Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 14, 2006 in At TMV | 27 comments

Is Air America About To Declare Bankruptcy?


Is Air America, the talk radio network designed to counter and capitalize on the popularity of the conservative talk show genre that has swept the AM dial during the late part of the 20th century, about to declare bankruptcy?

It depends which report you read.

But given the history of Air America, at the very least it would appear that the young network is in trouble.

Think Progress:

Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told ThinkProgress.

Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.

But Think Progress also has a statement from Air America denying the report. News Max.Com also has info on the denial:

But just before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Air America spokesperson Jamie Horn told Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, in an e-mail: “If Air America had filed for bankruptcy every time someone rumored it to be doing so, we would have ceased to exist long ago. It may be frustrating to some that this hasn’t happened. No decision has been taken to make any filing of any kind. We are not sure of the source of these rumors.â€?

[Air America’s most famous host comedian Al] Franken, however, confirmed that the network, which debuted in March 2004, is suffering from cash-flow problems. He told Radar Online about the bankruptcy claim: “I don’t know if that’s true or not. We do know that there have been cash-flow problems. I haven’t been paid in a while. Like, there’s no cash flowing to me.”

There are really two issues at play here.

(1)The future of Air America as a network.

(2)The future of non-conservative talk, which could be progressive talk or even mean more progressive/center-left talk.

Air America has had a troubled history and has struggled since it was launched. Talk radio to succeed needs a strong point of view plus broadcasts that can do a good, compelling radio that can increase market share. Many of the Air America programs are not great radio but seem to be attempts to offer a counterforce the left ideologically to what what Rush Limbaugh has ideologically offered on the right.

This writer knows several people who are not conservatives who will not listen to Air America because they feel the programs are simply too negative and not entertaining. (One of them who agrees politically with one top Air America host yesterday told me that person was a “total jerk” and that she wouldn’t listen to him anymore because he was so negative and sounded “just like Rush.”)

So Air America could survive in the short term but to increase its market share it will need to broaden its appeal beyond being anti-conservative talk radio.

There are two progressive talkers who aren’t associated with Air America who offer shows that succeed as entertaining broadcasts and have the potential of reeling in listeners who might not even agree with their viewpoints. (NOTE: We know we will the usual people in comments who don’t like their points of view and will lambaste them. We are talking now about these talkers as broadcast professionals.).

One is Ed Schultz (see photo), who we interviewed and covered last year in his move to get on Armed Force Radio. Schultz offers more then just political and ideological talk but is clear about where he stands. The other is Stephanie Miller (see photo), who offers what is almost a radio political humor show, zany and packed with laugh lines (that will not get big yucks from conservatives).

Talk radio has now become so polarized that people on the right have been waiting for Air America to die, declaring it dead from day one. Some on the left have declared how great its shows are and dismiss the talk on the right as politically motivated blather.

In reality, Air America has been struggling and even if it survives it reportedly has a way to go before it stabilizes. And its programs need to go beyond offering ideology to people who already agree with its hosts to offering programs that increasingly appeal to people who may not totally agree with them, without losing its ideological anchor and alternative viewpoint appeal.

If you listen to most Air America programs (even local ones) then listen to Schultz and Miller you’ll notice a difference: Schultz and Miller are far more entertaining as radio broadcasts. If you click on the links to their names you can sample some of their work yourself on their websites. (You can read TMV’s exclusive interview with Ed Schultz that we did last year HERE.)

Some Other Views On This Story:

Citizen Smash:

I’ve been expecting this for some time. I tuned in to Air America on occasion, but I just couldn’t listen for long.

The problem? No talent. Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo aren’t even remotely funny anymore, and the rest of the bunch are far too shrill. Rhandi Rhodes made my head hurt. Not much substance, and no real humor.

And don’t even get me started on the bizarre conspiracy theories I’ve heard forwarded by hosts and callers alike…

The only reasonably intelligent show on KLSD (you may laugh now), the San Diego affiliate, was Ed Schultz. And it turns out his show is syndicated; he isn’t even an Air America property.

Hoffmania:

For certain,[Al] Franken,[Randi] Rhodes and (hopefully) Maddow will be picked up by one of the players who knows how to market and clear shows to radio stations. The other shows should also find their way in the marketplace.

It was a grand experiment, but was doomed by its baggage. Their feeble attempt at syndication showed they were not prepared to provide what the business demands: flexibility.

