The folks at Air America, after denying it for the last month, have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. AA is a radio network which was supposed to be the liberal answer to conservative talk. They were the ones who would compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and G. Gordon Liddy.
Unfortunately, the idea never caught on among the liberal community and AA did not get listeners. Rush probably has more listeners in a half hour than AA has all week. There have been hints of impropriety and suggestions that money was not spent correctly and this bankruptcy filing confirms their dire situation.
The network employs people like Al Franken who think that they know everything. Franken probably should have stayed on TV doing his comedy bits though I never found him funny top begin with. In any event, Franken would have done better on TV than with the comedy that has become his venture into talk radio. I have never heard Franken's show (and neither have very many others apparently) but I have heard him do interviews.
He constantly tells us how liberals have a better idea and are more fiscally responsible. We are reminded of the evil of George Bush because Franken hates the President and goes out of his way to insult him along with most other conservatives (though I would argue that Bush is not a conservative).
So, Franken has been telling us all along how the donks have the plan. This must be the same plan that they all talk about but never expand upon. I want to know, if the donks are so good at managing things, how it is that Air Amerika is bankrupt. They have about 4 million in assets and owe about 21 million. This is very similar to the way the liberals in Congress run things. They keep acting like there is an endless pot of money.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
What a load of crap. Given this paragraph: "If the Democrats can claim that Republicans are soft on national security (a lie if ever there was one) and then make the claim they can not even protect children (in light of the Foley scandal) then it is reasonable to say that Democrats are not good with money as evidenced by the way Air Amerika handled its finances."
So I can then say that Republicans are lying sacks of crap, as evidenced by the way "Fox News" handles the truth.
Coming from a Democrat, I'd say Air America was a flawed concept from the beginning--rather than developing a "network," they should have strived to produce at least ONE show with the entertainment value of a Hannity or Rush. Just one! Then try syndicating it and building an audience. Don't try to fill an entire day with mediocre talent and wonder why the audience stays small.
However, that doesn't implicate anyone except the brains behind AA.
2 - Dave Nalle
I think that the financial failure of Air America is very telling in the sense that it makes us aware that some on the left are not very good businessmen and if you want the government run like a business they aren't the ones to put in power.
But the article does sort of gloss over the fact that AA isn't going off the air because of this bankruptcy and that they've been bailed out yet again by a wealthy leftist - in this case a dotcommer with too much money and too little sense.
Dave
3 - Scott
"This is very similar to the way the liberals in Congress run things. They keep acting like there is an endless pot of money"
Wait, liberals run congress? See, all this time I thought it was those Republicans acting like there's an endless pot of money.
Oh, wait a sec, that is what's happening.
What a craptastic article.
4 - Big Dog
Scott,
The article is about liberals saying they should be in charge (Frankin et al). The sentence means when they are in charge this is how they run things (based on assertions from the libs that they should be in charge).
Try to keep up and if you are having trouble, let one of the hall monitors know.....
It is also helpful to use the entire context when quoting. Do you work for CBS or ABC?
5 - Scott
Oh, so your article is built upon a false dichotomy. Wow, thanks for clearing that up. I can see how you have your own radio show. Do you broadcast out of your mom's basement?
6 - Big Dog
I do not believe the article meets the definition of a false dichotomy, but maybe it does by your definition. The article is based upon reference to the past, as in those who fail to recognize history are doomed to repeat its failures.
No, I do not broadcast out of my mom's basement. I am a Conservative, I do not sponge off others (and she is dead), I work for and own my own things.
I broadcast from a studio in my home through the station in California.
Wide Awakes Radio.
7 - Sylvia Muffaleto
Wow, you couldn't even get passed the subhead without looking like a pathetic partisan hack. Congrats on tying the record.
"If liberals can't run a radio network without going bankrupt, how can we expect them to run a government?"
Are you saying no conservative has ever filed Chapter 11? If they have, then I guess we can't expect them to run a government either according to your, for lack of a better word, thinking. Google Enron to learn about the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time.
Another illustration of your juvenile, simplistic thinking is that you don't name any of the liberals who ran AA that are now running for Congress. Then you might have had a point. If they aren't the same people, then this whole article is moot.
"Republicans are soft on national security"
Five years after 9/11 without securing borders does make them soft. But if you think a fence that's as a third as long as it needs to be and isn't properly funded is how to get the job done, then that explains why you are interning at Wide Awakkkes Radio.
8 - Nancy
BD, unlike some conservatives, most liberals prefer to listen to programming other than something that just preaches to the converted. Libs don't WANT to hear their own prejudices canted back at them. They already KNOW Bush is an ignorant, arrogant jerk, they don't need some fat pillsbury doughboy with a foul mouth to constantly reassure them that their opinions are the correct and only opinions worth listening to. They want to hear new information, other opinions - yeah, even opposing opinions; unlike some conservatives, most liberals don't fear their souls will be contaminated by hearing something they don't agree with. They don't need to have some partisan party hack shepherding their thoughts & ensuring they only think in lockstep with whatever the Party determines they should think. So, in addition to the general lackluster quality of the programs, I'm not surprised that a "liberal" radio network didn't pan out: liberals don't need one, unlike some conservatives.
9 - Michael J. West
Oy, Lord have mercy. Folks, not only is it silly pretend that Air America's failure had anything to do with its politics--either on the air or off--but it's silly to even pretend that they're related.
Including you, Nancy. Come on!
I can think of nothing more nonpartisan than the tendency to get in over your head in a business venture.
