Talk:Air America (radio network)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Check your facts

llllllllllll The new station is less power, not more. Old 30kw Day, 10 night New 25kw Day, 5 night check the govt. site http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html --JDonks 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is true. But I did change the first paragraph, since it said "much weaker". It ain't that much weaker. And I cleaned up the sentence structure a little, since it looked pretty ridiculous. Quite frankly, a lot of this article looks like the work of two warring sides - one trying to praise it and one trying to trash it. I think this whole article needs a little better flow. --Fightingirish 06:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Last night the first paragraph read "much stronger" station. Sounds like someone is trying to turn this into an advertisement rather than a bio. --JDonks 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to hit "Save" last night. I rewrote the first paragraph, split it in two, made it read a little better, and changed the "much weaker" description. I think everyone can agree on this rewrite. -As for whoever wrote "much stronger", perhaps it was written by someone who lives closer to the WWRL transmitter. I hear it does come in better in some parts of the area than WLIB, but that could be said about any station.-Fightingirish 13:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the quality of the signal strength even needs to be mentioned, only that AAR is moving.

--JDonks 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Air America is carried in it's entirety on XM satellite radio, is it even important that niche programming like Air America be carried on terrestrial radio at all? Atlanta's WWAA dropped Air America in favor of music programming with little outcry. I enjoy Springer In The Morning. I listened on XM even when it was on WWAA. Teamgoon 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Profitability

Of course profitability matters to a corporation. But if someone at AAR claimed profitability didn't matter to them that should be added here also with a credible source. I just don't think it's ever been said. --Kirby Morgan 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if we're misunderstanding eachother or what. I moved the profitability section down to a different area and reworded it for POV issues, not removed it outright. I agree - profitability matters and, if there's hand-wringing about it, the article should address it. However, there are ways to do it that can be done without piling on, which is at least how the part I moved and re-worded came across. The Franken bit, if you can find a link that chains the two together, then I won't try to remove it, but anything about his co-host outside of cited profitiability concerns should probably be in his show's article. Let me know what I can do to help out with this, because we both want the info in there, just not the same way, apparently.--badlydrawnjeff 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole section consists of nothing more than opposing sets of trash talk on both sides. Malkin has no idea what the finances of AAR are and it is pretty clear that money can be found to fund it even if it looses $15 mil a year or more. The Franken salary reported in the article is clearly an unsourced guess. I would have thought he could get rather more, he clearly has a stock deal, how much that is worth nobody knows. Almost certainly either zero or a very large figure. Its the same with Stern.--Gorgonzilla 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The material doesn't seem to add anything to the article. JChap 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on Ratings

I believe that the "Ratings" section should be deleted; the information is inaccurate and misleading. Unless someone is willing and able to keep on top of the ratings for all 67 Air America stations -- and more as the number grows -- the section perpetuates misinformation, as the data will always be incomplete and quickly outdated.

Further, citing the New York Radio Guide as a source is too selective, failing to encompass the entire network and, instead, focusing on two AAR stations. Then there's the fact that the "Guide" website relies on Arbitron for its data; Arbitron's data collection methods cast doubt on the validity of its ratings (see here and hit CTRL +F to find "Arbitron Data Limitations").

Finally, several attempts by political detractors of Air America to selectively quote -- and outright misquote -- both Arbitron and Nielsen numbers will no doubt result in many questionable numbers being added to the entry under this section. Better to delete it altogether. Semidi 01:35, 3 August 2005

The ratings section is key to understanding how the network is faring in the marketplace. Using numbers from here should take care of any questions in terms of accuracy. I know you dislike Arbitron's systems and see some doubt, but, when dealing with ratings and, thus, ad revenue, that's the industry standard, the standard that people understand, and the accepted way of judging the popularity of a station.

What we should do - and what I will do following posting this - is link the RRR ratings to the bottom of it so people are capable of validating the information on their own and, in the event of a misstatement, people can fix it if necessary. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The ratings have been a kind of mixed bag and in some markets they do better than others. To say they have "very low ratings" and offering no support is inappropriate for the lead. The total market has to be looked at in various ways to come up with real numbers before making a claim the reatings are very low or not. They might be, but it has to be sorced. This section needs good objective data. Calicocat 01:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

As there is now no mention of "very low" and the section is already sourced, perhaps you can remove the 'factual accuracy' tag. Are you claiming that they did not rank 24th in the New York metro area Arbitron ratings? plain_regular_ham 12:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

After allowing time for explanation of 'factual' dispute, removed tag since the information is neutral and sourced. plain_regular_ham 14:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers are from when they first went on the air: do you have more up to date values? – ClockworkSoul 14:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but I would welcome anything from a source other than their own PR department (far from neutral by nature). plain_regular_ham 14:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Me, too. I don't know how well they do in terms of hard numbers, but I know they're relatively successful in at least some markets, while not doing very well in others. How difficult is it to get the actual rating from Arbitron themselves? All I can seem to find is liberals that say they're going great, and conservatives that say they're in the toilet. Like most other things, I have little doubt that the truth is somewhere in the middle. – ClockworkSoul 15:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Too bad there aren't more radical moderates like me. I searched for actual ratings from a source like Arbitron and found nothing. Maybe something will turn up. I'd imagine the media prefer to spin the ratings before we see them, therefore making the raw data poorly advertised. plain_regular_ham 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the neutrality factor. As you suggest, the best would be real sources like Arbitron. You have to be a subscriber for some of the professional services... Perhaps we can get some reports by asking Arbitron. I'm looking into that as well as other ways to get some real numbers. Blogs and AAR are both going to using raw numbers in various ways, doom and gloom or marketing pitchs mostly. This, too, can be covered in the article, but the bottom line numbers should be known as best we can determin. Trends will also be significant in time. Since AAR is still new, some of these data is not so easily available. Also, networks typically do private audience research which can guide development of new programs and promotions. Over time, I think more of these questions will be filled out.

Perhpas we can removed the ratings section for now, until we can get some more up to date numbers? The data is old, and the source is an editorial page by the author of "South Park Conservatives". I'm not sure that it's really reliable. – ClockworkSoul 19:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say pull it if the data were known to be false, but I have nothing to suggest to me that it is. All we have actually stated is the station's ratings as reported. I added the date and publisher of the referenced article and still welcome additional data. plain_regular_ham 19:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... we also don't know that they're true. We could report that there are little green puppy dogs living on the sun, too, because we don't know for sure that there aren't. (Sorry - it's the scientist in me talking. ;) )For the sake of correctness, perhaps we would be better off reporting statistics that are known to be true, instead of not known to be not true? – ClockworkSoul 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we are headed down a slippery slope if we require raw data eyeball verification for every newspaper citation, and I disagree with the 'factual dispute' tag for that reason. I could ultimately dispute the factuality of anything in a philosophical sense. Note that I entered, "as reported in the New York Sun" which makes the statement true. You can look at the article and it does indeed say that. Whatever the case, though, I will stand down on this issue for a time as long as you can assure that you intend to pursue a source that could be deemed more 'raw'. This is assuming that you are comfortable leaving the tag on in light of the wording of the statement. plain_regular_ham 19:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

In general, primary sources are preferred to secondary or tertiary sources. While it's true that the New York Sun reported that fact, the author himself is biased, and for that reason I'm uncomfortable with the statement. I honestly think that we should either remove it or replace the disputed tag until we can get some facts that aren't encumbered by partisan stickiness of either flavor. – ClockworkSoul 19:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Until we can get a better and more current ratings assessment, it's only fair to be more accurate in labeling the current sourcing - it's from an editorial in a paper that is universally acknowledged to be conservative. I added this information.

You can get ratings here, and the numbers aren't going to lie. This guy is a conservative, but he's got the tools handy to point out how poorly AAR is doing in the ratings. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian Maloney will always give you a right-wing POV take on that raw data. If you think that's useful for writing a NPOV article, fine. --Veronique 18:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Brian Maloney has access to the same ratings information that anyone else does. The numbers he lists are from the Radio and Records website. And if Daily Kos is not an acceptable source, why would Radio Equalizer be? Fightingirish

So what would be "right-wing POV" about stating that AAR's ratings are low based on the raw figures from RaR? Nothing he's saying is wrong - AAR is dead last in Boston, behind a weak WBZ signal in Providence, etc. To not comment on their ratings woes may be an issue. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ask any radio exec and they'll tell you they take raw ratings data and tell whatever story they want. They emphasize the parts of the chart that work in their favor and ignore the bits that don't. It's SOP. AAR execs will do the inverse to support their business goals. If you want a reasoned, impartial take on it all, don't go to anyone with a vested interest (AAR) or an axe to grind (Maloney). Comment on the ratings all you want, but seek out independent sources and don't be credulous. --Veronique 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the ratings as I am about the tone of the second sentence on the revival of the Fairness Doctrine: "equal time regardless of public interest" is not a very accurate rendering of the purpose of the Doctrine. In a section on ratings, this certainly makes it sound like Air America, through the Doctrine, would receive some kind of guarantee of air-time despite its alleged unpopularity - an assertion which doesn't relate to the provisions of the Fairness Doctrine in any reasonable way. Moreover, it's unclear from the description how this would actually benefit Air America, since "equal time" under the Fairness Doctrine presumably implies that their own stations would have to grant equal time to their opponents views. Bottom line: equal time = balance of opinion on controversial issues of public importance, not "radio welfare". – Borborigmus 12:52, 17 June 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea might be that popular talk stations would be forced to carry AA programming to balance their more-popular conservative talkers, or something like that. However, as you point out, a re-emergence of the FD would destroy AA itself as an actual network (as opposed to a producer of content), so the sentence in the article still makes no sense. I took it out, as it appears to be little more than a misunderstanding of this old article.

An anonymous user {216.119.139.11} has attempted, several times, to post ratings information gleaned from Byron York, a conservative author and commentator, in an article entitled "Radiogate" on National Review Online. York's writings exhibit a clear rightward tilt, and this article is by no means a neutral source. If the anonymous poster would like to post a raw data link asserting what York is claiming, that may be appropriate. Until then, the York article should not be cited as "proof" of anything but York's opinion.

A quick check of the history page shows a good deal of partisan bluster coming from the same anonymous user's {216.119.139.11} parenthetical comments. According to him, Air America has an "inflated" reputation, and any reversion of his edits receives a shrill "You could not be more wrong" from the Limbaugh School of Discourse.

--Eleemosynary 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. I personally think that you're too focused on York while ignoring the numbers, but a quick use of the link for Radio and Records that's listed at the end of the ratings section would have verified his statistics. I have re-added the information w/o citing York directly, rather using the R&R numbers as a result --Badlydrawnjeff 19:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up, and making it more of an encyclopedic than a partisan entry. I'd no sooner cite the Village Voice as a pro-Air America source than I would a columnist for the National Review as a critic. --Eleemosynary 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Goldberg Quote

So where does that quote come from, and can someone justify its existence? It's blatantly POV, it's not accurate, and I'm not sure why it's here. Anyone? The diff is here, and it appears to be added by an anon? --Badlydrawnjeff 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. "Inaccurate" in that Goldberg didn't say it, or that what he said was factually incorrect? He did in fact say it, said it right here in fact--surely you could have discovered this on your own somehow, using the search engine of your choice. Danny Goldberg is the CEO of Air America Radio, so I would expect him to have a point of view in favor of Air America Radio; wouldn't you? If we're to disallow any and all statements of support for the network because statements of support are ipso facto POV, then presumably we'd have to do the same for any and all criticisms on the same grounds, and this would be a much shorter article.

What basis do you have for saying that his remarks are factually inaccurate? As the CEO of Air America, he presumably has access to AAR's Arbitron books and has a basis for making his statements about the network's ratings. If you're going to stand up and call him a liar, you're going to have to be able to back it up somehow, which you don't seem to be able to do.

It seems clear that the person who added the quotation almost certainly meant to put it right above the Clear Channel header instead of right above it. Easily fixable, yet you chose to lop the quote off entirely. Why? --PHenry 17:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The accuracy of the existence of the quote is not in question. The accuracy of the numbers, however, is not, as detailed within the article already as well as by a quick look at the ratings books. Combine that with the insertion of the quote almost certainly to try and discredit the ratings numbers at the site linked within the article and to try to soften the blow of what was already a NPOV ratings section, I removed it on that account.

