a White Sox nation (like the supposed Red Sox nation), and that's the truth.

 

I tend to think that the existence of the Red Sox nation has its roots in the East Coast media bias. I mean, it's obvious that many of the ESPN guys are either Yankees or Red Sox fans, so they tend to make those teams the story even when they're not. But, what Olberman said about the White Sox was not innaccurate. He said that maybe - maybe if it had been the Cubs or Red Sox winning the Series and ending they're droughts this year, that would have been the story of the year in baseball. Maybe. Who cares? I don't. 2005 was the year of the White Sox for me. Not even close.

 

Somewhat related. I think the hour with Olberman on the Dan Patrick show is the only hour worth listening to on the whole show.

[mr_genius]

I don't recall him saying that.  When talking about the stories of the year in sports, Olberman said it was steroids in baseball.  He also said that he wished that the story was the White Sox winning the World Series, but it wasn't.  He also said there is not a White Sox nation (like the supposed Red Sox nation), and that's the truth. 

 

I tend to think that the existence of the Red Sox nation has its roots in the East Coast media bias.  I mean, it's obvious that many of the ESPN guys are either Yankees or Red Sox fans, so they tend to make those teams the story even when they're not.  But, what Olberman said about the White Sox was not innaccurate.  He said that maybe - maybe if it had been the Cubs or Red Sox winning the Series and ending they're droughts this year, that would have been the story of the year in baseball.  Maybe.  Who cares?  I don't.  2005 was the year of the White Sox for me.  Not even close.

 

Somewhat related.  I think the hour with Olberman on the Dan Patrick show is the only hour worth listening to on the whole show.

 

 

i disagree. the white sox WERE the sports story of the year and were rightfully named so. also, this 'red sox' nation stuff is just BS. Olbermann is an idiot. Cubs suck. Chicago > Mesa.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I loved watching Olbermann when he was doing Sportscenter. He was the best sportscaster Ive ever watched. However, Ive lost all respect for him now that he's a shill for the Democratic left.

[YASNY]

Actually I'd say that I didn't know that myself, I just grabbed that from a press release.  Does the money from his $50 memberships go to charity as well?

 

What? O'Rielly has to give everything away? Or is being successful and making a buck against liberal principals?

[sox4lifeinPA]

What? O'Rielly has to give everything away?  Or is being successful and making a buck against liberal principals?

 

other people making bucks is against liberal principals. It's ok to make 100 mil a year as long as you pretend to hate rich people and love poor people.

[WCSox]

I loved watching Olbermann when he was doing Sportscenter.  He was the best sportscaster Ive ever watched.  However, Ive lost all respect for him now that he's a shill for the Democratic left.

 

Olbermann's a talking head who doesn't know anything about politics. He's Jon Stewart trying to do a serious news show. While Chris Matthews is a giant douchebag, at least he has a basic understanding of the field.

 

other people making bucks is against liberal principals. It's ok to make 100 mil a year as long as you pretend to hate rich people and love poor people.

 

:coughHillarycough:

Edited December 30, 2005 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

What? O'Rielly has to give everything away?  Or is being successful and making a buck against liberal principals?

So Air America gets bashed in this thread for selling exactly the same sorts of "Memberships", but then when I try to turn it around and point out how O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al. do exactly the same thing, I get that as a reply.

[Rex Kickass]

Olbermann's a talking head who doesn't know anything about politics.  He's Jon Stewart trying to do a serious news show.  While Chris Matthews is a giant douchebag, at least he has a basic understanding of the field.

:coughHillarycough:

 

I think Olbermann is smarter than you think. And although he wears his politics on his sleeve, it's hardly any worse than anything you see on Fox. Quite the opposite, he usually goes the extra mile to make things balanced on his show - from what I've seen.

 

His newscast is, in a lot of ways, a throwback to the way news used to be done.