But it finally did give a national voice to our side – a voice which is indeed commercially viable as well as much-needed in the horrific political climate we have today. When all we had were authors and wonk experts, many of AAR’s hosts stepped up to the plate and brought fire to our side of the discussion on cable news. Air America opened the door for Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Jon Elliott and other non-AAR folks to jump into the liberal radio pool and grow their careers.

And the fire will continue to burn. Good luck (seriously, not the Fox News kind) to all the folks who kept this thing going for this long. Their work won’t be in vain, and will continue under new ownership and better conditions.

Michelle Malkin:

So, Air America leaks word of its bankruptcy to liberal blog Think Progress in an attempt to avoid complete humiliation by all those evil right-wingers who were spreading such vicious rumors about its financial chaos.

May I just say: Bwahahahahahaha.

First question: Will the New York Times fiiiiinally get around to covering this story? Hmmm?

Liberal Values:

I’m not terribly surprised that Air America is having financial problems. Liberals don’t have the people with deep pockets willing to subsidize them as conservatives do. Liberals are also much less likely to listen to one-sided talk radio, while conservatives appear to thrive on having their thoughts fed to them.

While I wish Air America well, I rarely listen to them. I’m far more likely to spend the time reading a variety of news sources, including both liberal and conservative. When I am listening to the radio I more typically listen to NPR which provides a balance of liberal and conservative views, while definitely more liberal-friendly than the corporate-run media. Of course if I could pick up Air America in my car, as opposed to being limited to streaming over the internet, I’d probably spend more time listening to it.

Tom Maguire:

One might have thought that the same tsuanmi of voter anger that is going to sweep away the Republican Perty and all its works this fall might have prompted a few people to tune in. But perhaps the problems were more technical – reception is difficult in some areas, apparently, and not everyone looked good in the required reception-enhancement device.

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

Schmoopdawg at Daily Kos:

Even with Air America, the radio waves are soooo overwhelmingly rightwing … at least here in Minnesota. The rightwing political shows and wacked-out religious right radio is, I think, a daunting challenge.

While I might agree with the poster at Think Progress who says that liberals don’t listen to the radio, I also REALLY agree with the poster who points out that part of the challenge is to preach to the unsaved heathens!

Big Ed Schultz spent the first part of his show distancing himself from Air America, yet, dear Ed, um … the VAST majority of your coverage in Minnesota comes from Air America … and Air America doesn’t cover NEARLY enough of the state to compete.

–Powerline:

I don’t know whether Air America will file this week, but it seems pretty inevitable some time soon. I’d like to think this reflects Americans’ lack of interest in left-wing radio, and to some extent I think that’s true. But part of the problem was undoubtedly the sheer incompetence of the Air America radio personalities. Talk radio, contrary, apparently, to popular belief, isn’t easy, and Al Franken, Randi Rhodes et al. didn’t begin to measure up.

Wonkette:

We’ve always thought that people who go around calling themselves liberals or conservatives were equally brainwashed, but shocking new developments today suggest that the lefties may be slightly less susceptible to jackasses screaming on the AM radio.

Air America is declaring bankruptcy today. ThinkProgress.org reports layoffs, firings, all sorts of chaos. Jerry Springer got fired, too. (That’s who they got for a “liberal talk-show host�? No wonder nobody listened.)

Wizbang:

For those who have not been following Air America’s very slow and painful decline, its declaring bankruptcy is not a surprise. Michelle Malkin has documented for some time now Air America’s financial woes beginning with her June 2005 post that Air America was being investigated for funneling money meant for kids and seniors into its own bank accounts.






Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • jaymaster

    Their message was well intentioned, and their market underserved, but Air America had one problem it couldn’t overcome: it sucked.

  • Elrod

    I agree. It sucked. I’m a staunch Democrat and I’m moderately liberal. My heart was on the same side as Air America. My vote will certainly be on the same side. But the programming was a freak variety show of conspiracy theorists, overbearing morons, unfunny sketches, and Rush-like rants. Ed Schultz was the only guy I liked.

    To be honest, right-wing radio sucks too. It’s not entertaining at all. Even if I agreed with it, it’s not enjoyable to listen to. So maybe I just think the talk-radio format sucks. But then I absolutely love sports talk radio. When I lived in Evanston I regularly flipped back and forth between the two Chicago sports talk radio shows. Hearing the commentators hail the White Sox and poke fun at the hapless Cubs was music to my ears. But the political stuff was horrible.

    For liberal commentary, nothing beats NPR. If you live in a city that has it, Pacifica Radio is very good for serious left-wing programming. It’s much more international than NPR, non-corporate, and decidedly left-wing. But it isn’t the AAR rant variety.