If you disagree with my synopsis here, that's fine, but I'd suggest finding a way to justify what he has to say if you're looking to insert it as written, or pointing out his error if not. The article is probably much better off without quotes from AAR execs bemoaning any ratings facts on cherry-picking from a right wing smear campaign or whatever. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You do not have access to the Arbitron ratings books (or if you do, you certainly haven't shared that information with us). You have linked to summaries that convey much less information than the ratings books do. The summaries provide one number per station per ratings period. They do not break the ratings out by daypart (important, because most AAR stations broadcast other programming at different times during the day), don't provide raw listenership numbers, don't provide demographic information, provide limited longitudinal information, and differ in a number of other substantial ways from the full books. And in fact, what information the summaries do provide tend to support Goldberg's claim about ratings growth in most markets, so what's your point?

The CEO of Air America Radio, who probably spends several hours a day looking at the full Arbitron books, made three assertions of fact in the exerpted quotation: that ratings are up at most AAR stations, that the Spring 2005 book shows AAR affiliates with 3 million weekly listeners who listen for several hours a week on average, and that this represents a 300% nationwide increase from the Spring 2004 book. If you think you can refute any of these assertions, by all means do so, but surely Goldberg is enough of an authority to warrant a quotation on the matter. --PHenry 19:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that a gushing commentary combined with a partisan attack warrants inclusion in an article we're trying to keep as NPOV as possible. "At the vast majority of our affiliates, Air America ratings are up" is patently false. Three million extra people is definitely a comment with omission, as they've added many stations. To accuse anyone, "right wing bloggers" or anyone else, of "cherry picking isolated pieces of ratings" when discussing the ratings situation is inherently POV. If we can't even the quote out with the facts, then the quote should be removed due to its obvious nature. By the way, the ratings numbers can be found here if you don't want to take anyone's word for it. I certainly wouldn't take Goldberg's. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

...so, you continue to insist that Goldberg is lying, yet are either unwilling or unable to back up this charge, choosing instead to keep posting the same link over and over again, despite the fact that it supports Goldberg's position more closely than it does your own. Got it. Thanks. --PHenry 22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The link actually does nothing of the sort. It shows that AAR's ratings are not up in most markets, or even many, and certainly not a "vast majority," it shows WHY AAR has added X listeners (not because of popularity but because they're expanding), and the quote is STILL POV partisan crap. If you want the quote there, you're going to have to justify why it belongs and how it's NPOV and accurate as opposed to just dismissing those of us who are actually pointing out where he's wrong.--Badlydrawnjeff 02:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't lie in edit changes. My reasoning for removing the quote is entirely supported by the facts of the situation, and detailed here in talk. Thank you. --Badlydrawnjeff 02:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are so many stations signing up if the numbers are always so bad? --davert

Apparently you intend to hold on to this falsehood until it's ripped from your fingers, so I went and crunched the numbers for every single AAR station in the country. Let's take a look, shall we?

The first and, to my mind, the most important thing to note here is that ratings data for spring 2004, the period that Danny Goldberg specifically referenced in his HuffPo post, are not available at radioandrecords.com for most markets. Two-thirds of the stations for which I was able to find data only show ratings numbers as far back as last fall. Two thirds! That's a lot! What could possibly have made you think that the data on this site were adequate to allow you to mount a believable challenge to Goldberg's statement? This alone should be enough to discredit anything you have to say on the matter, but I'm a pretty tolerant guy and I'm in a good mood today, so I did your work for you and totted up the numbers anyway.

In all cases, gains and losses are listed ending with the spring 2005 ratings period, which Goldberg also directly and specifically mentions (unsurprising, as the summer 2005 Arbitron books won't be released until late October and early November). For markets for which spring 2004 data is available, gains and losses are listed from that period; for other markets, gains and losses are listed from fall 2004, the earliest period for which data is available. (Even that's not really kosher, because a lot of these stations weren't AAR affiliates for the entire year... but, I guess you go to war with the ratings data you have, not the ratings data you might want or wish to have at a later time.) I don't report ratings in three cases: when there was no data available, either for the market or for the station; when the station's format is listed as something other than "Talk" or "News/Talk," indicating that the format changed too recently for the data to be meaningful; and when a 0.0 rating was reporting for the earliest available time period, indicating that the station didn't exist with its current call letters at the time. Ready? Here we go!

Akron, OH – listed as "Sports"
Albany, OR - no data
Albuquerque, NM – no data for Sp'04; up from 1.3 in F'04 to 2.2 in Sp'05 (+69%)
Anchorage, AK – 0.0 rating given for Sp'04
Ann Arbor, MI – listed as "Sports"
Asheville, NC – down from 1.4 in Sp'04 to 0.7 in Sp'05 (-50%)
Atlanta, GA - no data for Sp'04; up from 0.4 in F'04 to 0.7 in Sp'05 (+75%)
Austin, TX – listed as "Spanish"
Baton Rouge, LA – listed as "Country"
Binghamton, NY - 0.7 in Sp'04 and in Sp'05 (0%)
Boston, MA* (WKOX) – no data for Sp'04; down from 0.4 in F'04 to 0.2 in Sp'05	(-50%)
Boston, MA (WXKS) - no data for Sp'04; up from 4.9 in F'04 to 5.2 in Sp'05 (+6%)
Brainerd, MN - no data
Brattleboro, VT - no data
Burlington, VT - no data
Chapel Hill, NC - no data
Chattanooga, TN - no data for Sp'04; up from 3.8 in F'04 to 4.1 in Sp'05 (+8%)
Chicago, IL – no data for Sp'04; 0.0 rating given for F'04	
Cincinnati, OH - no data for Sp'04; down from 1.0 in F'04 to 0.8 in Sp'05 (-20%)
Cleveland, OH – up from 7.7 in Sp'04 to 8.2 in Sp'05 (+6%)
Columbia, SC - no data for Sp'04; up from 0.8 in F'04 to 0.9 in Sp'05 (+13%)
Columbus, OH - no data for Sp'04; down from 1.1 in F'04 to 1.0 in Sp'05 (-9%)
Corpus Christi, TX - no data
Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX – no data for Sp'04; 0.0 rating given for F04
Davenport, IA - no data
Denver, CO - no data for Sp'04; up from 1.6 in F'04 to 2.0 in Sp'05 (+25%)
Detroit, MI – listed as "Classic rock"
Duluth-Superior, MN – listed as "Rock"
Eugene, OR – listed as "Adult standards"	
Fresno, CA – listed as "Regional Mexican"	
Honolulu, HI – listed as "AC" (adult contemporary)
Huntington, WV – up from 1.2 in Sp'04 to  1.7 in Sp'05 (+42%)
Ithaca, NY - no data
Key West, FL - no data
Kihei, HI - no data
Lafayette, LA - no data
Lihue, HI - no data
Los Angeles, CA - no data for Sp'04; up from 0.3 in F'04 to 0.8 in Sp'05 (+167%)
Madison, WI - 1.7 in Sp'04 and in Sp'05 (0%)
Memphis, TN - no data
Miami, FL - no data for Sp'04; up from 1.2 in F'04 to 2.0 in Sp'05 (+67%)
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN – no data for Sp'04; 0.0 rating given for F'04
Missoula, MT - no data
New Haven, CT - no data
New Orleans, LA – up from 1.0 in Sp'04 to 1.4 in Sp'05 (+40%)
New York, NY - no data for Sp'04; down from 1.2 in F'04 to 1.0 in Sp'05	(-17%)
Petoskey, MI - no data
Phoenix, AZ - no data for Sp'04; up from 1.0 in F'04 to 1.1 in Sp'05 (+10%)
Portland, ME – up from 0.6 in Sp'04 to 1.0 in Sp'05 (+67%)
Portland, OR – up from 3.7 in Sp'04 to 4.5 in Sp'05 (+22%)
Reno, NV – up from 1.0 in Sp'04 to 1.2 in Sp'05 (+20%)
Riverside, CA - no data
Rochester, NY – up from 0.7 in Sp'04 to 0.9 in Sp'05 (+29%)
Sacramento, CA – down from 1.8 in Sp'04 to 1.1 in Sp'05 (-39%)
San Antonio, TX (KRPT) - no data
San Antonio, TX (KTXX) - no data
San Diego, CA - KLSD-AM 1360 AM no data for Sp'04; down from 2.3 in F'04 to 1.7 in Sp'05 (-26%)
San Francisco, CA - KQKE-AM 960 AM no data for Sp'04; up from 1.0 in F'04 to 1.2 in Sp'05 (+20%
San Luis Obispo, CA - 0.0 rating given for Sp'04
Santa Barbara, CA – listed as "Alternative"
Santa Cruz/Monterey, CA - no data
Santa Fe, NM - no data
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL – down from 1.8 in Sp'04 to 1.1 in Sp'05 (-39%)
Seattle, WA - no data for Sp'04; up from 1.0 in F'04 to 1.4 in Sp'05 (+40%)
Spokane, WA – down from 1.8 in Sp'04 to 1.3 in Sp'05 (-28%)
Springfield, MA – down from 1.1 in Sp'04 to 0.8 in Sp'05 (-27%)
Victor Valley, CA - no data
Washington, DC - no data
West Palm Beach, FL - no data for Sp'04; down from 5.3 in F'04 to 3.2 in Sp'05 (-40%)

*AAR is simulcast on two stations in Boston; between F'04 and Sp'05 the strong-signal station gained more than the weak-signal station lost, making for a net ratings gain in Boston.

We can therefore see that, of the 31 stations for which we are able to get semi-meaningful data, 18 showed a net gain between the earliest available period and spring 2005, only 11 showed a net loss, and 2 showed no net change. So when you said that "AAR's ratings are not up in most markets, or even many," that was wrong! Why would you say it, if it was wrong? Why would you be wrong about something that could be checked so easily? Was that a deliberate choice you made, or did you just not bother to look at the data you were selling? Of the 11 stations for which data was available dating back to spring 2004, 7 showed net gains, only 2 showed net losses, with 2 showing no net change. That seems like a pretty vast majority to me; wouldn't you agree?

So if you intend to keep openly accusing Danny Goldberg of fabricating ratings data, you're going to have to find a different data source than the one you've been throwing at us again and again, as it actually tends to support him rather than you. Wait--before you go, here are some other numbers you may wish to accuse AAR of making up, although before you try you should bear in mind that the Arbitron books from which these numbers are putatively drawn get mailed out to radio stations across the country, many of which are right-wing talk stations that could easily expose any fabrication going on here, if indeed you are correct. Good luck. --PHenry 06:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you're actually suffering from the same cherry-picking Goldberg accuses right wing bloggers of. I don't know why I'm bothering at this point, as it seems like you have CalicoCat ready to revert regardless of what's said here, but whatever.

For starters, when a station doesn't have any data, it means they dropped OFF the ratings book because the ratings were so low. It's fascinating that you, for instance, fail to list Philadelphia's WHAT, which has dropped off the ratings books entirely after at one point showing a steady decline, being as low as 0.5 in the June books. I wouldn't have expected you to add a place like Providence, who dropped AAR completely due to ratings, either. Also fascinating that you say Akron's listed as "sports." Is it because the one that's listed "sports" isn't AAR affiliate WARF, but in fact the one that's moved back to the 1.2 peak from the early-summer 1.0 WKNR? Not a problem, you'd be incorrect whether you list it or not, and that's fine. KOKE in Austin is listed as "mexican?" Right, because it was added earlier this spring. Yes, 0.7 in the latest books is certainly a welcome addition of listeners, but given that it's dropped from its debut at 1.20, it's not shocking it didn't listed here. You could have listed KIST in Santa Barbara without much protest, even though it's still listed at "alternative," as they've shown no change from their numbers a year ago (2.1->1.9->2.1)Oh, and Boston? WXKS is actually way off on your chart, peaking at 0.6 and dropping to 0.5 in the second part of spring, nowhere near the 4.9-5.2 you listed. You're also - and, in your defense, I don't have the information handy, either - not taking into effect the channels they've added over the last year that may not have a years worth of ratings to go by, which may be why we lack information. It's easy to say you've added millions of listeners when you've entered markets with 20 million potential listeners that weren't availiable to you, such as KOKE from above.