So these big general platitudes, e.g. "Liberals can't handle business," are absolutely useless exaggerations. That "some on the left are not very good businessmen" is better, because it's true (just as some on the right are not very good businessmen), but still a gross oversimplification.
There are obviously plenty of very good liberal businesspeople (George Soros, Oprah Winfrey). There are even a few very good liberal radio businesspeople (Howard Stern, Neil Rogers).
How about, this particular group of people did not know how the radio business worked? They didn't understand the medium, didn't understand what a good radio personality did, didn't understand what made a good talk-radio program, and started off on EXTREMELY shaky financial ground. Despite what you may want to read into this situation, it really doesn't tell us anything more profound than that.
Bringing in someone who DOES know radio could make every bit of difference in the world. For those of you who know anything about the biz, there has been a rumor for a while now that Randy Michaels has amibitions for a startup left-wing radio network. And if that happens, you've got the potential for some formidable competition there, buster.
10 - Dave Nalle
As someone who's actually listened to AA a fair amount I can tell you there's only one thing which has caused its problems - inability to attract advertisers. When you can listen to a whole hour at drive time and get nothing but PSAs during the breaks, the network is in serious, serious trouble.
You can argue over why no one wants to advertise on AA, but I doubt very much that it's just their ideology. It's more likely to be their inability to break into crowded markets where there's established competition.
Dave
11 - Michael J. West
You can argue over why no one wants to advertise on AA, but I doubt very much that it's just their ideology.
I will argue what I've always argued: it's because AA is bad radio. Advertisers are drawn by ratings, and nobody wants to spend money for radio that nobody listens to. And nobody listens to it because it's unlistenable.
12 - Big Dog
Kinda silly, isn't it? I mean to equate the success or failure of a whole group of people on a few who happen to have some of the same beliefs or belong to the same "club."
It is just as silly to say that the "Culture of Corruption" is a Republican owned problem. As Mr. West pointed out, it would be better to say that there are some corrupt Republicans just as there are some corrupt Democrats. Instead of saying that one person being a pervert means that all members are perverts and can not protect children (another gross over generalization) it would be far better to say that a few Republicans have participated in perverted sexual practices just as some Democrats have done.
The polarization of groups is actually quite funny. Except for the history of AA and the taxes issue, the part about AA's failure indicating that all donks are bad with money was quite tongue in cheek designed to demonstrate how silly it is to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few.
Thanks for chiming in and helping. If I had made this statement and discussed perverts in Congress without your comments first, I would have been accused of condoning the behavior of a pervert named Foley.
13 - Michael J. West
Why not file it under satire, then? Just curious.
14 - Big Dog
I looked for something appropriate and did not see satire. Obviously, I missed it.
Note to self: Pay more attention...
Uh oh, now all Conservatives do not pay attention. LOL
15 - Baronius
JP says 'Air America was a flawed concept from the beginning--rather than developing a "network," they should have strived to produce at least ONE show with the entertainment value of a Hannity or Rush. Just one! Then try syndicating it and building an audience.'
What JP is describing is the free market. Individual agents competing, with the cream rising to the top. The equivalent thinking within government is called federalism.
AA followed a top-down approach. They knew what was best for us, so they gave it to us. This is an authoritarian mindset. I guarantee you, when Air America is packing up their desks, they'll be saying to themselves, "if the people were too stupid to listen to us, it's their loss". You can never teach an elitist. So ultimately, the problem with AA's business plan was a flawed ideology.
16 - Big Dog
Since they were formed to influence an election then it is safe to say they had no business plan.
17 - RJ Elliott
I seem to recall a Blogcritics contributor a while back who would post about once a week telling us how great AA was doing, and how poorly Rush et al were doing.
I still wonder if he was a paid shill, a pathetic dupe, or just a liar...
18 - Michael J. West
It was actually a clever article, Big Dog, and a pretty subtle and effective piece of satire. All too effective, obviously, since you got people to both echo it and throw it back at you. Well played, sir!
Of course, I'm safe in complimenting you on it since Sylvia (#7) and I are the only ones who actually called you on it, but pretty clearly the point is made. :-)
Sylvia did make a fair point in her last paragraph, but we'll save that one for another day.
19 - RJ Elliott
"started off on EXTREMELY shaky financial ground."
Not true. AA had plenty of startup money, as well as numerous rich "donors" (such as host Albert Einstein Frankenstein** himself!). And let's not even get into the millions of dollars worth of "free media" a fawning MSM has given them over the years...
**Yes, that is the name he was born with...no wonder he changed it!
20 - Baronius
So he went into comedy writing with the birth name of Albert Einstein Frankenstein, and he changed it? I dunno. The first 18 years of life must have been miserable, but once he got old enough to have it legally changed, why would he?
21 - RJ Elliott
Apparently, the elites at Harvard (where he went to college) mocked him so horribly, he decided to change his own family name...
22 - JR
Dave Nalle: I think that the financial failure of Air America is very telling in the sense that it makes us aware that some on the left are not very good businessmen and if you want the government run like a business they aren't the ones to put in power.
Wait, was it the Left who wanted the government to run like a business? I thought that was Bush's pitch.
Hmmm, how did he do in business?...
23 - Lisa McKay
RJ, a credible citation for that, if you please. Sounds like bullshit to me.
24 - RJ Elliott
Oh, crap. Upon further review, my "source" for this bit of info doesn't look very credible...mea culpa...
25 - RJ Elliott
I guess his real name isn't "Albert Einstein Frankenstein" but instead "Alan Stuart Franken" ... :-/