  • Pyst

    AA problem is the fact they were a network. Network easy to go under, individual radio personality…eh not so easy. The proof is Schultz and Miller, they aren’t tired to a mega-corp type monster which AA wanted to be.

    If the people concerned with spreading the message targeted Schultz, and Miller for big time money backing, and worked to get individual personalities (with radio talent, and cred) on more already exsisting stations and dumped the idea of a network, it would have wored alot better, and cost alot less.

    Not only that, scour the land for the small timer on W-podunk, or K-hicksville somehwere instead of trying to create-A-star from exsisting names that haven’t spent a minute on the air. The real talent isn’t created by big name, it’s some unknown guy slugging it out every day in the middle of nowhere with the chops from having to carry a program.

    And hate to say it…that’s how Rush did it. I won’t praise Hannity, because that jerk started here in Huntsville, and was nothing but a rehash of what Rush said the previous hour verbatum. Infact so bad was Hannity he got laughed at by Rush’s listeners every day for being an unoriginal parrot. And he still isn’t very good at imitating Rush nowadays LOL.

  • Elrod

    I should add that Christian radio is pure comedy. My wife and I were laughing for hours over some radio preacher trying to give a sermon about “orbital Christians.” It was somewhere in Tennessee, I believe. That people listen to Christian radio and get inspired is, well, not a very inspiring thought.

  • K. Gregory

    Remember that Ed Schultz wasn’t Air America and there was always some talk of tension between them.

  • I heard the news earlier from a friend. I guess we shall know soon enough.

  • MichaelF

    As a young Libertarian growing up in Massachusetts I was frustrated by the left wing talk radio programs. But they were nothing like the mean spirited and polarized shows you see today from both sides. Then along came David Brudnoy, Avi Nelson , And Gene Burns. Only Brudnoy provided a lasting presence. But it was still refreshing to hear voices which agreed with my perspective. This is why I have to laugh when I hear the complaints about right wing talk radio.

    The Boston Globe was far and away the number one newspaper in town and that has not changed. Liberals owned talk radio, public television, and the major networks. There was no Internet in those days. The left had a clear advantage in the Boston area.

    With cable TV and the Internet you don’t need to look hard for left wing opposing views. It’s not as if Air America was needed to give voice to the Hollywood left. Garafolo and Franken were always welcome on the circuit . Martin Sheen , Streisand , Dryfus ,Sean Penn and others have never been silenced. In fact, you can’t shut them up. Meanwhile the crying continues and Michael Moore makes millions. The American public can decide which shows they want to hear and watch,

    Tell the Air America crowd that the people have the right to choose. But they won’t want to hear it. Capitalism is something they don’t exactly cherish

  • Uncle Joe McCarthy

    air america was a bad idea….especially since the majority of their talent had no radio experience before going on air

    im sorry, but al franken should not have a morning/midday show….his show is basically npr with really bad comedy bits (most of which he has gotten rid of)

    if they truly wanted to build a good progressive network, they needed to get the best liberal radio voices in america…and im sorry, but that does not include randi rhodes

    one of the best progressive voices in america is on kgo in san francisco….his name is bernie ward, and he runs a no holds barred show…

    but air america’s failure only emboldens neocons

  • Joe

    Actually, I kind of agree with you on Bernie Ward as a solid broadcaster (again I’m addressing the issue of people as broadcasters who can do a fast-moving, entertaining program as well as deliver whatever their view happens to be). When I go on my long drive I get his show at night and he’s one I do tune into when I an get him because his show is indeed no holds barred, fast moving and not Johnny One Note. There are literally two Air America hosts (one national and one local) who I heard who started on a long ran, then I got out of my car, had lunch, went back nearly an hour later and they were still saying the same thing over and over and hadn’t even taken call. It was simply too boring to listen to. NOT good radio. Some years ago Ward was being touted as the liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh, and then you didn’t hear much about it and his show wound up on the late night shift. The issues at play in solidifying a successful talk show are content (ideology) and talent (the ability for a host to do a compelling program that even those who don’t agree with him/her love to tune in because it moves, uses the full potential of radio as a communications medium, offers more than just anger and lashing out and is unpredictable). In Los Angeles, for instance, non-liberal talk show host Bill Handel of KFI is getting whopping ratings and has siphoned off many of Howard Stern’s former radio listeners because BH’s show is funny, unpredictable, informative, and moves at 100 mph. His topics are diverse. Aside from being a skilled lawyer, he is a skilled broadcaster. YOu don’t tune into it because of his party but because it is GOOD RADIO.