Now, I'm not going to bust my hump to fact check each and every one of your listings here, especially when you've got people who are willing to ignore the stuff here, but it's obvious your figures are less than trustworthy at this point. Even assuming each of your ratings table is 100% correct (which we know it certainly is not), it does not change the NPOV, partisan nature of the quote that ends up lying by omission (with the "more than triple the amount" commentary in the quote), and it certainly doesn't belong here. I'm fighting a losing battle given the way people will continue to add the quote without even considering what's here, but please quit being smug and start thinking about keeping the article NPOV instead of trying to defend poor statements with incorrect data. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin, where to begin? Your assertion that "when a station doesn't have any data, it means they dropped OFF the ratings book because the ratings were so low." didn't sound right to me, so I went back and did more research on those stations. Here's what I found:

• Akron (WARF) - joined the AAR network on July 5, 2005; changed call letters from WTOU the previous month
• Albany, OR (KTHH) - market not listed
• Brainerd, MI (WWWI) - market not listed
• Brattleboro, VT (WKVT) - market not listed
• Burlington, VT (WVAA) - market not listed
• Chapel Hill, NC (WCHL) - market not listed in Raleigh/Durham market at radioandrecords.com but I found data here; down from 0.7 in summer '04 to 0.6 in Sp'05 (-14%)
• Corpus Christi (KCCT) - market not listed
• Davenport (WKBF) - listed in Quad Cities market as "country oldies"; joined the AAR network on April 4, 2005
• Ithaca (WNYY) - joined the AAR network on June 14, 2005
• Key West (WKIZ) - market not listed
• Kihei (Maui), HI (KAOI) - market not listed
• Lafayette, LA (KEUN) - joined AAR network on August 1, 2005
• Lihue (Kauai), HI (KQNG) - market not listed
• Memphis, TN (WWTQ) - located on some weird secondary page; up from 1.2 in F'04 to 1.3 in Sp'05 (+8%)
• Missoula, MT (KKNS) - market not listed
• New Haven, CT (WAVZ) - no record; couldn't find out why
• Petoskey, MI (WWKK) - station not listed in Traverse City/Petoskey market; transmitter apparently running off of a couple of D-cell batteries
• Riverside, CA (KCAA) - station not listed in Riverside market; another low-power station that only broadcasts dawn to dusk
• San Antonio (KRPT) - station only broadcasts one AAR program, Jerry Springer, and only because Springer joined AAR after KRPT picked up his show; KTXX is the "real" AAR station in San Antonio
• San Antonio (KTXX) - joined the AAR network on August 15, 2005
• Santa Barbara (KIST) - I was looking at KIST-FM before; my bad; 2.1 in Sp'04 and in Sp'05 (0%)
• Santa Cruz (KOMY) - market not listed
• Santa Fe, NM (KTRC) - Santa Fe's current AAR station is actually KVSF, which joined the network on March 29, 2005
• Victor Valley, CA (KSZL) - new 8/2/05
• Washington, DC (WWRC) - new 1/19/05; down from 0.1 in F'04 to, apparently, no listeners at all in Sp'05, followed by a jump to something like 0.3 in the summer (+∞%?)

So when you said that "when a station doesn't have any data, it means they dropped OFF the ratings book because the ratings were so low," that was a lie! Whoever told you that lied to you! Doesn't that make you angry? Man, I'd be pissed off if someone hung me out to dry like that! I did manage to add four new data points, after a fashion, and I thank you for that--but that only gives us two additional losses, one gain, and one steady - not nearly enough to make a dent in Goldberg's remarks.

I also went back and looked at the stations that were listed with the wrong format or for which the earliest listed rating was 0.0. Here's what I found:

• Anchorage, AK (KUDO), 0.0 in Sp'04: joined AAR network on May 5, 2004; up from 0.7 in F'04 to 1.4 in Sp'05 (+100%)
• Ann Arbor, MI (WLBY), listed as "sports": joined AAR network on August 24, 2004; up from 0.7 in F'04 to 0.9 in Sp'05 (+29%)
• Austin, TX (KOKE), listed as "Spanish": joined AAR network on March 14, 2005
• Baton Rouge, LA (listed as "Country": joined AAR network on July 12, 2005
• Chicago (WCPT), 0.0 in F'04: call letters changed from WAIT on May 3, 2005; became AAR affiliate on May 5
• Dallas/Ft. Worth (KXEB), 0.0 in F'04: joined AAR network on March 21, 2005
• Detroit (WDTW), listed as "classic rock": joined AAR network on January 20, 2005; down from 2.7 in winter 2005 to 2.4 in Sp'05 (-11%)
• Duluth, MN (KQDS), listed as "rock": joined AAR network on September 6, 2005
• Eugene, OR (KOPT), listed as "adult standards": joined AAR network on November 10, 2004, about halfway through Arbitron's F'04 ratings period, so a comparison between F'04 and Sp'05 would not be particularly meaningful (though listenership did double during that time, if you must know)
• Fresno, CA (KFPT), listed as "regional Mexican": joined AAR network on July 4, 2005
• Honolulu (KUMU), listed as "adult contemporary": joined AAR network in June, 2004; down from 5.9 in F'04 to 4.3 in Sp'05 (-27%)
• Minneapolis/St. Paul (KTNF), 0.0 in F'04: call letters changed from KSNB on November 16, 2004; became AAR affiliate on October 1, 2004; up from 0.9 in winter '05 to 1.0 in Sp'05 (+11%)
• San Luis Obispo, CA (KYNS), 0.0 in Sp'04: joined the AAR network in April 2004; down from 3.4 in F'04 to 1.3 in Sp'05 (-62%)

So if we add these stations into the equation, we get two more gains and two more losses--hardly the turnaround you were hoping for, I'm sure. One question, though--why are you worried now all of a sudden about "channels they've added over the last year that may not have a years worth of ratings to go by"? You certainly weren't this worried about the integrity of your vaunted data set when you were the one pushing it. Now that the truth has come out, all of a sudden, you're making the same argument I made last night. You have a decision to make: is this data set valid enough to impeach Goldberg's statement, or isn't it? If it isn't, as I said earlier, I suggest you look for another one.

You were right about Boston, though; that was another case where I was looking at the FM station instead. Well done!

When I was doing the research for this, incidentally, I couldn't believe how many people I found who have apparently dedicated their lives, or at least their Web sites, to hating Air America Radio. Man, you guys really need this network to go away! Why is that, exactly? --PHenry 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your opinions on what I'm trying to accomplish notwithstanding, I'm not at all convinced anyone's "lying" to me about them. We obviously have different ideas about what the data is telling us (I, for one, wasn't trying to start a turnaround, but point out that the quote is bad for the entry), but seeing as we've reached a useful agreement, I see no need to clog up this talk page any more, but I do welcome further discussion of it elsewhere if you feel the need. My goal was to keep the poor quote out, yours was to get the relevant information in, and I think we've reached a good compromise on it. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:Third Opinion

Because of this back and forth battle that's obviously getting nowhere, as neither of the two main people battling back and forth trust eachother's sources, I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Third Opinion to get someone else in here to take a look at what we've gathered and what we want to do with it. In the meantime, I'd like to see us restore the section to what it was BEFORE the anonymous addition to the article. This way, whoever decides to slide in here and take a look at the information can decide not only whether the quote is factually accurate, but whether adding the quote messes with any POV issues that I feel the quote brings up. I hope that PHenry can agree to this in the meantime, and that we can hopefully find some sort of consensus regarding this area. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you accept something like the following in lieu of the quote?

In Arbitron's Spring 2005 ratings book, Air America affiliates showed significant percentage gains in a number of large markets, including Los Angeles, Denver, Washington, and Phoenix, though ratings in most markets continued to lag behind those of more established talk stations. The cumulative listening audience of Air America affiliate stations showed an increase from 1.3 million persons age 12 and up in fall 2004 to 3.1 million in spring 2005, much of which was due to listeners gained when the network added new stations around the country during that time. [1]

--PHenry 17:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's really good. If you do add it, however, you may want to make some changes in the rest of the section to make sure we're not repeating ourselves. Good call. --Badlydrawnjeff 18:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheerio, then. There was so much cruft and outdated information in that section that I decided to rewrite the whole thing, which I strove to do in an evenhanded fashion. Your input welcome. --PHenry 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitron only releases ratings for overall totals (ages 12+) to the general public. Arbitron does provide very detailed ratings information that includes demographic breakdowns by gender and age group, as well as breakdowns by time of day and by counties in the survey area. Because Arbitron is a business, and guards their information heavily, the only ratings often released to media outlets (such as Radio and Records and AllAccess) are the overall. The demographic breakdowns are considered to be the most valuable to stations, since it helps their sales reps when dealing with clients and potential advertisers who want to reach only a certain group. Overall (12+) ratings are solely for simple bragging rights. And many formats (sports talk is a very good example) tend not to do notably well in overall ratings, but they can be very lucrative because they target a very exact demographic. It is often said that WFAN in New York brings in more revenue than any other station in the country. WFAN's overall ratings are mediocre at best, but because they do so well in their targeted male demographic, advertisers who want to target that particular group and nobody else can do that with WFAN. I've seen some demographic and daypart breakdowns (some of that information is released by Arbitron selectively or Arbitron subscribers) that show AAR to be doing better than overall ratings would reflect. Perhaps this should be reflected somewhere in the article, if possible. --Fightingirish 14:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Section on Sponsors

What's the point of listing AAR's sponsors? Are we going to add every company that advertises on Hannity and Limbaugh to their pages as well? Just curious. NewRisingSun 13:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to agree: is this information encyclopedic? – ClockworkSoul 15:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Some discussion of who's sponsoring ads is important. First it has to do wtih building the overall financial projections and market share data the article is lacking. Secondly, there are some ads you don't hear on other networks and those are worthy of mention being unique to AAR. It might be that the sections on sponsors and ratings should be merged. We don't have to list its entire broadcast log, no, but discussion of these things seems well placed. AAR's overall social message is part of its media economics strategy. Sink or swim the question of sponsorship and ratings is significant from the business stand point. I have some more to add in expanding the sections. Calicocat 18:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I did hear that the only advertiser they turned down was Wal-Mart. Perhaps this could be added, then, if it could be backed up? – ClockworkSoul 19:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice job

I ran across this article after not seeing it in some months, and the comprimise between authors with different perspective has been highly commendable, and highly effective! The result is shaping up to be something of which Wikipedia can be very proud. Who knows, maybe there's a featured article in the furture here here. – ClockworkSoul 15:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I think there have been some good edits. I put a lot of time into this and my view is to be informative. I like AAR, but at the same time I can be objective and neutral about it. So, I learn more about something I'm interested in. We've had some good, cooperative edits with few idological attackers... I look forward to see the article expand to continue offering a sound and valid entry for the project. I sometimes question if articles like this even have a place here, but since it is here it might as well be good. I'd like to see it featured when it's more complete, but it's going well. I agree. Calicocat 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

