AP: Air America Radio Files Chapter 11

ap ^ | 10/13/2006 | milwguy

[shimbo]

Air America's failure was predictable. There's just no popular interest, I predicted its failure over a year ago based on simple datamining techniques -

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=air_america_meme_another_successful

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why do liberals need Air America when they already have the mainstream media in their pocket?

That's one of the reasons it failed, I believe. Most Democrats can just watch the news or read the paper and get the liberal slant without having to listen to the talentless loser-moonbats on AA run the country down all day.

mkjessup:

Problem here is, and I guarantee it, that the minute this show goes off the air, the left will want Rush, Hannity and the rest to go off the air because of fairness.

Rush made the point that the problem talk radio presented to liberalism was the loss of their monopoly in public discussion. Liberal talk radio was always doomed to fail because, no matter how successful they could conceivably have made it, if liberal talk radio did not take audience away for Rush (and conservative talk radio generally) it would have failed in their actual objective of regaining their monopoly. Like that was gonna happen . . .

The sovereign remedy for restoration of monopoly to the liberals is restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and extension of it to the internet and satellite radio. And the problem with that is that with the retirement of Justice O'Connor only 4 justices who voted to ratify McCain-Feingold remain on SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on the court now, and he seems to be OK on the First Amendment. Which means that the liberals should think twice about getting back before SCOTUS with a new abridgement of the First Amendment.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[mkjessup]

Problem here is, and I guarantee it, that the minute this show goes off the air, the left will want Rush, Hannity and the rest to go off the air because of fairness.

FYI my FRiends, that quote is NOT mine, that was EQAndyBuzz.

My response to Andy was:

What they want, and what they end up getting are two vastly different things.

It's a free market, Rush and his brethren are profit making broadcasters, and that's the American Way.

Error America and Al Frankenberry are losers and NON-profit making faux broadcasters, which is why they are going out of business, and why they are getting what the Left is going to be getting more and more in the years to come, which is a swift kick to the head so we can hear it echo.

[Cementjungle]

Why do liberals need Air America when they already have the mainstream media in their pocket?

According to the libs I know, the MSM is biased in favor of the right and not the left.

[takeemout]

Very!

[SoldierDad]

Thought so.

Did you hear about the guy who tried to get the Blonde's attention, but couldn't because of the headphones she was wearing? When he took off the headphones, the Blonde fell over dead.

He placed the headphones onto his ears and listened to, "Breath in - Breath out, Breath in - Breath out . . . ."

[takeemout]

Ahem, hmmmm....

You know, there is a pic with her with headphones on when she was on air with Franken on Air America. It was so tempting to post, but her hair is dark in it. So, what is the true color of her hair?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Oh golly gee darn dangit. I'm outta checks."

And my debit card quit working, and the dog chewed up my credit cards.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I was having a debate this morning with a coworker who is a rabid lib and she actually thought Air America is an Airline!!! She said "I've heard so much about them but I can't find out how to buy tickets, my friends said it was run by liberal Democrats."

Can you believe that?"

Unfortunately, yes. But I still find it very funny.

[Vince Ferrer]

The creditors are the ones that'll get screwed. But in this case that would be appropriate since they chose to deal with the devil in the first place.......

Most of the creditors are in on the game. This was mostly just an attempt to get around campaign finance laws in order to promote Democratic candidates and get out the vote in the 2004 elections. They weren't looking for a return on investment in dollars, but in new Democratic voters, and apparently they aren't getting a lot of converts. They have put up with enough, and are moving on to more lucrative ways to get out the vote.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why would conservatives or anyone else need radio for music. CDs are avaiable dirt cheap on ebay. And who knows better what I want to hear than me?

[SoldierDad]

With her it wouldn't matter - Blonde on the inside regardless.

[takeemout]

Well in that case.....

She's just doing what the voices in her head are telling her to do.

These two are deemed competent intellectuals by the libs. Absolutely........Unbelievable!

[AngelesCrestHighway]

L.O.L......

[Eastbound]

Mis-representation of name. Air America? A pig's ear by any other name is still a pig's ear.

[kempster]

Wow! I got wrapped up in our Tigers for the past two days and totally missed this story. Will the good news ever stop coming? The possibility that the Detroit airwaves won't be polluted by the likes of Rhodes, Springer and Franken really makes this a perfect weekend.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

According to the libs I know, the MSM is biased in favor of the right and not the left.

To: Paul Coletti; MortMan

Welcome, Paul.

If the people whose response you seek are principals like Buckhead, that is one thing. If all you are looking for is some information from FReepers who were active when Ra^thergate went down, you should make that plain.

But I do agree with MortMan that we are discussing discussing documents which purport to be memos by Killian rather than "memos by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian purporting" to show something. If in fact they were by Killian, those documents would have cast then-Lieutenant Bush in a bad light.

And others have pointed out that evidence of bad faith on the part of CBS News abounds in this case, and that what is wanted is not scrutiny of FR in general and Buckhead in particular but some court trials and (for my part) some tough administrative repercussions. And if I do not mistake, the actual intent of your proposal is to test FR and FReepers according to communists' criteria to see if it is possible to discredit us. Is that not what this boils down to?

