The conservative echo-chamber believed Air America Radio would be dead on arrival, but new recent data is proving otherwise
The conservative echo-chamber believed Air America Radio would be dead quicker than George Bush’s Social Security privatization plan, but new recent data is proving otherwise. Barely a year after its formation, and contrary to conservative spin, Air America Radio is building an audience at a rate that any radio station would envy.…
Article comments
76 - casey
Dave, When did Randi get syndicated?
77 - casey
I guess I spoke to soon as Randi is syndicated by Air America but if AAR is no longer on she wouldn't be syndicated
anymore...
"...there are very few voices like mine, and that you know voices like mine don’t get syndicated on Clear Channel because of guys like Rush Limbaugh...I have actually heard that Rush has said that he would take his show elsewhere if they did anything with mine."
Randi Rhodes, in a WJNO Radio interview with Oliver North
78 - Dave Nalle
My assumption is that if AAR went offline as a network a few of the more popular hosts would get picked up and syndicated. I doubt that Franken or Garofolo would because they are just too boring and propagandistic.
Dave
79 - casey
Dave, You do assume a lot.
>>>My assumption is that if AAR went offline as a network a few of the more popular hosts would get picked up and syndicated. I doubt that Franken or Garofolo would because they are just too boring and propagandistic.
It seems that isn't exactly what you said.
>>>And then, when the network is gone, but Randi Rhodes and Springer ****still ****have syndicated shows you'll claim he was wrong. Yay.
>>>I doubt that Franken or Garofolo would because they are just too boring and propagandistic.
First I don't think either of them really need AAR to continue their careers but I doubt you have listened to either show very much..
80 - billy
Breaking SCANDAL!! AAR's janitor just picked a booger and threw it on the sidewalk. Why isnt the AAR under FBI investigation for littering? Why hasnt the "liberal" media reported this. this is a major scandal, AAR destroying the beauty of the city street. Action Alert: Call Michelle Malkin right away and tell her about this treachery.
81 - todd
I think I heard AA in South Bend not long ago, it was actually pretty funny, if a bit thick on the propaganda and talking points.
It was a little too "slick" if you know what I mean.
82 - billy
no doubt, even the most liberal of people, like me, will laugh and dismiss some of the things they say, but it certainly is a funny counterbalance to rush and o'reilly who truly believe that people who dont have a blind jingoistic support for bush are un-american.
83 - Dave Nalle
So you balance out bling, jingoistic support of Bush with blind, jingoistic hatred of Bush? And how does that improve the overall quality of discourse exactly?
The problem with Air America is that they're just like the people they oppose in their methods and their presentation. Only the ideology is different.
Dave
84 - Casey
Let's count the lies on each side....
85 - Dave Nalle
If I did that I'd have to actually listen to crap like Limbaugh or Franken and it's not worth my time.
Just tell them both to screw themselves and listen to Neal Boortz.
Dave
86 - billy
no doubt, but the same reason righties listen to rush applies to aar. it coarsens the discourse, but the libs need their fun too, its at the expense of conservatives, but that is life.
87 - David R. Mark
Dave -- I have to tell you, I agree with you 100%.
Other than Al Franken, who has more of an interview format, almost like a liberal NPR show, AAR is filled with ranters. There is no excuse for Janeane Garofolo being on the air. Randy Rhodes is a left-wing Rush Limbaugh, harping on a few issues, and from what I can tell, frequently taking things out of context. Jerry Spring is just a long, breathless diatribe.
AAR would be more successful, I think, if they brought aboard better journalists, rather than personalities, to host their shows. And, like NPR, they should be looking for a long list of potential stories and guests. To have five different hosts talking about the same three or four topics is boring radio. Conservative radio falls into that trap, too, of course.
The other thing, which I have written about on my blog, is that AAR can't simultaneously tell people they are shooting for a higher standard, then take bottom feeder advertisers who promise get-rich-quick schemes and ways to grow hair through hypnosis. It chepaens the overall product. AAR would do better to seek out local advertisers -- car dealerships, local television promos, etc. -- which may require more people hours, than to do what they are doing now, which is contract with a third-party agency that can fill advertising space all over the country. They aren't making any more money doing it the current way, but they have no doubt lost listeners along the way as a result, myself included.