AAR journalism ethics

I'm curious about the statement that all programs are rooted in the basic principals of ethical jounralism. The shows have an obvious bias (mentioned in the intro of the article) which contradicts the principles of "objectivity" and "impartiality." The hosts don't seem to intend to be objective but rather to provide an interpreation to the news and current events of the day. Any sense of why the statement is included in the section? Cultofpj 20:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since the public affairs shows are based mostly on opinion, the hosts tend to clearly state when they're reading directly from a news source. I think that satisfies "unequivocal separation between news and opinion" as listed in the article on ethical journalism. If anyone disagrees, though, we can change the wording of that sentence to "All programs, however, are rooted in many of the basic principles of ethical journalism." —Chairlunchdinner 05:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is encyclopedic anyway, even if qualified as Chairlunchdinner suggests. Are we saying that AAR hosts don't deliberately lie about established facts? or that they don't take payments from government entities to promote certain positions? I don't think such negatives are worth inclusion. We might as well be mentioning that they don't murder cats. Instead of this vague reference to "ethical journalism", I suggest we delete the sentence and substitute, at the end of the paragraph: "Although Air America Radio has a definite point of view, the hosts distinguish news sources from opinion." Would that be accurate? (I don't get AAR very well so I haven't heard much of it.JamesMLane 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You can hear any and all the AAR shows on the web or from the archives (see the external links section of the article for sources). Also, after actually hearing the shows, you might be better in a position to know that the point made is valid as stated. For more information see - journalism standards and ethics, the term is not vague at all... I don't see how or why you are proposing a change without having listened to at least some shows, perhaps read some transcripts or the article mentioned in this comment. Calicocat 10:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If I were to do as you suggest, I would probably agree with the opinion that AAR is ethical journalism. So what? It would still be an opinion. I'm trying to figure out what encyclopedic content is being conveyed by this sentence. Alternatively, we could go with the opinion if it's attributed to someone notable. As it is, it just strikes me as saying, "We at Wikipedia have reviewed the assertions in AAR's broadcasts and found them to be correct and well supported" -- which would obviously be improper. On the other hand, we shouldn't unjustly impugn AAR, and I'm concerned that Chairlunchdinner's suggested language would do that. To say that AAR complies with many of the basic principles of ethical journalism could be read as an insinuation that in some respects the network is unethical. JamesMLane 10:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's objective fact. The sources are in the archives and transcripts. In time some selected quotes can be included to demonstrate this point, for now, a reader of this article would have to go further into the subject with actual consultation of the above named sources, links to which are provided herein. The statment as it stands is factually accurate but could be expanded to include more information. I'm not concerned with some insinuation, I just don't see that. Calicocat 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking to the general question. First, lets look at the various genres of journalism as mentioned in journalism ethics and standards. It would be accurate to say there's a difference between the AAR News and the Public Affairs approaches to journalism standards, that point is made in the article. The news delivers a standard report much like one would hear on any station, however, AAR does put some emphasis on labor news, which other networks give almost zero coverage too; that last point is made in the article but can be expanded further. As far as the Public Affairs shows, they are more in the genre of advocacy journalism and editorial and opinion pieces. However, even in those, AAR does hold to certain of the cental canons of ethical journalism. AAR is perhaps even inventing a new a new kind of journalism which mixes comedy with factual reporting, as in Frankin's "kidding on the square." Calicocat 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how adherence to ethics could ever be called "an objective fact", because opinions about ethics differ. Furthermore, even aside from the absence of a source for the statement now, I don't see what kind of source could possibly be cited to establish this point. If some journalism school conducted an inquiry to learn more about AAR's new kind of journalism, and issued a report saying it wasn't objective but was ethical, we could mention that report and attribute the conclusion to the source. On the other hand, if you're referring to sources provided by AAR for its assertions, that would make sense. We could then convey some factual information about AAR's sourcing of its stories. In its vague current form, it still seems to me to be not only opinion, but gratuitous, as if an article about a professional athlete were to say that he wasn't violently abusive toward women. Is there some specific allegation of unethical conduct that should be mentioned? JamesMLane 17:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than ask questions, do some research. It's all in the archives of the shows. Listen to them and you'll hear it, then, you can include some of those quotes with dates and so on. Calicocat 15:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The main question I'm asking is to try to understand what's meant by the queried sentence. No amount of research in AAR archives will answer that question. The most obvious meanings for the sentence would render it opinion, and unencyclopedic unless attributed. If I examined every single show they've ever broadcast and did follow-up research on every cited source, and came to the opinion that each assertion made on air was properly substantiated, that would still be just my opinion, and I'm not a notable person whose opinion deserves to be reported. I'm rewording the passage to report the objective facts that the hosts, along with giving their own opinions, state facts and give sources to back up the factual assertions they make. I don't think we need to give specific examples unless there was a particular controversy where AAR was challenged on its facts, in which case we could mention the dispute and report on AAR's documenting of its sources in response. JamesMLane 16:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag?

Why does this article have a clean up tag? I don't see any problems with it. Equinox137 14:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

−==Historical Perspective==

The notion that somehow "right-wing organizations" cooked up Rush Limbaugh in a lab and used the format to advance their sinister agenda is presented as a fact in this article. It is blatantly POV, and also misrepresents one of the most important political and entertainment developments in the past 30 years. This section definitely needs some work. TDC June 30, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

• coughstrawmanhack*... The fact is, Limbaugh gained popularity through whatever means, either by right-wing funders as the section contests or through his own merits, and now is wildly popular above all else, spawning a network of copycats including Hannity. Air America sells itself as a small but growing liberal voice that caters to a demographic vacuum. So what's so POV?

Above^^^ How do you start a sentence with "The Fact is" and then go and speculate how Rush came up? I'd replace "spawning" with "inspiring" and change "copycat" to "personalities"

Omissions?

I've noticed that comedians Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder are not mentioned in a couple areas which surprised me. Particularly under the sections "Comedy on Air America" and "Listener participation." Was this intentional? Is there some reason? ZachsMind 22:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No they should be mentioned and please feel free to include them and if you're there, please remove Laura Flanders, who is really not known for "comedy" but more for her strong public affairs program. I've been meaning to get to that myself. Thanks for pointing it out. Best, Calicocat 06:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for responding. =) ZachsMind 06:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

XM Satelite exclusivity

As of July 11th, 2005, an agreement made between the ownership and management of Air America Radio and that of XM Satellite Radio caused AAR to cease broadcast on Sirius. This became quite a polarizing development among the listening community, particularly those who purchased the Sirius service on the understanding that AAR would remain accessible to them. Furthermore, this has become an issue of contention that has caused many AAR personalities, most notably Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder of The Majority Report, to editorialize and voice disdain on the air regarding this decision.

I place the above paragraph here instead of in the actual article, because I'd like to hear other contributors' opinions regarding the validity of this information in the article, and if it is accepted, which section of the article might be most ideal for this information. I also am shamefully aware the above paragraph may need cleaning up prior to inclusion. So any input is appreciated.

Furthermore, it might be useful or at least interesting to point out that some personalities occasionally editorialize negatively about the advertising for the station, particularly the inane lack of quality of the radio spots, though not particularly the quality of the goods or services in question themselves. Garofalo particularly finds most of the commercials grating, and has made statements about such live on the air. This could be construed as 'biting the hand that feeds.' Again, I believe this should be included somehow in the article but am open to suggestions on how to do it properly. Or if maybe it's already in there somewhere and I missed it..?

Air America on the political spectrum

The following sentence from the article, dealing with the political content of Air America, caught my attention:

However, Anarchist, communist, socialist political theories and thinking are discussed...

Could the person who wrote that sentence kindly back it up with some evidence? Like say a list of Air America guests who actually espouse anti-capitalist viewpoints. Because otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking to me. I listen to a lot of Air America and I can tell you I've never heard a guest on the station who fell to the left of the Democrat/Green position. Did I miss something? Are Noam Chomsky (an anarchist) and Tariq Ali ( a trotskyist) hosting shows on Air America now? Cause last time I checked, Franken, Garrofalo, ect.. were all big time supporters of the Democratic party. If I'm mistaken, and Air America regularly has communists on to discuss commodity fetishism and the nature of America's false consciousness, then I apologize. - Anon

ZachsMind 06:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Funding Controversy

I have twice reverted edits made by 12.46.121.66 regarding entitled Funding Controversy. It certainly doesn't belong in the "Programming" section, and more likely, it belongs on the Evan Montvel Cohen page. The NY Post article cited mentions Cohen only briefly and does not directly support the statement made by 12.46.121.66. There may be something to this story, but it feels like 12.46.121.66 is not coming from an NPOV perspective at all. --Veronique 21:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like someone seeking to shape the news to fit the article. I checked the source and I agree with your interpretation, Veronique. If anything, a story like this would go under the business plan section, or into a new section called business affairs, I'm not sure. I don't object to NPOV materials regarding AAR's financial outlook, problems, even scandals should they arise and be factually reported. This that you have removed is not that. Calicocat 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

With mention in the Washington Times, the New York Post, Fox, the New York Sun, and CNN's Inside Politics covering this story and having more pointed to AAR as of this morning, do you still believe it only involves AAR "tangentially?" --Badlydrawnjeff 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It would help if that quote from an unnamed AAR spokesman that appears in the Post and is repeated by Fox were corroborated by a press release from AAR or a separate account somewhere. It's the only piece of new news, as far as I can see. It would also be nice if the original story in the "Bronx News", "City News" or "Co-op City News" (whatever it is called) were available for perusal. Is it? --Veronique 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's right here, and I thought it was linked in the article earlier, but apparently wasn't, so I'll add it there, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That link is to a blank page. --Veronique 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that's weird, it worked when I linked it. Try here. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. Any sign of any other source besides the Post on that quote from an unnamed AAR spokesman? --Veronique 23:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted (for the second time) the sentence and two links added by Keetoowah. Neither link directly supports the accompanying statement - neither Spitzer nor the NY Attorney General's office are mentioned, as far as I can see. The only reference to Spitzer that I can see is in the NY Post piece referenced in the Controversy section, but it says the the Gloria Wise board is under investigation, not Piquant. In order to maintain NPV, I think it's important to focus on the known, verifiable facts of this case rather than Op-ed pieces which draw speculative conclusions. --Veronique 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your desire to keep Spitzer out of it and talking about the gloria Wise board, but it's worth noting that the only reason he's focusing on that side is because he has no jurisdiction on the AAR side. --Badlydrawnjeff 02:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no desire to "keep Spitzer out of it." He, or more precisely, his office, is clearly in it and that is mentioned in what I re-wrote. I don't understand what you mean about him not having jurisdiction. Piquant does business in New York State, so he should have jurisdiction. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that implicates Piquant in any wrongdoing. So far, it's only been Gloria Wise and Progress Media that seem to be involved in the alleged funds transfer and the deposed and discredited Evan Cohen looks like the obvious thread between those two organizations. --Veronique 02:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course, you are attempting to "keep Spitzer out of it." You are also attempting to cover-up for the folks at AAR. AAR received the funds. They are a part of the scandal. Therefore, this article about AAR and the article about Franken and the article about Garafolo and all of the rest of AAR, who benefited from the illicit, illegal transfer of federal funds, that was set aside for the elderly and children to AAR, to get AAR on the air. The hypocrisy of AAR is amazing. You are attempting to keep Spitz out because you censored the AAR scandal in the Franken article and the Garafolo articles. Franken and Garafolo are beneficiaries of the illegal, scammed funds.--Keetoowah 03:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I mentioned the Attorney General's office investigation in the text I re-wrote on this page. I am not keeping Spitzer out of it. His office is in it. I removed the text from the Franken and Garofalo pages because I think it is inappropriate to copy large chunks of text verbatim from this page to those pages. That's why we have links between pages, isn't it? Also, I am not at all trying to cover-up for AAR. But it's important to understand the difference between the original owners, Progress Media, and the current owners, Piquant LLC. The newspaper accounts indicate that Piquant did not receive those funds, nor, apparently, did they assume the liabilities incurred by Progress Media, according to their press release. The investigations have only just begun, so I think it is premature to leap to the kind of conclusions you seem to be making. I don't believe you are editing with a neutral viewpoint. --Veronique 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think you are editing with a neutral viewpoint. Your post sounds like you are Al Franken and AAR's attorney. Franken got paid during the period when the network was owned by Progress Media and by Piquant. So Franken took money Federal tax dollars from the elderly and from poor children. And he is a millionaire. It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to defend the fraudulent, illegal behavior of AAR, Garafolo and Franken. -----Keetoowah 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, you attempting to separate the current owners of AAR from the former owners of AAR. That is wrong and it is biased editing. It is clear that you are trying to find some kind of technicality to limit the damage to AAR. Al Franken worked for both sets of owners. How much of that $480,000 USD--that we know about--was funnelled to Franken and when did this happen? What did Franken know and when did he know it?? Franken is a politician. All Americans have a right to know how involved Franken is in this scandal. Is Franken going to pay the money back? Is AAR going to pay the money back? You have removed my two edits to the Franken and Janeane Garofalo articles (how much of this money edeed up in the hands of Garofalo) with the lame argument that "you" believe that is is "inappropriate" to copy large chunks of text verbatim. What hogwash!!! What Wikipedia rulebook did you get that whopper out of?? When did you decide that it is "inappropriate" and when did you decide this? And who put you in charge? The text is appropriate to both topics (all three topics actually) and I'm going to put the text back in and the burden will be on you to provide a real reason not for its inclusion other than it is "inappropriate" in your mind.-----Keetoowah 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to edit with a neutral viewpoint. I don't believe you are because you have clearly already decided that AAR management, Franken and Garofalo are guilty theives based on early newspaper accounts only. The investigations have only just begun, so unless you have previously unaired inside information to share, I think it is grossly premature to make the kind of judgements you are making now. I'm not Franken's lawyer, or any kind of lawyer, but I have sold a business before. When I did, I sold the assets, not the liabilities, which is a very common way of selling a business. If I had procured an illegal loan while I owned the business, the people that bought it would not have been found guilty of the crime, I would have. You see this as a "technicality" but it is the essence of the case. Air America Radio is a set of assets which Progress Media sold or transferred to Piquant LLC. Assuming the transaction was an asset sale (it seems to be) it is not reasonable to hold the management of Piquant liable for the alleged criminal activities of Progress Media UNLESS there is more to this case we don't know about that would implicate them as well. But we simply don't know much yet. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to withhold judgement and just report verifiable facts right now. THAT is what NPOV is, I think. But ultimately, what is included in the wikipedia comes not from me, but from the collective consensus of all the maintainers, as you should know very well by now. --Veronique 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. First of all, it does not matter from a non-legal point of view whether it was PM or P-LLC that took the money illegally. The point is that Franken, for example, worked there in both situations and he was paid by both owners of AAR. So, we need to know if Franken was on the take or not. Also, No, the difference of which owner stole the money is NOT the essence of the case. In either case AAR stole the money. In your bias, you want to MAKE that the essence of the case because it protects and defends AAR, and by extension Franken, et al from negative fallout, but that is not the issue. The issue is: What did Franken know and when did he know it? Also, the issue is: When did the money come into the AAR bank account and when did Franken get paid? These are the questions that you are trying, in your bias, attempting to avoid--to shield AAR, Franken, et al from negative publicity and damage. And that is NOT the point of Wikipedia or having a neutral POV. You obviously need work there.------Keetoowah 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Piquant recognizes the potential PR damage to the AAR brand by having their name dragged through the mud. That's surely why they have agreed to replace the funds that Gloria Wise transferred to Progress Media even though they are apparently not legally obliged to. All that is mentioned in my last edit of the Controversy section. So I don't know where you get this idea I am shielding AAR. I am honestly trying to strike a balance between those that want the matter dropped entirely and those who want to leap to conclusions based on early reports in a couple of newspapers. It's your choice to believe otherwise, but right now, I'm stepping back from this to let the wikipedia consensus decide. --Veronique 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This whole damn thing is nothing more than a right wing generated "fake news" story. If you want to deal with some facts, then fine, but as far as I'm concerned the entire section is lacking in neutrality and factual accuracy and shall be now tagged as such. (see new section for discussion) Calicocat 02:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