Rather than questioning whether FReepers are "biased" or whether we have subjected poor, harmless CBS to an anticommunist witch hunt, you would if your purpose be truth-seeking be better advised to understand that FR is openly conservative. And American conservatism is strongly and unapologetically anticommunist.

If you would understand how those filters are perceived here, consider the following:

1. Media ownership: ". . . the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant massmedia firms"

FR as a "media" is dirt poor. In order to avoid lawsuits over copyright, FR does not have any advertising revenue, nor does it charge fees for acess, nor does it charge for posting priviledges, as you will have noticed.

• Funding sources: "advertising as the primary income source of the mass media"

Not applicable, as noted above.

• Sourcing of stories: "the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power"

FR relies on open source material exclusively. Those who make claims of authority here are immediately charged to provide links to their sources.

• Flak: "'flak' as a means of disciplining the media"

We are all volunteers in a strictly amateur operation - amateur as in, "for the love of it." In consequence if, Heaven forfend, the government were effectively pressuring us we would stop loving it - and would simply fold up.

So much for the applicability of the commie filters to FR. Now let's critique those filters against the reality of American mass media. The reality of American free, commercial, mass-market journalism is a topic I have interested myself in since before the typical graduate student was born. And since I am a quick learner I have actually doped out a few points in that time.

• Print journalism is unregulated (by the government); that means that it is free to please itself. Pleasing itself means making money, and pleasing itself means being influential. What forwards those objectives you should expect journalism to do; what does not forward those objectives you should not expect journalism to do.
• Journalism makes money by advertising, and certainly in principle advertisers buy influence when they pay for advertising.
• However, advertising revenue critically depends on the ability to attract attention. No circulation, no revenue. If pleasing an advertiser compromises the ability to attract public attention, pleasing an advertiser may not be the most important consideration - assuming multiple possibilities for advertising revenue.
• And, toadying to advertisers conflicts with the objective of being influential and feeling yourself to be influential. Which is variously styled, "making a difference," and "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable."
• The imperative to attract attention for fun and profit means that journalism is nonfiction entertainment.
  • "If it bleeds it leads" because negativity attracts attention.
  • "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" because journalists must have something new to say today in order to attract attention today. That means that journalism is ineluctably superficial.
  • "Man Bites Dog" is a good headline, "Dog Bites Man" is a boring one -
  • Sex sells.
• The claim of journalism to significance implies the desire to be seen as objective. That serves both to enhance influence and to attract audience.
• But superficiality, negativity, and unrepresentativeness - in which journalism engage for self-interested reasons - do not constitute wisdom, objectivity, or any other classical virtue.

• The claim of journalism to objectivity is supported by no evidence and is utterly fatuous, but it is widely believed because of journalism's "eleventh commandment." Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" was, "Thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican." Journalism's eleventh commandment - and what makes journalism cohere as an entity and what makes it the establishment in America - is, "No real journalist questions the objectivity of another real journalist."

• Journalism is, therefore, an entity which promotes itself and all its fellow complaining professions at the expense of everyone who does things rather than merely talking about how they could have been done better. The complaining professions include labor leaders, plaintiff lawyers, and liberal politicians. People who get actual things done include police and military and companies which advertise.

In sum, your "filters" are nothing but an effort to rationalize the idea that "the masses" are being trodden underfoot by capitalists. Whereas in fact, hypercritical agitators wish to promote themselves at the expense of their betters, who take actual responsibility of committing time, effort, and resources to getting things done. And who are mercilessly second guessed by the complaining class.

Your filters are irrelevant. All five of them. And to the extent that you even take the trouble to test them, you are over-committing to them. At the end of the day you will have nothing but a tautology on your hands, and a paper to write on it.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. Theory of Moral Sentiments - Adam Smith

FR is an excellent venue for promoting Smith's "incredulity."

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

35 posted on 07/18/2006 12:26:59 PM EDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)

Welcome, Paul.

If the people whose response you seek are principals like Buckhead, that is one thing. If all you are looking for is some information from FReepers who were active when Ra^thergate went down, you should make that plain.

But I do agree with MortMan that we are discussing discussing documents which purport to be memos by Killian rather than "memos by the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian purporting" to show something. If in fact they were by Killian, those documents would have cast then-Lieutenant Bush in a bad light.

And others have pointed out that evidence of bad faith on the part of CBS News abounds in this case, and that what is wanted is not scrutiny of FR in general and Buckhead in particular but some court trials and (for my part) some tough administrative repercussions. And if I do not mistake, the actual intent of your proposal is to test FR and FReepers according to communists' criteria to see if it is possible to discredit us. Is that not what this boils down to?

Rather than questioning whether FReepers are "biased" or whether we have subjected poor, harmless CBS to an anticommunist witch hunt, you would if your purpose be truth-seeking be better advised to understand that FR is openly conservative. And American conservatism is strongly and unapologetically anticommunist.