88 - casey
>>If I did that I'd have to actually listen to crap like Limbaugh or Franken and it's not worth my time.
You sure have a strong opinion of something you admit you don't listen to.
89 - casey
>>Other than Al Franken, who has more of an interview format, almost like a liberal NPR show, AAR is filled with ranters. There is no excuse for Janeane Garofolo being on the air. Randy Rhodes is a left-wing Rush Limbaugh, harping on a few issues, and from what I can tell, frequently taking things out of context. Jerry Spring is just a long, breathless diatribe.
I've only posting here for the last two days but I have found that there is very little evidence of what is said and when confronted the excuses are lame. How about making it interesting and showing us some evidence of "Randy Rhodes is a left-wing Rush Limbaugh, harping on a few issues, and from what I can tell, frequently taking things out of context." I would venture to say this is only your opinion, which you are entitled to but some others may have a different opinion, which they are entitled to.
90 - casey
>>Let's count the lies on each side....
>>Comment 85 posted by Dave Nalle on August 4, 2005 04:56 PM:
If I did that I'd have to actually listen to crap like Limbaugh or Franken and it's not worth my time.
I take that as a NO...
91 - David R. Mark
casey -- I'm speaking as someone who AAR is targeting, but I have a hard time listening to Randi Rhodes.
I can't provide you with a transcript, but I remember how after the election Rhodes went on and on, making declarative statements about fraud in Ohio and Florida on election day, even after the DNC backed off those charges. I had written on my blog that Blackwell didn't make things easier by delaying the process and giving the appearance of being an obstacle to the Congressional hearings. But Rhodes essentially declared him guilty and the system fixed, in large part because she factored in a ground-swell among younger voters that statistically didn't materialize, and she failed to factor in an off-setting ground-swell among the religious right.
Was there fraud in Ohio and Florida? I don't know. But when you only present half the story, and practice guilty until proven innocent, and repeat that day in day out, you lose listeners. I would flip on Rhodes for a minute or two, hear her start on the same path, and then turn off. After a few days, I stopped turning her on in the first place.
AAR has since changed the format, but I like the show they had with Rachel Maddow, which was more interview-based in nature. I just can't listen to someone drone on, only allowing sympatheic callers (or praising) to get on the air, and only on the topic of the day. Rush does it, too, which is a main reason I rarely listen to him. AAR has several of these hosts.
Also, AAR lowers itself to the baseline conservative radio when it has hosts like Mike Malloy discussing the "Bush crime family," or when Garofalo talks of Bush as a criminal and a drunk. Randi Rhodes on several occasions has made fun of Bush's intelligence, and of the partying habits of Jenna Bush. It's so juvenile. And as a listener, how can I say Rush is flawed when he does that, but not say the same when the AAR personalities do?
92 - casey
First are you saying that AAR is targeting you personally or as a group of people?
I really can't argue with anything you said because I know very little about OHIO but did follow the Florida in 2000
pretty closely. Would you have preferred that Randi just ignored the
stories as that was what everyone was talking about at the time. It has changed the whole direction of this country and if there was any fraud it had to be brought out into the open.
I listened to her the whole time and like you I don't know if there was fraud or not but she would have been remiss to have nopt reported on it and she does have strong views. That is what everyone likes about her.
I like Rachel Maddow also but wasn't inpressed with her old show. I think her new show should take over the Springer time slot but that's my call.
As for calling Bush a drunk, I believe he admitted that and for making fun ofhis intelligence, you must live in
a bubble to not have heard the blunders he continues to make. They have books out that you can buy of the most ridiculous things he says.
I just made put your blog on my favorites but haven't been able to
chek it out yet. I'll let you know..
93 - casey
Nice site Dave, I must admit I was surprised at the content. We enjoy a lot of the same sites.