AAR statment re Gloria Wise

Statement from Air America Radio Statement: If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal and the HBO Documentary, Left of the Dial‚ the company that the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club officials gave money to, Progress Media, has been defunct since May 2004. That company was run at the time by Evan Cohen who has not had any involvement in Air America Radio since May 2004.(emphasis added)

The current owners of Air America Radio have no obligation to Progress Media's business activities.(emphasis added) We are very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people, which is why we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.

We at Air America Radio strongly believe in the mission of Boys and Girls Clubs to provide a safe and nurturing place for young people to learn and grow. As a result, we recently allowed the same club, Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, to use our name in a fundraising effort for a summer camp for children in their community.

The funding for Camp Air America was raised and collected entirely by the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, and Air America promoted the camp on air and urged support for it. A link on our web site sent those interested in contributing to the camp to the Gloria Wise web site. Regrettably, the camp did not survive the closure of the Gloria Wise organization. We have offered any individuals who contributed to the camp as a result of Air America's promotion the option of a refund paid for by Air America Radio and the Club offered the alternative option of having their donation redirected to Kip's Bay Boys and Girls Club. (emphasis added)

Original statment can be found here Calicocat 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The non neutral POV of top article. I observe that the top AAR introduction does not make sense. Isn't the fucntion to introduce AAR in one quick paragraph instead of describing day today AAR operation? (eg. AAR embroil in lawsuit, or etc etc. Then why not the fact Janeane is no in the show for one month long because she is doing a movie shoot? That has FAR more implication to AAR show quality.)

what I also sense Keetowah is pushing hard on Michele malking and friends research. (Rightwing hacks?) User:LibertinesMR

So called "funding controvery" right-wing blogger 'fake news' whine festival

This entire so-called "funding controvery" can be summed up in two words: smear campaign. Nothing more than that. The right-wing whiners are so worried about the growing popularity of AAR that they are now inventing publications that do not exist and making false and misleading accusations against AAR. It's really all very transparent.

Here's your home work: How to Fake News: A Primer

More to come. Calicocat 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you happen to read any of the news links? Is the fact that it's being investigated by an AG part of the "smear campaign?" Do you have to make up something about their popularity given their crap ratings in nearly all their markets to create this "smear campaign?"

Your "fake news primer" was linked until someone had to fix the entire section. Feel free to link it again if you think it'll make a difference, but don't let your POV get in the way of actual, factual information about AAR as opposed to the perception you appear to hold.--Badlydrawnjeff 04:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Did you? The fact is that this all leads back to a single named publication which seems not to exist quoting unnamed sources. What's more, this does not really have anything to do with Air America Radio, per se, which is the subject of this article. In addition, please don't remove the tag on the neutrality and factual accuracy until others have had a chance to comment on this issue. Doing so is acting in bad Calicocat 04:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it has to do directly with Air America Radio, they're the ones who recieved the loan, even though it's being twisted to try and indicate otherwise. If I removed any neutrality tag, I apologise, as I didn't intend to and I didn't see it, but it's extremely interesting to see someone complain about neutrality and factual accuracy while claiming that this is "fake news" and saying AAR is successful in spite of their shit ratings. --Badlydrawnjeff 04:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from using course language in comments addressed to me, which the above obviously is. (There's an open section for discussion of ratings and a section within the article dealing with AARs ratings) Thank you. Calicocat 05:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent job addressing the issues. Deal with it, if you want to accuse a section I created as being a "right wing smear campaign" and call those of us who want it there "right wing whiners," I'm not especially concerned about withholding the blunt truth. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've seen your dispute tags, I'm removing them. There's no disputing that Bronx News reported this, as the link clearly shows and as it is cross-referenced throughout the section. I reworded the illegal section, but removed the tag because it's right within the article that such a transaction would be illegal. It happened, there's nothing in those areas to dispute at the moment. Please explain what you're disputing, why you're factually disputing it, and some sourcing besides your "fake news primer" that would indicate that this is all false, given the media attention thus far. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that I have to justify it to you any further, but here's a transcript from a Franken interview verifying the issues you have. --Badlydrawnjeff 23:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User Keetoowah has now made five attempts to insert the unsourced text "The money spent by Air America Radio was supposed to be spent on care for the elderly and children." After the first attempt, I incorporated the part about GWB&GC providing services for children and seniors - which is true and verifiable - along with a link to the organization's website. The truth of the rest of the sentence is not yet known and has not been reported in the New York Post, as Keetoowah has repeatedly tried to claim. Presumably the DOI and NY State Attorney General investigations will determine whether the money was spent by Progress Media on Air America operations or not. That's certainly not the only thing that could have happened to the money. At this point, as far as I can tell, nobody knows what happened to the money - not the press, Piquant LLC, Gloria Wise, Al Franken, Michelle Malkin or anyone editing the wikipedia. If you do know, please tell us so we can include it in the section, but if it is unsourced or misattributed speculation, I don't believe it belongs yet. --Veronique 06:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Veronique and Calicocat: It is now clear that neither one of you knows what you are talking about. Dear Calicocat, you have stated that the whole thing is just a "scam" created by the right-wing. If that is true then where is the money??? Why hasn't Franken paid it back like he said he would???? Dear Veronique: You edited out my completely true and factual statement yesterday that not only can Evan Cohen be sued and but the new owners can also be sued for . And that is exactly what happened yesterday. So you were wrong. You like to pretend that you are right but you were wrong. Piquant LLC, the group that you have been attempting to paint as out of the scandal, was sued yesterday. [2] The lawsuit states that the transfer of assets from Progress Media to Piquant LLC was intended to rip-off creditors--a "sham" transaction--and the funny part is that Franken stated as such on the air.-----Keetoowah 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Piquant could not be sued. I said the critic in the blog link you provided made no mention of another party being at risk of a lawsuit. The link did not support your broader statement. I don't think you read these articles carefully enough. For example, you said just now that Piquant was sued yesterday, but the Sun article you just posted says the suit was filed in May. I think it's important that the wikipedia be precise. As for Franken's on-air admission of the intent of the asset transfer, do you have a source for that? I would like to see it, too. Thanks. --Veronique 15:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like a chance to read the entire Sun article, but it is restricted to the first two paragraphs for non-subscribers. If anyone has seen the full text elsewhere, I'd like to see it all. This wikipedia article gives the impression that the Multicultural Radio dispute had been settled in April. But the Sun article seems to indicate otherwise. I hope we can figure out what the true state of affairs is. I'd especially be interested in knowing what, if anything, has happened with that lawsuit filed in May over the last three months. --Veronique 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Readability

Does anyone else find this article hard to read? I don't want to fight over content right now, just grammatical asthetics. Some sections don't make a whole lot of sense. I will have another read and see if there is anything I can do. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is a bit long, too. It may be time to move some sections to separate articles. --Veronique 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's guess what does Veronique want to remove first? The financial scandal information?? Let's see if Veronqique starts with the money spent by AAR that was intended for elderly and children and then the second thing to go is the judgement against AAR that has not been paid. And finally the third thing to go from the article, by Veronique , is the vow by the so-called current owners of AAR to pay back the charity money but AAR hasn't paid back yet.-----Keetoowah 18:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My comment was innocuous. The article is 45KB long now. The suggested maximum is 32KB. Please stop attacking me personally. --Veronique 18:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Veronique, Keetoowah has had some problems with civility at times (even towards people that agree with him). He just jumps down peoples throats before hearing their opinion. I think the problem on this article though stems not from the need to split articles, but from the repititious manner in which it is written. How many times do we need to mention that Al Franken did this or that, or that many shows take callers? Is this really that notable for radio shows and networks? Not really. Anyway, everyone needs to just take a chill pill. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, we could probably kill the section with all the call letters, because I don't think those are necessary and could be served with an outside link. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is its own list article now. I placed a link in the main body. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent edit. Thanks. --Veronique 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by Keetowah

This user has tried to make variations on the same POV vandalism for well over the three-rv Wiki rule. A look at the history of the page will show this. Please ban this vandal.

I believe that Eleemosynary is using a sockpuppet to continually remove relevant, fully cited material from the header.-----Keetoowah 23:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The "cited" material is addressed on the page, and numerous times on the Talk page. But Keetowah wants it in the heading, because he has nothing else in his life he can point to as an achievement.

See "Keetowah's" repeated vandalism of this article, other articles, and Talk pages of Wiki users in numerous pathetic outcries for attention. I have submitted this to arbitration, and informed the sysops. Eleemosynary

Sponsers...

Why is there this article on sponsers? We can put the PSA stuff into the community relations section, but the other stuff does not seem unique, or for that matter encyclopedic. Does anyone have an objection to me changing that up? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since no one objected within a week, I am going to make some changes. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Template

I've started a template for Air America. It can be found at {{AAR}}. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Gloria Wise Loan Case

This Gloria Wise Loan Case section needs to be rewritten for readability. Also the size of this section is becoming out of proportion with the rest of the page. The date-by-date reporting from NY Post and NY Sun is too much. I believe we have to summarize or push it out to a separate page.

I'm replacing the sentence "...Air America Radio has agreed by contract..." sourced to [3]. There is no mention of any such contract to repay the loan at this source. If there is such a contract or agreement then the page needs a source to it. If it is the settlement agreement which is being portrayed as a contract to repay the loan, then that it not accurate. The settlement agreement lists the funds loaned by Gloria Wise to Progress Media as transferred liabilities. The settlement agreement does not include any terms of the loan or any details about repayment. I will be replacing it with an on-air statement from Franken vis a vis moral obligation versus legal. But I would like a primary source back to transcript. Anybody?

Presently, I'm removing the reference to Michelle Malkin's blog concerning the paragraph on the NY Post and NY Sun's reports for September 8. It is a secondary source which simply refers back to the two primary sources.

Also, there is no primary source for the DOI comments other than an unreferenced insert in Malkin's blog. I've checked the NY DOI web site and I couldn't find these comments. These comments should be removed until a reference to the primary source is found.