  • Bookman

    Looks like a couple of people here ‘get it’, for once.

    AAs prolems devolve from some faily simeple points:
    1. AA tried to be anti-conservative talk radio – out of nowhere. CTR took years to grow into what it is today, finding its audience and developing its talent, with those who couldn’t cut it _failing_. The idiot babbliing about his imaginary “subsidies” should take note, since it is vanishingly unlikely that he can prove that any major CR talker is financially supported by any poolitical org. If they don’t make a profit, they go home. Who’s “subsidizing” Art Bell?

    2. Attitude. Despite what his detractors say, Limbaugh’s basic message is positive – to his fans, anyway. He snipes, he takes cheap shot, but he’s playing the opposition for laughs, selling the message that “we can win against these people”
    (And no, I don’t like him – I called in one, while he was on the way up. I disagreed with some point he was making. He cut me off, then sneered at things I wasn’t trying to say. But I occasionally he him on the way home from work.) AA, by all accounts I have heard (nope, haven’t listened. no coverage in my area) is desperate, mean-spirited, and not in any way positive. Who wants to listen to that?

    3. History. RW radio grew up in a time when there was almost _no_ place for conservative to go to hear their dise of it. Despite what extreme Leftis say, the MSM is basically left-leaning. The fact that they are also corporate whores doesn’t make them “conservatives”, at all. AA struggles, because liberals have _loads_ of places to go for their POV. Why go to AA, especially when they are…

    4. Not entertainling. Plenty well covered by others here.

    5. AA lacks real diversity. It is a network with a mission, and therefore is pretty monolithic. RW radio, TTBOMK, is _not_. The messages may well be similar, but it is a gamut of styels, from nasty (Michael Savage? Why does anyone listen to that repetitious heap of hate-and-anger?), to lighter touches, such as Laura Ingram. But they don’t succeed or fail as a unit AA does.

    5. It’s a re-hash, but AA tried to select, as elite _national_ talk-show figures, people with little or no experience in the field. The hosts were selected for celebrity and political leanings, rather than talent in radio. Limbaugh wasn’t “selected” for his political views, and in the beginning he wasn’t a celebrity – he came from the ground up. Franken et al. are/wer trying to do it from the top, and it ain’t working.

    I’m sure there’s more, but those are my thoughts off-the-cuff. I saw this coming from the moment they announced that AA would be subsidized from the start. It’s like tring to start a software company by handing it loads of cash, staffing it with actors, and then expecting it to immediately compete with Microsoft. It doesn’t work.

    Regards,

    Bookman

  • jjc

    I’m pretty much of a lefty, but like Elrod, I end up listing to sports talk radio.

    I’d give Franken better reviews than most here, but I can smell the coffee. I liked Rhodes at first, but her act got old before long.

  • Kim Ritter

    I’ve listened to Rush and Hannity, and while I disagree with them on virtually everything, they seem to have found a permanent niche among listeners who agree with their assertion of bias in the MSM. Of course, all of the assertions from this White House blaming the media for their own failures feeds into this. Their listeners trust them implicitly, and rely on them for what they believe is a truth that cuts through all the biased reporting (not including Fox here, LOL). They frequently interview prominent Republican guests like Michael Chertoff, Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Bill Frist and even have had Don Rumsfeld on the air. The interviews largely reinforce the policies of this administration-so the third of America that supports it doesn’t have to listen to any “hardball” questions or feel that the talk show hosts are blaming Bush for our problems. They always find a way to support the status quo, and can always find a way to blame Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and even Jimmy Carter for everything and anything. It must be comforting for supporters of the president, and reinforcing for conservative Republicans to know that Hannity and Rush are always in their corner.

    I have not listened to a lot of left wing radio-I do know that constant negativity is not a foundation for a liberal movement-sooner or later-listeners are going to tune out. The greatest weakness of today’s Democrats is that they offer few solutions and also won’t fight for what they believe in. And the public is picking up on that.

  • C Stanley

    but air america’s failure only emboldens neocons

    Uncle Joe McCarthy:
    So are you saying that Air American shouldn’t appease by giving up? 😉

  • C Stanley

    OK, I’m going to say something that will leave me open to intense criticism, but here goes.