I guess the only thing I can say in defense of AAR is if I have my choice of Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy or Kinsley and Colmes, I'll take Randi and Mike in a second. I guess they are my cup of tea because they fight back and don't just sit and take it like some do.
It's a matter of what you are looking for in a host.
>>>AAR would be more successful, I think, if they brought aboard better journalists, rather than personalities, to host their shows.
I hope you were kidding here. Just look at the way our Media conceals things today and you want to give them AAR too. I read somewhere that most Journalist today are more worried about not burning their bridges then they are in reporting the news..
94 - Dave Nalle
>>You sure have a strong opinion of something you admit you don't listen to.<<
I used to listen to Limbaugh because it was all there was on talk radio around here for a long time. I found it occasionally amusing, but bombastic and unimaginative politicially. I've listened to Franken recently through his TV broadcasts. He's just awful. For a guy who used to be a comedy writer he couldn't be less funny. I wouldn't call either of them liars, but they both twist facts so serve their interests in very much the same way. And it's quite transparent if you have any familiarity with current events. But on the up side, they're both less crazy than Alex Jones. But then so is Charlie Manson.
Dave
95 - Dave Nalle
>>Was there fraud in Ohio and Florida? I don't know. But when you only present half the story, and practice guilty until proven innocent, and repeat that day in day out, you lose listeners. I would flip on Rhodes for a minute or two, hear her start on the same path, and then turn off. After a few days, I stopped turning her on in the first place. <<
This is exactly the reaction I have to Limbaugh. What does it say about this kind of show when intelligent people who are politically somewhat sympathetic to the perspective of the show can't stand to listen to it for a prolonged period?
Have you ever listened to Neal Boortz? I'd be interested to hear your take on his show.
Dave
96 - casey
>>>I wouldn't call either of them liars, but they both twist facts so serve their interests in very much the same way.
I listened to LImbaugh for over 15 years and I can say for sure he is a liar. Unless you say that someone that broadcasts over the radio that Vince Foster was killed in an apartment rented by Hillary Clinton and then moved to the park where he was found isn't lying. That's just one of many times I have caught him in lies. Now I have been listening to Franken since AAR came on and would gladly listen to anything you have where he distorts or twists the facts.. When I say lies I just don't mean Limbaugh. The whole administration has done nothing but lie since they were sworn in. That to me is the difference in the ideology between the Parties. I'm not saying Democrats never lie but the Reps. seem to make a living at it.
97 - Dan
"Was there fraud in Ohio and Florida?"
No, there were allegations of fraud that have been thouroughly investigated and proven unfounded. In Florida, every subsequent count of votes showed Bush's margin increase. In Ohio the voter to machine ratio was actually skewed slightly in Kerry's favor.
Still, people doggedly pretend that the issue is inconclusive. They are aided in their ignorance by a disgraceful mainstream media that deliberately obscures truth.
Next election cycle, there will be conspiratorial intonations of past election fraud "allegations". As if.
I can't speak for all conservative talk radio, but Rush Limbaugh deals in truth. If he alleges, for example, that a democratic senator is a hypocrite, he'll play un-tampered with, in-context recordings of the senator that make his point. Rush has his feet held to the fire by the main stream media.
Not so with 'error America'. As I noted in comment #45, Randi Rhodes is deliberately making false statements from an apparantly alternative universe that have no basis in reality.
It's a double standard.
98 - Dave Nalle
>>Unless you say that someone that broadcasts over the radio that Vince Foster was killed in an apartment rented by Hillary Clinton and then moved to the park where he was found isn't lying. That's just one of many times I have caught him in lies.<<
There's where we differ, on the definition of a lie. In many cases the lie is in the eye of the beholder. I was still listening during his hammering on the Vince Foster issue, and I know for a fact that he did not present any of the things you refer to as fact. He very carefully put the ideas about the Vince Foster case forward in the form of speculation with some evidence, but much more hypothetical theorizing. He definitely never crossed the line into saying that Hillary Clinton had Foster murdered, he just implied it. That's not a lie as such, it's a classic example of propagandistic spinmerchandising.