I removing the reference to the NY Sun compendium out to the external links because it does not support any particular text in the section. --Pmagnay 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated writer and the references to the DOI comments and the picture of Franken signature on the agreement are proprietary to her blog. You are removing a primary source simply because you do not like what the primary source is saying. The Malkin information will stay in.--Keetoowah 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

However, I agree that the section is getting too long. It could be shortened. The stuff at the beginning could be cut down because much of that was Air America and Piquant early on pretending that there was no problem or if there was a problem then it was all Cohen's fault. It is more than clear that Piquant and Air America Radio's managment knew about this loan for months ahead of when they claimed that they knew about it Also, Al Franken knew about this loan for months of ahead of his sanctimonous speech on the air that Cohen was a "crook" and that Franken just learned about the loan. He did not expect that Malkin would get ahold of the signed document. However, whatever changes that you make will not include a removable of the Malkin information because she is the primary source for that information and if you remove it then you are merely attempting to cover up the Franken signature. It will be put back in.--Keetoowah 16:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, yeah, I thought you might say that. Malkin is NOT the primary source of the extract from the DOI press release. The NY DOI is. To suggest otherwise is absurd. I revisited the NY DOI web site and the relevant press release is now there. I will be replacing the Malkin link with a link to the primary source, ie the press release on the NY DOI web site.

In addition, I am not attempting to cover up the fact that Franken signed the settlement agreement. To suggest this ignores the edits I have been making. There are multiple instances on the page now to the primary source: the settlement agreement which includes Franken's signature.

On the size issue, there are a number of ways forward: either the section gets summarized, moved to another page, possibly the content about the MRBI claims gets moved to another section (perhaps the Startup Difficulties section).

I am attempting to maintain a NPOV on this issue by including quotes and references from primary sources. I have read many of your contributions to this page as well as your discussion comments above. It is clear from the words you use above ("pretending", "sanctimonous" (sic), "cover up") that you do not have a NPOV on this issue. Also, Malkin may or may not be a syndicated writer (don't know, don't care). However it is also clear from her editorializing that she does not have a NPOV on this issue either. I urge you to put away judgements and follow Wikipedia's NPOV policies. --192.233.92.200 19:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tough talk for someone who hides behind a number. If a change is non-NPOV, then I'm going to change it. --Keetoowah 20:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tough talk? What is that supposed to mean? You couldn't work it out from my comments above that it was Pmagnay making them? I'm glad you've changed your tune and at least now claim to support NPOV on this page. Time will tell. I for one will not allow this page to become an extension of Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney's ideologically-driven smear campaign against AAR. But nor will I cover up or sugar coat the AAR actions. --Pmagnay 08:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything that I believe in any way whatsoever. I still believe that if anyone tries to cover up for the AAR, which has happened in the past, then I'm going to right the wrong. Also, I'm sure that Malken article is relavant, cited information that needs to be in the article and will go in the article.--Keetoowah 15:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

First...you can make any edits you like. But I will remove or change anything that is does not conform to NPOV. Second... I urge you to review (again if necessary) the following: WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Specifically, I draw your attention to the sections on Neutral Language, Accusations, and Insinuations. In addition, there is Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. To date, the language you have been using in the article (and in this discussion) has included accusations and insinuations as well as words that should be avoided. Finally, please discuss the content of this page in a civil non-hostile manner without accusations or insinuations so we can avoid disputes and/or an edit war. Again, review the page on NPOV for notes on how discussions and debates on content ought to be conducted. Frankly, I'm not much interested in what you believe to be attempts to "cover up for AAR" in the past. However, I am interested in ensuring that this article conforms precisely to NPOV.--Pmagnay 15:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am ending the back and forth between "claims" and "noted" in the Goldberg quote in the last paragraph. These words should be avoided. Please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. I am changing "Goldberg claims..." sentence to simply 'Goldberg stated that Franken's role in the agreement "was simply to waive his own claims in order to facilitate the transaction and allow the network to survive under new ownership."'

More generally, the whole page needs a full review and a removal/replacement of all such weasel terms. In addition, I know there is some blogospheric traffic on this subject at the moment that is pushing a lot of claims and accusations and counter-claims. I would like everyone to work together to ensure this page follows a NPOV. --Pmagnay 16:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing the following sentence in the Startup Difficulties section: "In July 2005, AAR was unable to pay its payroll on time and many AAR staffers were worried that AAR was, once again, strapped for money." The date is not precise giving the impression that the problems may have been all through the month of July rather than a delay of a few days. And the alleged "worries" of AAR staffers cannot be confirmed. The source that is referenced (Brian Maloney) uses unethical methods such as unnamed/unidentified sources with phrases such as "...insiders think..." and "...according to sources..." to support a claim that "AAR staffers were worried that AAR was, once again, strapped for money". This claim cannot be confirmed and will be removed. --Pmagnay 17:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Continued POV Vandalism by Keetowah

Keetowah continues to push his POV agenda. I will be putting my changes of 9/15 back. The justification for my changes are outlined in the section above. If we get into a cycle of reverts, then so be it. I will have no hesitation putting this page into dispute and asking for arbitration because I know his POV edits will not survive that process. --Pmagnay 14:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Air America-Gloria Wise controversy

Here you go... your own article. The page is getting big again, and I think this would be something good as a daughter article. I'll start the move, but I'm not sure if I'll have time to finish today. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That it has its own article is great, but it really merits a brief mention in 'Difficulties' or 'Controversies'. I've written a paragraph that I believe is quite NPOV; I note that it was the parent companies of AAR that were involved (and further note Evan Cohen). I note AAR's characterization of it as disgraceful, and I quote Al Franken, not to entangle him with the issue, but because his views were widely reported at the time, and I also believe he did characterize and summarize the issue very nicely. (A 'crook' 'robbed Peter to pay Paul'). If you've issues with what I wrote, I would ask that you discuss them here either before or in conjunction with any edits of what I wrote. Thank you. Holmwood 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Unsupported Sentence

I have removed the sentence added to the description section: "The radio network is in financial trouble and under criminal investigation for accepting what may be illegal start-up loans from a non-profit charitable institution." The cited reference does not support the assertion that the radio network is in financial trouble. Also, the reference does not support the assertion that the network is under criminal investigation, only a party related to the investigation. Also, this type of detail does not belong in the heading description. There is more than sufficient coverage of the GW loan affair in the body of the article.--Pmagnay 19:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I removed:

The radio network is in financial trouble ad has started asking its listeners for financial contributions.[4] It is also under criminal investigation by NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for accepting possibly illegal start-up loans from a non-profit charitable institution.[5]

I'm not sure this belongs in the intro. Is there somewhere else this should go? Under the controversy section? Oh well. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrt the first piece - The radio network is in financial trouble ad has started asking its listeners for financial contributions.[6] I have no objection to something (not sure where it should go) covering the Air America Radio Associates membership/loyalty program - as long as it is characterized accurately. I believe there was a press release regarding the AAR Associates program from AAR. Right-wing media/bloggers have been misrepresenting this as a "pledge drive" and/or "panhandling", and as proof that the network is in financial trouble. The given source which is only analysis/opinion piece doesn't support these assertions.

Wrt the second piece - It is also under criminal investigation by NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for accepting possibly illegal start-up loans from a non-profit charitable institution.[7] This statement is misleading. The network is not under criminal investigation. Certainly AAR are a relevant party to the investigation. But it is (present & former) executives of the GW B&G Club who are under scrutiny from the NY DOI for improperly tranferring city grants. And again, the given source does not support the assertion that AAR is under criminal investigation. Moreover, details of the NY DOI investigation are more that adequately covered in the Air America - Gloria Wise Affair page. --Pmagnay 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There is already a mention further down in the article, so no real need for the second thing. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Call for Third Party Opinions on Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy page

I am calling for third party opinions on the Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy article. Please refer to section "Raising Dispute & Calling for Third Party Opinion concerning POV Images" on the Talk:Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy discussion page. --Pmagnay 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Political Position

Opponents of Air America claim that anarchist, communist, and socialist political theories and thinking are not only discussed, but are espoused. Supporters say this is untrue.

The above paragraph seems odd to me. Surely it's just a matter of basic fact checking to see what political ideology the station espouses. I listen to Air America, and, as far as I can tell, it basically represents the left wing of the Democratic Party (with perhaps some minor sympathy for the Green position). I have never heard ANY socialist or anarchist positions being discussed on this station. I mean, is Noam Chomsky (an anarchist) ever interviewed on Air America? No! Is Tariq Ali (a Trotskyist) ever interviewed on Air America? No! And as far as the hosts and on-air personalities go: does anyone doubt that Al Franken is a shill for the Democrats, same with Randi Rhodes, Ed Shultz, ect, ect.. I would be interested in seeing what evidence (such as a guest list or transcripts) could be provided to demonstrate that Air America is so left-wing. Oh, don't get me wrong. Air America is "left-wing", but its leftness stays well within the bounds of mainstream capitalist ideology. If you want to hear real socialist or anarchist rhetoric on the radio, you'll have to tune in to non-corporate, usually community run stations. ~ Anon

But opponents claim that this "mainstream leftness" is not mainstream at all, and is in fact anarchist, communist, or socialist. Some people think any bit of left-wing ideology is socialist, etc. I cannot help what others may think. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Coming late to this debate, but without question I've heard socialist views discussed and espoused on AAR. I've rarely heard communist views discussed, and never espoused (quite the contrary; dismissed) and only rarely heard anarchistic views discussed.

Chomsky is certainly discussed on Air America; I've no idea if he's been interviewed but I'm sure he would be. That said, Chomsky's lectured at West Point. Does that mean that West Point is espousing anarchistic ideas? The idea that AAR stays "well within the bounds of maistream capitalist ideology"... I'm not sure what "mainstream capitalist ideology is"! That said, socialized health care -- certainly socialism -- is well within the bounds of 'mainstream capitalist ideology' in most countries on this planet. Or are England, Canada, Japan, Australia, Western Europe not capitalist countries/areas? Holmwood 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bills

Isn't it true that Air America failed to pay it's bills for a time and was taken off the air? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Rmisiak 07:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Not unless you can find a citation from a credible source to support the claim. The initial startup of the network was certainly chaotic and some of the stations were in dispute over payments but that only lasted a few days. It is hardly notable for a startup to have capital issues in its first few weeks.

As for the continuing attacks led by competitor Fox News, they have not seen either the Air America business plan or the accounts so there is absolutely no way that any of the critics can know the truth of the claims made.

It is highly doubtful that Air America Radio is profitable at this point, the economics of a network require a much larger scale than a talk show. It is also exceptionaly unlikely that the network will fail financially. Too many well heeled supporters. In the 1980s Murdoch was hours from bankruptcy, he was only saved by the suicide of Robert Maxwell which put the Mirror group newspapers on the market at the same time. The bankers decided that they could not liquidate a second major media organization at the same time.

Financial rumours are not notable unless supported by facts, that is accounts or court documents. --Gorgonzilla 13:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

here's your proof, lib:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040414-050438-4801r.htm

http://radio.about.com/b/a/079149.htm

is that good enough for liberalpedia? or do you need to have 100% of all liberals, worldwide, agree, like with everything else here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.199.102 (talk • contribs) .

The information from these links, 64.53.199.102--if indeed that is your real name--is already in the article, under Early start-up difficulties. No one has tried to remove it. What is the reason for your hostility? --PHenry 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ratings trend

TDC (talk · contribs), stop deleting the passage about AAR's ratings trending upward. You may see spring 2005 ratings data for every station in the AAR network here, showing significantly more statings gaining listeners than losing listeners over the previous 3-12 months and an overall gain in ratings for the network as a whole. There is your hard data. Now, knock it off. --PHenry 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

(although it all qualifies as a "dead skunk bounce".

Mitchberg 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

AAR Affiliate in Akron, OH

Air America programming moved to Clear Channel station WARF 1350 AM in July of 2005. "Radio Free Ohio" airs Al Franken live and Randi Rhodes on tape delay, in addition to non-AAR progressive talkers Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Lionel. It was a complete format trade with WJMP, which took on WARF's former format, Fox Sports Radio.

AAR Critics

Do we know for sure that Sam Seder contributes comments to Brian Maloney's blog? Can someone provide a broadcast date and time, or an audio archive link?

--- We do not. Being as the Internet is the way it is, there is no conclusive way to determine whether Sam Seder in fact has visited the website. Many calls for a trace have come unanswered, and Mr. Seder's identity is still, currently, in question.