If you would understand how those filters are perceived here, consider the following:

1. Media ownership: ". . . the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant massmedia firms"

FR as a "media" is dirt poor. In order to avoid lawsuits over copyright, FR does not have any advertising revenue, nor does it charge fees for acess, nor does it charge for posting priviledges, as you will have noticed.

• Funding sources: "advertising as the primary income source of the mass media"

Not applicable, as noted above.

• Sourcing of stories: "the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power"

FR relies on open source material exclusively. Those who make claims of authority here are immediately charged to provide links to their sources.

• Flak: "'flak' as a means of disciplining the media"

We are all volunteers in a strictly amateur operation - amateur as in, "for the love of it." In consequence if, Heaven forfend, the government were effectively pressuring us we would stop loving it - and would simply fold up.

So much for the applicability of the commie filters to FR. Now let's critique those filters against the reality of American mass media. The reality of American free, commercial, mass-market journalism is a topic I have interested myself in since before the typical graduate student was born. And since I am a quick learner I have actually doped out a few points in that time.

• Print journalism is unregulated (by the government); that means that it is free to please itself. Pleasing itself means making money, and pleasing itself means being influential. What forwards those objectives you should expect journalism to do; what does not forward those objectives you should not expect journalism to do.
• Journalism makes money by advertising, and certainly in principle advertisers buy influence when they pay for advertising.
• However, advertising revenue critically depends on the ability to attract attention. No circulation, no revenue. If pleasing an advertiser compromises the ability to attract public attention, pleasing an advertiser may not be the most important consideration - assuming multiple possibilities for advertising revenue.
• And, toadying to advertisers conflicts with the objective of being influential and feeling yourself to be influential. Which is variously styled, "making a difference," and "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable."
• The imperative to attract attention for fun and profit means that journalism is nonfiction entertainment.
  • "If it bleeds it leads" because negativity attracts attention.
  • "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper" because journalists must have something new to say today in order to attract attention today. That means that journalism is ineluctably superficial.
  • "Man Bites Dog" is a good headline, "Dog Bites Man" is a boring one -
  • Sex sells.
• The claim of journalism to significance implies the desire to be seen as objective. That serves both to enhance influence and to attract audience.
• But superficiality, negativity, and unrepresentativeness - in which journalism engage for self-interested reasons - do not constitute wisdom, objectivity, or any other classical virtue.

• The claim of journalism to objectivity is supported by no evidence and is utterly fatuous, but it is widely believed because of journalism's "eleventh commandment." Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment" was, "Thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican." Journalism's eleventh commandment - and what makes journalism cohere as an entity and what makes it the establishment in America - is, "No real journalist questions the objectivity of another real journalist."

• Journalism is, therefore, an entity which promotes itself and all its fellow complaining professions at the expense of everyone who does things rather than merely talking about how they could have been done better. The complaining professions include labor leaders, plaintiff lawyers, and liberal politicians. People who get actual things done include police and military and companies which advertise.

In sum, your "filters" are nothing but an effort to rationalize the idea that "the masses" are being trodden underfoot by capitalists. Whereas in fact, hypercritical agitators wish to promote themselves at the expense of their betters, who take actual responsibility of committing time, effort, and resources to getting things done. And who are mercilessly second guessed by the complaining class.

Your filters are irrelevant. All five of them. And to the extent that you even take the trouble to test them, you are over-committing to them. At the end of the day you will have nothing but a tautology on your hands, and a paper to write on it.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. Theory of Moral Sentiments - Adam Smith

FR is an excellent venue for promoting Smith's "incredulity."

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[Toadman]

From DU:

MalloyProducer (255 posts) Fri Oct-13-06 11:37 AM Response to Original message

26. Air America files for bankruptcy Not because there's no audience; not because the on-air people are not dedicated; not because there are no advertisers; but, because AAR management -especially this new crop of right-wingers - was so incompetent, so ignorant, so unable to manange, there was no alternative but bankruptcy. How fucking sad . . .

Okay, right-wing pundits and media assholes: START YOUR LIES!

- Mike Malloy

I new it would be just a matter of time before they'd start blaming "right wingers."

[qam1]

Does anyone here have the link to that study/survey that came out a few months ago and showed that Rush Limbaugh's audience is on average smarter/more informed than most other radio listeners?

I remember the post here on Freerepublic but can't seem to find it

I'm argueing with a Liberal on another board who said this about Air America's demise

"Air America was unbelievably lame. You can't, by definition, rely on the Rush format of mind-numbingly stupid generalizations, cheap guffaws, and hate speech with a liberal audience who, for all the constant oscillation of their heads within their rectums, at least passed a college logic class and took a smattering of lefty-biased but somewhat illuminating history.

And in the final analysis, liberals who can afford to listen to AA are all in college and have no money to buy &^!@ with, while those with the money are busy doing productive work. The grumpy octagenarians who listen to Rush sit around on their butts all day eating Gummint cheese, and still have loads of money from the social security programs they rail against.

I need to set him/her straight

[qam1]

By any chance can you help me with post #379