    I started listening to Rush Limbaugh around the end of Bush 41’s administration. (around ’90 or ’91). He was obviously biased and he openly admitted that. He never tried to pretend that he was a journalist, but rather a commentator. He was genuinely funny at times with parody. I think there is a place for that, and I was entertained by it just as I also enjoy some parody that is left leaning (if it is done well and not hate filled)

    Sometime during the nineties, though, several things led me to disavow Limbaugh. The sniping got to be too much, and I could see how the danger of people accepting things he said at face value without questioning. And, after Bush 43 got elected and now with a Republican dominated govt, I can see even more danger in it.

    At the same time though, I certainly wouldn’t advocate any censorship and I feel that countering right wing radio with views from the left is healthy. It’s just too bad that it wasn’t done well (and my opinion is that it was done very poorly).

    Interesting that Elrod cited NPR as a good liberal venue. I happen to agree with that assessment and I think they do a good job of presenting the liberal viewpoint in an honest and dignified way. But, I haven’t heard too many liberals willing to admit that it is liberal, and I do have to ask: isn’t anyone at all concerned, if you do admit to this, that a govt. funded radio station has a liberal bias??

  • jjc

    The key word there is “bias,” a word defined differently depending on where one stands on the debate about bias in the media.

    I think Elrod means mostly that NPR is preferable to whatever else is out there from the standpoint of a liberal consumer.

    The way I see “bias,” NPR is nothing like, say, Fox News. But I suspect most on the right disagree.

  • Kim Ritter

    C Stanley- Yes, NPR has a liberal bent. Maybe it should but it doesn’t bother me anymore than the fact that PBS has a liberal bent—as long as the presentation is fair and doesn’t distort the truth in order to make its case.

    AA programming, otoh, does bother me- as in the long run it will turn off undecided listeners, rather than mobilizing opposition to Rush and Hannity’s agenda. I don’t feel I can complain about right wing radio hosts if those on the left are just as distorted and hate-filled. Actually, the content is better on the right wing shows (though still as biased) which is why they have better ratings.

  • C Stanley

    jjc,
    I don’t think that NPR is biased to the degree that Fox news is, but IMO any bias isn’t acceptable with public funding. It may be, for example, that NPR only is biased in it’s choice of subject matter (showing negative things from the right but not equally negative ones on the left, or vice versa with positive stories). In many ways this subtlety is even more dangerous, because people aren’t able to pick up on it unless they are sensitized to the possibility.

    That is one reason that I try to use a wide variety of sources for information. That way, if one venue is covering certain issues but another is putting them on the back burner, you can still get both sides of an issue.

  • MichaelF

    C.STanley asked :

    But, I haven’t heard too many liberals willing to admit that it is liberal, and I do have to ask: isn’t anyone at all concerned, if you do admit to this, that a govt. funded radio station has a liberal bias??

    Of course I am concerned . I find it to be unconscionable that NPR and PBS get government funding. I shouldn’t be paying for people to listen to Nina Totenberg or Bill Moyers .Let all these political commentaters rise and fall on thier own .

    I disagree with your assessment that NPR is less biased than is Fox news. For instance, if you look at O’Reilly’s show you will see that he usually has a balance of guests from the right and the left. The same is true of Hannity and Combs. In sharp contrast, I rarely see that on display with NPR. In fact, I have listened to many shows which feature the left wing host feeding leading questions to multiple guests with the same agenda and view point.

  • C Stanley

    Michael F,
    Generally I’m inclined to agree with most of what you are saying and in theory, yes, Fox did start out with this “fair and balanced” approach of having people with opposing viewpoints. I think that when they first started, they were more faithful to that but it has deteriorated over time. What I mean by that is, for example, Alan Colmes is pretty much just comic relief. He doesn’t present the liberal viewpoint in a very persuasive way (though I’ve never doubted his sincerity), and it doesn’t seem to me that he has much of a say in the choice of guests. With the guests, Hannity seems to choose *some* pretty articulate and intelligent conservatives (with some exceptions like Ann Coulter, though you have to credit her with being articulate even if overly inflammatory). Then, they put idiotic liberals on in most cases, just so that Hannity can give them enough rope to hang themselves. So, I think the format is pretty disingenuous; and possibly the reason its deteriorated is that they may have started having trouble getting good liberal guests or commentators. They do have a few that are decent though (Bob Beckel comes to mind). I do still frequently watch Fox and Friends in the morning just because the goofball humor appeals to me, and I tune into O’Reilly sometimes (his personality annoys me, but I tend to agree with him on many issues and I think he gets a bad rap for being biased because I don’t think he is in lockstep with either right or left)

    Anyway, overall I don’t give high grades to Fox for impartiality or good jounalism, but I guess I’m part of the audience that has made them successful. I don’t like bias in the media, but I think everyone has to admit that it’s easier to stomach when it’s slanted toward your own biases!