Affiliates

I cleaned up the section on network affiliates. I added the examples of ESPN Radio and NPR, many of who's affiliates do not air the entire schedule of programming. I don't see why Air America should be singled out for doing this. I left the WTAM example in there, but I am wondering if it should be left there or not. Finally, I moved the sentence about streaming to the end of the paragraph, for further clarity. --Fightingirish

NYC flagship affiliate

Good work in updating the switch to WWRL at the end of the dial. The second 'weaker' seemed redundant. Dogru144 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly comments

I made an edit regarding Bill O'Reilly's comments in the "Profitability" section. I pointed out that, although O'Reilly questions Air America's profitability because it promotes a "member premiums" section, O'Reilly's own Web site heavily promotes his own "premium" memberships, which cost $49.95/year. My edit, which pointed out O'Reilly's hypocrisy on this issue, was removed. Is Wikipedia now nothing more than a mouthpiece for the GOP's slime attacks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.35.134 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I was the one who removed the O'Reilly bit, so I'll try to explain myself. We need to try and remain NPOV here at Wikipedia. So we can't really take shots at people. Adding the thing about O'Reilly is nothing more than a cheap shot at the dude, and as Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party's slime attacks, it was removed. Secondly, this article is not about O'Reilly. If you think he is a hypocrite, you should probably take it to his article to discuss there. I hope I have explained myself. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, actually, you haven't explained yourself in the slightest bit. You mention Bill O'Reilly in this piece criticizing Air America and questioning whether it is profitable because the network offers premiums to its visitors. And yet you remove my edit that correctly points out that O'Reilly ALSO heavily promotes paid premiums to his own site's visitors. In others words, by your standards of "NPOV," it's OK to slime Air America and question its profitability---but it's not OK to mention the opposing POV (that when Air America offers premiums, it's simply doing what all the right-wing sites do, from O'Reilly to Limbaugh). The fact is, despite what you say, I'm NOT taking a "cheap shot" at O'Reilly---the fact is O'Reilly himself is taking a cheap--and hypocritical---shot at Air America. I'm disappointed that my attempt to balance this issue was censored by Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.35.134 (talk • contribs) .

Okay, let me try and explain better then. The question at hand is AAR's profitability. The article does not say that it isn't profitable because it offers paid membership to premium features. The question of AAR's profitability has nothing to do with O'Reilly's website. It isn't germane to the article. Calling O'Reilly a hypocrite has nothing to do with the article. If you want to do that, go to his article. And your comment isn't being "censored by Wikipedia". It was removed by one editor, namely me. If you have an issue with me, that's fine, but I am just trying to do what I think Wikipedia should do: write an article about Air America Radio. Not Bill O'Reilly. Not taking shots at either side. I am sorry if you don't want to do that, but you can find many other places to go to criticise O'Reilly. Sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that O'Reilly isn't a radio network with questions about its profitabilty and financial security. If whatever network O'Reilly is syndicated out of is pulling that, then it might be worth mentioning. --badlydrawnjeff 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why the O'Reilly comment questioning AAR's profitability is in this article to begin with. The article never points out that O'Reilly is, in fact, a bitter personal enemy of Air America's Al Franken. O'Reilly, in fact, threatened to shoot and kill Franken (at the 2003 BookExpo America conference in Los Angeles). Somehow, I get the feeling that if someone threatened to kill Rush Limbaugh and then later questioned the profitability of Limbaugh's program, that this fact would be emphasized on Limbaugh's Wiki article. All I was trying to do was bring some balance to this article. I've noticed repeatedly how Wikipedia's articles are taking on more and more of a right-wing slant these days. You may have no problem with this, but the fact is, Wikipedia's credibility is going to continue to plummet if this continues. At one time, Wikipedia was a decent reference resource; it's a shame that the site has become about as "fair and balanced" as Fox News.

Lord Voldemort made a reasonable and logical explanation as to why the statement was removed. The inclusion does come off as an attack on O'Reilly purely as a partisan act. I don't think any of us would have a problem with you mentioning the hypocrisy on O'Reilly's page. By the way, I'm no fan of Bill O'Reilly, but anyone who thinks Wikipedia is right-leaning needs a serious reality check. GreatGatsby 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

well done

I just came across this article via Special:Random, read it through, and find it very well done. Congrats to everyone who's worked on it; keep up the good work! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this article an add, or a wikipedia article?

Full Service?

Do we mean also ovver the intternett?John wesley 14:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC) or is there otter service? John wesley 14:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there an info box template for national radio stations (AAR, NPR, etc), yet? I wasn't sure if the regular radio box fit for this article, use WLIB for the source, or nothing at all. --Toddbloom7 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WLIB to no longer have AAR on the station

This is according to a NY Post story. How do we work this in? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More info here. Where should it go? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Logically it should probably go under Affiliates, but there's nothing there now but a link to List of Air America Radio affiliates; I think a short paragraph giving the number of affiliates and briefly describing the flagship station is warranted. Really, the whole article should be reorganized, I think. --phh (^t/_c) 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is ONLY a rumor based on a blog, I don't think it should go in at all. davert

Link for donating money to Air America

I removed a direct link in the article for donating money to Air America. It is not a charity and has no place here. If someone reads the article and chooses to support the company they may click on the link to their website at the bottom of the page, and go from there. Wikipedia should not serve as a fundraiser or means of profit for Air America or any other corporation. --Geoffrey Gibson 2:38, 8 March (UTC)

Article too big?

Apparently Wikipedia auto-complains at 34KB. Any thoughts on spliting the article?

Thetrick 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Premium: It's an Ad

I got a look at the most recent rev, including the ref to "Air America Premium". Isn't listing the prices and precise service offerings skirting a bit close to being an Air America ad? Mitchberg 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree—unless it's also an ad to report how much, say, a TiVo subscription costs. The approximate price point is an especially relevant piece of data for a subscription service in a unique or relatively unfamiliar field, as readers might otherwise have difficulty guessing it even to the correct order of magnitude (is it $10 a year? $100 a year? $1000?). The two-tier subscription structure is also worth a mention, if not as important as the overall price point—and if you're going to mention price at all you have to decide which tier to report the price of, or just give cursory treatment to both, the latter of which is what I've done. Same thing with the day pass: you have to either explain what it is and how it differs from the other options, or you have to omit mention of it entirely, and I don't think there's any justification for omitting it entirely. —phh 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cume

"Cume" is the total number of unique people who tune into a radio station during a particular daypart for at least five minutes at any point during the average week. If I listen to station WIKI-FM for ten minutes in the car on Tuesday morning, and you're glued to the station solidly between 9 and noon every day, we each only add one listener to the station's cume for the 9-to-noon daypart. A syndicated host's cume, then, is the total number of unique people who tuned in to that host's program (technically, to a station that carries the program during the daypart in which that station broadcasts it) in a particular week. If Rush Limbaugh's cume is 13.75 million, all that tells us is that 13.75 million different people tune into his program for at least 5 minutes in an average week.

Our friend 66.42.13.90 (talk · contribs) says that the top three wingnut hosts (Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Weiner) "have some 35 million listeners," a figure that he (she? could this be a woman? seems unlikely) apparently arrived at by simply adding the cumes of all three hosts together: 13.75 million for Limbaugh + 12.5 million for Hannity + 8 million for Weiner = 34.25 million, rounded up using Republican fuzzy math = 35 million OMFG!!!1!, vs. a cume of 3.1 for the entire Air American network. But this comparison is only valid if none of the top three wingnuts had any listeners in common--remember, "cume" means "total unique listeners." Someone who listens to all three hosts should only be counted once when reporting the total cumulative audience for all three hosts, yet Mr. 66 counts this person 3 times. Using Mr. 66's math, we'd have to obtain the cume for each of the 18 shows on the Air America network and add them together, regardless of whether any of the shows have any listeners in common. That figure probably wouldn't be 35 million, but it'd be a lot closer to 35 million than to 3 million. --phh (^t/_c) 17:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Henry, I do most definitely understand how "cume" is figured; I worked in radio for 13 years (seven in major markets) and indeed am doing a bit of it now.

While simply adding the three cumes together is a tad misleading, comparing the cumes of, say, Limbaugh and Franken would be a valid comparison; they're on at the same time (at least in those markets that don't tape-delay Franken).

In fact, this might be the answer; compare the cumes of, say, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Savage with Franken, Rhodes and Garofalo; they're in head-to-head competition (IIRC; I don't listen to any of the six very much) (and for that matter Prager and Hewitt); they're in head to head competition (to the extent that it is a competition).

I'll try and find that.

By the way, the constant pejorative references to people you disagree with hurts your argument more than your opponent's. Someone should tell Mike Malloy...

Mitchberg 23:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you of all people should know it isn't kosher to simply add up a bunch of cume numbers from different shows that air at different times and represent it as some kind of "super-cume." AAR is a small, developing network with about a fifth as many stations as Rush Limbaugh has; no one disputes that they receive a small fraction of his ratings. Surely it isn't necessary to mislead people to make the disparity seem even larger than it is.

I assure you that my pejorative references to the wingnuts infesting the AM band are made purely to amuse myself, because it's a beautiful spring weekend here in Seattle and I'm in a good mood. If a mild epithet like "wingnut" is all it takes to drive someone into the creepy arms of Michael Weiner, then fuck 'em—we don't need someone whose allegiances are that precarious. —phh (^t/_c) 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep the language clean here? Dubc0724 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Outfoxing FOX

In 2004, FAIR gave Jack Cafferty a "P.u.-litzer Prize" for "Outfoxing FOX":

"As co-anchor of CNN’s morning program, Cafferty had something to report on March 31: “It’s a red-letter day here in America,” he said. “Air America, that communist radio network, starts broadcasting in a little while.” Cafferty was unyielding when CNN colleague Soledad O’Brien responded by saying that the new talk-radio network was not communist but liberal. He replied: “Well. Aren’t they synonymous?”"[8]

...OK?

"Community relations" and "promotions" sections seem unnecessary

These two sections are composed of C-list trivia that don't seem very interesting, including things that are true of of any radio network, like the fact that hosts promote each other's shows. Alright to get rid of them? Korny O'Near 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Promotional material

I know that we're supposed to assume good faith here, but quite frankly some of the material on the site looks like it was written by the AAR promotional department. I've deleted some of this and am planning on taking the old pruning sheers/de-POV-er to the "Business plan" section, which contains what could, at best, be called revisionist history. It's what they might have told to potential investors, but it is mostly imaginary. --JChap 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Elephant

This whole article seems to be dancing around the major issue regarding AAR (or at least what it has become). Namely, that the right and perhaps as a result the left use the success of AAR as a litimus test to the theory that the media has a left-leaning bias.

The theory being the rightist radio shows succeeded because there was previously no voice for the right and a leftist radio show won't succeed because their view point is already well represented on TV, magazine and newspaper formats.

Which, I'd argue, explains why there is so much heated discussion concerning the ratings numbers and profitability of this network. This article seems to be a discussion about an issue without stating what the issue is. Aepryus 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So if you can find a source for all of that, feel free to include it. However, we can not include original research. So if you can find sources for this belief, you can add it in an NPOV manner. But without sources, it can't be NPOV. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I haven't made any substantive changes to Wikipedia, yet, and don't really feel comfortable doing so. But, here is an article from a Brian C. Anderson (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17774)

"...Liberal bias in the old media. That's what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance. Political scientist William Mayer, writing in the Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR."

That William Mayer quote is only an opinion, and recent studies show that there is actually a right-wing bias in most of the media; and some of us are rather tired of hearing this rubbish year after year. Can this irrelevant and quite probably WRONG quote be removed? I realize it's good to present two points of view but only if both have some merit. Likewise the two arguments could be summarized instead of presented as fact, e.g. "conservatives countered that they believed all networks other than theirs have a liberal bias." (I've been told that all media based in New York or California have a liberal bias because they're based in California or New York.) davert

And who shall we appoint as the arbiter of which opinions have merit and which do not and therefore should be not heard? I fail to see how giving an example of a contrary opinion is irrelevant. Now the paragraph looks like a simple assertion without any sourcing or any proof to back up what is being said. Is the removal motivated because of irrelevance or because someone doesn't like what is being said? If the opinion is meritless than what is the harm in it; if it isn't meritless than what possible motivation could one have for removing it? Freedom of speech, as long as we agree with what's being said, eh? Aepryus 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to find some more. Aepryus 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"This week, our friend Al Franken is launching a new all liberal radio network called Air America. They say the purpose of Air America will be to balance out all the conservatives in the media, except, of course for NPR, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times." —Jay Leno

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blmediajokes.htm Aepryus 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first isn't bad. Now that you mention it, you could probably find all kinds of similar quotes in Anderson's book, South Park Conservatives. I believe he's got a couple of chapters on this. But if this was going to be added, you should say something like, "According to _____, Air America has stuggled while conservative talk-radio has done well because ______." Maybe not that simple, but the point is that we cannot make it seem like Wikipedia is saying this is happening. We have to state that perhaps a specific critic has said this. And I'm not too sure Leno's quote would really fly, as he's a comedian, but you'd have to see. But go ahead and make some edits. Be Bold! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps, I'll dabble a bit. Aepryus 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent edit (assuming it was yours). And I agree on not using Leno's quote either - then we'd open the door to using Jon Stewart wouldn't we? davert

The ratings discussion comes from the fact that there are two camps regarding the ratings, and each side has their own opinion on how to interpret the numbers. AAR is hell-bent on claiming the ratings are great, AAR opponents hell bent on pointing out how poor they are. Finding that middle ground is key. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the question is why people consider the ratings numbers so important. I would guess similar discussions do not exist for other radio networks. Aepryus 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering AAR's financial instability, and the problems its having with holding onto full affiliates, it's the most objective thing we have to measure their success. As there's no real right-wing "Air America," in the sense that there's no slate of programming in the way Air America operates, it's rather unique in its situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion does exist for all radio operations. But Air America is different for two reasons: it has claimed since the beginning that it was going to be a successful alternative in the market to Limbaugh et. al., and they continue to insist that they are not only financially viable but in fact a good investment. Radio shows come and go in syndication all the time. Most pass unlamented, even unnoticed. Most, also, do not troll the nation's moneyed elite looking for financial support. Because of those issues, AAR's ratings are of special interest. And BadlyDrawnJeff is right (although there are conservative nets, like Salem, that offer slates of programs. Big difference: Salem's hosts (Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt et al) turn a profit; Hewitt and his entire support staff are paid less than Al Franken's producer, and yet are heard in more markets...

Mitchberg 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what their ratings are. Everybody who goes into talk radio on either side is leaving their brains at the curb. Who listens to these guys and gals with their stupid rants and their obvious strawman attacks and their dopeys 3rd grade name-calling. It's bothersome that anyone can make a living at this. 152.163.100.196 03:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. It seems that the issue of viability (ratings & profitability) are taboo in this article. That points to the bias of some rearing its ugly head. I listen to Air America at least 30 minutes a day. I'm not a huge supporter of theirs, but I'm certainly no enemy. But if they're having trouble, we have to be objective here, as we are supposedly writing an encyclopedia. Apologizing and excuse-making don't get us anywhere. Dubc0724 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AAR is hell-bent on claiming the ratings are great, AAR opponents hell bent on pointing out how poor they are. Finding that middle ground is key. If by middle ground you mean "accuracy", I agree. If by middle ground you mean "don't upset cons or libs", I disagree. AAR is privately owned, I assume? Otherwise financials would be easy to come by. Dubc0724 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

Of course other radio stations make a "big deal over numbers." Arbitron rankings-and where each station sits in relation to its competitors-are what drive advertising, and therefore, radio itself.

If people aren't listening to AAR affiliates, then I don't see how you can ignore that factor within the body of this article, even if it just means posting a graph of their numbers in most major cities-which are not high, by any objective measurement-and then giving each side's "spin" to this argument.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

Is the name "Air America" a conscious dig at the CIA's secret Vietnam-era air force, or just a catchy name? Who came up with the name, and does it signify anything? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno... good question. I guess I just always thought it was a way to show pride in the country to dispell the myth that liberals don't like America. There are several radio networks that try to play on the patriotic name... see Radio America. Who knows? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This article need a cleanup

I made a few changes in order to improve the flow of the article. It seems like this page is a war between people who love AAR and people who want to dwell on ridiculous petty information in order to trash it. As a result, it's not very readable. I admit, my politics lean toward the left, but I'd like to see a well-written, non-biased article here that is worthy of being one of the best on Wikipedia. I know I'm asking a lot here, but I think it can at least become a readable article. Seems all it has become is a feces-flinging fest. I did some minor shifting of information to help improve the flow. And to be fair to both sides of the political arguement, I added a blog article that, while bashing AAR (it's from a conservative-leaning source), has some pretty useful information. Let's find a middle ground here, okay? --Fightingirish 16:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree.

My problem-aside from the unproductive edit warring-is the attempt to minimize the negative side of AAR.

There is no tangilbe metric by which someone who is an intellectually honest leftist could consider Air America Radio to be a success, at least at this point in time.

If you choose to measure success in terms of financial viability, or sustainability, AAR has been a failure.

If you want to judge it according to the 2004 election results-and there are numerous articles, talk shows, etc., which explored the intentions of Drubnoy and other initial funders to only keep this network viable through the 2004 presidential election, from which they believed they would emerge victorious-it has been a failure.

Finally, if you want to measure success by collective listenership, successful radio franchises in large radio markets-which is how most people measure the success or failure of a radio network or talk show-it has been, by and large, a complete failure.

Yes, they have been successful in a few select, isolated, mid-level, very liberal cities, such as Portland and Seattle, but I don't see how you can shy away from the lack of success they've found almost everywhere else if you want this article to reflect reality.

Ruthfulbarbarity 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your little rant has nothing to do with what I asked of the participants here. I would just like to see a well-written article. I don't care if there's positive or negative stuff in there (for the record, I think there should be). I just think it should flow nice.

But since you want to get all political and hyperventilate about AAR because 'dem durn libruls are mekkin fun uv th' prez'dint', I will indulge your little tantrum. You want to know why I think its a success? They're still on the air! Gee, what a concept!

Or the fact that roughly 80-100 stations airing their program is pretty damn impressive for a two year old startup syndicator. I'm not even sure if Limbaugh had that many affiliates after two years, and mind you, in his case we're talking only one show.

As far as listeners go, keep in mind many AAR affiliates are on some small stations with rather weak signals. That's the nature of AM radio. The 50,000 watters, like WABC and WLS, are often successful enough that they aren't going to drop everything and switch to the format. But there's many, many less successful smaller signals that were willing to make the flip, and many of them started showing up in the ratings for the first time in years.

The Arbitron ratings system is the accepted measure of how a radio station is doing. But there are flaws, as many in the industry will admit. Believe me, I've worked in radio. First off, the ratings results released to the public are the overall ones, ages 12+. Of course, advertisers don't really buy based on overall shares. They like to appeal to a demographic. Perhaps they want males 25-54. Or women 18-24. Or 55+ (which is rare to find these days). Of course, Arbitron is in business to make money, and they hold back the really juicy stuff, like demograhic breakdowns. Often, niche formats like this, and especially other ones like all-sports, do pretty well in narrow demographics. Second, there are often wild fluctuations from book to book. For instance, one can tell Arbitron receives more diaries from Spanish-speaking people in a particular book when foreign languages start shooting up the chart. Arbitron is a somewhat flawed system, but it's the best we've got at this time.

For a startup fully-syndicated network, AAR has done fairly well. Keep in mind that startup enterprises take years to show a profit. Even startups from established companies, like USA Today for Gannett, CNN for Turner and FOX Network for News Corp. take many years to get in the red. And you know what? Those three ventures were ridiculed upon launch. Granted, I'm not putting AAR in the same basket as those three (those three ventures had lots more financial backing), but I do see many similarities.

Above all, I don't understand what you and other detractors consider to be "success". Do you expect WLIB in New York, for example, to be getting ratings higher or equal to WABC, a station that is about as established as any station out there (and with a monster signal to boot)? Do you expect them to be profitable out of the gate? If so, then you don't seem to grasp the concept of business. Seeing as they are a privately held company (no stockholders), there is really not a lot of financial information out there to judge them upon. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Are you privvy to their ledgers? I assume you aren't, so I don't see how you are qualified to make these assumptions. Are they losing money? I'm sure they are. Then again, most two year-old startups are. It's the nature of business.

Wanna know another possible measure of success? The fact that AAR's detractors are so wound up about them. I swear, if they really weren't doing well, you think they would even be talking about them? Obviously in making so many thin-skinned enemies, they must be doing something right. After all, if these same people are so worked up about the level of success a company has, why aren't they wound-up about an obvious money-hemmhoraging venture like say, Mark Cuban's folly, HDNet?--Fightingirish 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to dissappoint you, but I'm not "wound up" about the present or future status of this complete and utter farce of a radio network.

If you moonbats choose to live in a fantasy world where a barely solvent, failing radio network, which has never accomplished anything of note-other than remaining on the air, which is something that even low-wattage pirate radio stations can brag of-is comparable in stature to the most popular radio host in the country, then be my guest.

This is a free country, and you're perfectly entitled to bask in your delusions of grandeur.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Rush Limbaugh Show began syndication on August 1, 1988, and within two years had over five million listeners.

Yes, he was only on 56 stations by that point, but I don't see how that proves your point.

Limbaugh was immediately moved to New York's 77-WABC-the pinnacle of radio success on the AM dial for hosts in a talk radio format-and gradually expanded his syndicated program until it reached hundreds of stations in every part of the country, whereas AAR has lost affiliates in New York City, among other major markets.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your last question, probably because political journalists, media commentators, and conservative pundits are not paid to write about the relative success of business ventures by Mark Cuban.

The fact that extensive criticism of AAR's failures exists is not evidence of some counterintuitive insight that demonstrates they are-contrary to all indications-successful.

Rather, it's an illustration of how much free publicity an otherwise unremarkable, financially unsound business model has received, simply because it broadcasts perspectives that are consonant with those typically found within mainstream media newsrooms.

If you want to incorporate this into the "criticism" context of the article, i.e. scrutiny by conservatives of the extraordinary lengths to which other media outlets have gone to put the best spin on a failing radio network, then feel free to do so.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Do we have as much in-depth reporting on each and every lawsuit brought against other radio networks, as well as each internal dispute, or is this something unique to Air America Radio?

Cleanup request

If I may editorialize, this article seems to be more tabloid material sourced from the New York Post than a comprehensive article. Here are my suggestions for cleanup.

• Improve & source citations.
• Combine & cleanup criticism.
• Show-specific issues should be kept to individual program articles when possible.

Cwolfsheep 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

I changed this, to eliminate lots of the 'weasel words' and to introduce some NPOV. I wouldn't consider WLIB in New York to be a ratings failure. Considering that English-language talk in New York seems to do well only on high-powered AM stations (50,000 watts) that reach the suburbs, WLIB isn't doing too bad. Keep in mind, demographics in the urban areas targeted by many AM stations do not lend themselves to being ideal for these kinds of formats. Same with WHAT in Philly - that signal is better suited for urban talk. That's why there are no country music stations in New York and L.A. The markets that were listed as failures are ones where signal issues are a concern. WWRC in Washington does not get outside the city well. In Boston, WKOX and WXKS have their own limitations (soon to be resolved). And if I'm not mistaken, the Atlanta affiliate was a rimshot for awhile, and started to show in the ratings when they moved into the city.--Fightingirish 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's almost apologetic in tone to attempt to make the ratings out to be a signal issue rather than a listener issue. AAR has poor ratings nationwide, and there's nothing to indicate that the ratings are because of the strength of signal, nor have you provided any reliable evidence to account for it. It's not our place to make value judgements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Signal issues are a factor. If a station can't reach much of its market, then people can't listen. "Poor" and "good" are subjective terms. Besides, a 1.0 rating in a market that has a hundred stations is much different than a 1.0 in a market with 20. And the results of ratings surveys can be spun and interpreted in many ways. Stations don't even use overall ratings for sales purposes. They use demographic breakdowns. For example, a sports station might do terrible overall, but do very well with males of a certain age range. Unfortunately, Arbitron doesn't release this information to the public. Perhaps there's a middle ground here in rewriting this. --Fightingirish 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A 1.0 is still a 1.0 regardless. If you can verifiably cite something that says that AAR's ratings are due to the weak signals the radio station broadcasts from, then I have no protest. Until then, we're best simply putting what's out there - what their ratings are and what they are in comparison to similar formats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)