  • Kim Ritter

    C Stanley- I agree with you completely about Hannity and Colmes- the show is 95% Hannity and 5% Colmes. The guests and topics are very obviously picked by Hannity. Colmes tries, and is well-meaning, but never seems to manage to get a completed sentence out. I think he is on the show so that Hannity can show how weak liberal arguements are and how easily they can be defeated, once the conservative point of view is presented. Also, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are frequent commentators- I consider both of them to be outside the mainstream in their viewpoints.

  • Jim S

    The Fox show is definitely HANNITY!! and colmes. As far as NPR is concerned, their main talk show (In our market, at least.) is Talk of the Nation. The vast, overwhelming majority of the time they have guests from both sides of any debate and they are treated quite politely. If they can’t get someone from the other side they acknowledge it. Can the same be said of guests on Fox shows? Is there any balance to any right wing talk radio show? No, there isn’t.

  • Liberal in San Diego

    Al Franken rights funny political books.

    He would be a great frequent guest on a radio show.

    Maybe he could do a prerecorded 6 hour show and have a radio professional edit it to a 3 hour one.

    I like Ed Shultz, he maintains a good pace. You don’t always agree with him but he will go toe to toe with callers and you hear multiple viewpoints on subject. One thing that underminds conservative talk radio is they are always right, never admitting to any faults. I like the fact Ed calls a spade a spade and if the liberals are wrong he will call them on it.

    Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He measures his success by ratings.

    When I listen to the radio I want entertainment. Liberal radio and entertaining radio should not be mutually exclusive.

    Randi should be boycotted by PETA for beating dead horses.

    They could all help their ratings by playing more sound bites of W stuttering.

  • Blue Man

    I hope Air America makes it. I agree w/ what has been said here in that many of the hosts are not radio professionals but thats whats been going on in the industry now for 15 or so years, some one is a writer for whatever publication or a washed up political hack and suddenly their given a radio show. This has happened because radio programing Dept’s. have been taken over by NON radio creative/ professionals who are puppets of corporate,financial and legal geeks in the back office.
    Randi Rodes and Mile Malloy (who was fired) are the only long term radio veterans at AAR. Randi is truly brilliant (she knows her facts) and is very funny when she wants to be, but if any one is paying attention to whats going on in Washington it’s harder and harder every day to see the humor and she reflects that these days. Al Franken is … well I’m ambivalent when it comes to him. Some times I like listening to him sometimes I don’t. He came to radio a caouple of years ago w/ an arrogant attitude that it’s all a peace of cake, IT ISN’T. I’m not sure if he gets that yet.
    If you listen to Ed Schultz (Jones Radio) and your well informed you eventually come to the conclusion that he is not to bright. Ed is all about Ed. He’s just too acquiesce to bad political behavior in Washington and doesn’t know his facts. Example – he talked the other day about landing in Dulles Airport in Washington DC early morning on the fated 911 and pulling up next to an AA plane and now he often wonders if they were not the planes that went into the towers! Both planes that went into the towers originated in BOSTON that morning. Thats typical of Ed. As for Stephenie Miller (Jones Radio), I thinks shes just GREAT, entertaining radio.

  • MichaelF

    I actually think Colmes does a better job enunciating his point of view. Hannityy often times goes off on a tangent. He may talk louder but he says less.

    I think arguing about the choice of guests is particularly pointless. O’Reilly has had many of the top names come on his show ONCE. They usually don’t come back. Remember, he had Michael Moore and Garrafalo .Remember , they can only get on those who agree to appear.

    I listen to NPR most mornings. Again, on most occasions it is one sided. Fox may not be comply balanced but they come closer than does NPR. That being said, Fox has no responsibility to balanced at all. Public broadcasting such as PBS and NPR does. I say do away with their funding and let them live and die on their own. They can have a 24/7 Bill Moyers network if they like. just don’t ask me to subsidize it.

  • Nick

    There are two simple reasons air america failed

    1) It was redundant. The left view already controls 90% of all other media and the education system.

    2) Lact of talent.

    There is nothing “progressive” about liberal/socialism.

  • Blue Man

    And there is nothing “conservative” about the present day republican party. It’s just an arm and mouth piece of multi national corporations, Reagen saw to that….

  • Blue Man

    Communisms is socialism on steroids, Fascism is capitalism on steroids (were we are now), Anarchy is libertarianism on steroids.
    ALL systems eventually become top heavy and fall apart.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com