Dave
99 - casey
Dave,
I hate to tell you this but he did broadcast over the radio for over two hours that Vince Foster waskilled in an apartment rented by Hillary Clinton and then moved to the Park where his body was found. He then came back and said that the apartment was rented by white house people from Arkansas. Now you can tell me it never happened all you want but I worked second shift so I would listen to Limbaugh while in the bathroom and on my way to work and this day stands out because as soon as I heard it I turned on the TV to see what was happening and there was nothing on.
100 - casey
Here's just a few:
The absolutely false rumors that Vince Foster was killed were all over the place.
Rush Limbaugh even lied and said that he had a fax that had evidence that ...
Rush Limbaugh has been guilty of a lot of the falsehoods, whether it's claiming
... before Columbus or that Vince Foster was killed in an apartment owned by ...
To deny that Vince Foster committed suicide becomes, then, ... The apartment was
supposed to be just across the Potomac River from Washington, ...
I confronted Rush Limbaugh about his lies during the 2000 election season. ...
that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary ...
101 - casey
In fact, as Media Matters for America noted on June 23 and June 30, the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) studied Florida's disputed ballots and concluded that Gore emerged the winner in at least four recount scenarios. The NORC study was sponsored by news organizations including The Associated Press, The New York Times, and CNN, as well as The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Co., and Tribune Publishing (which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel). According to a November 12, 2001, Washington Post article on the NORC's findings, "[I]f Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins."
102 - casey
Approved by the Commissioners on June 8, 2001
Extracted in its entirety from GPOAccess website, April 30, 2002.
Contains: Executive Summary, Introduction, 9 Chapters, Epilogue, Dissenting Opinion, Appendices and a Report on the Racial Impact of the Rejection of Ballots Cast in Florida.
View Pages: Report with Table of Contents
Abstract: Following the extremely controversial 2000 presidential election, The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released this report on voting irregularities in Florida. The Commission held three days of hearings in each of Miami and Tallahassee and heard testimony from over 100 witnesses. The Commission found that, "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." The Commission also determined that Florida had violated sections of the Voting Rights Act and Secretary of State Katherine Harris failed to provide leadership in adequately preparing Florida precincts for a large voter turnout. Problems with voter lists used at various precincts caused significant voter disenfranchisement, particularly among African-Americans. An estimated 14.4% of black voters in Florida cast ballots that were rejected, compared to only 1.6% for non-black voters. One Miami-Dade poll worker lamented, "By far this was the worst election I have ever experienced. After that election, I decided I didn't want to work as a clerk anymore." Appendices include photographic images of a Miami-Dade polling place described as a "medieval labyrinth" of "standing water, orange cones, barriers, deep pits, [and] broken concrete"; and the now infamous Palm Beach County "butterfly ballot."
Superintendent of Documents Number: CR 1.2:20010395
103 - Dave Nalle
Casey, where are all those unattributed quotes from? Maybe I didn't hear the series of Limbaugh shows you did. The ones I heard just suggested rather than outright saying that Hillary was involved in the Foster death. Perhaps I missed the sequence of shows where he outright lied. I'd love to see transcripts of his 'lies' rather than your quotes which appear to be of other people saying he lied.
Dave
104 - Dave Nalle
Casey, your characterization of the NORC results is just a tiny bit innacurate. First off, the NORC study did not determine ANY possible outcomes of the election. It's a study of methodology and does not draw conclusions.
However, from the data analysts have subsequently drawn up 8 scenarios, 4 of which would have Gore winning and 4 of which would have Bush winning - one of the secnarios under which Bush wins is the specific recount type requested by Gore. The inevitable conclusion from the data in the report is that if there had been a full recount in Florida Bush would definitely have won.
The quote you give from WaPo is interesting, but in fact the comment they made is incorrect. According to the actual data in the report, the result of that full recount would have been a Bush victory.
This is all well documented. Take a look at Florida Election 2000.
Dave
105 - Casey
This is as far as I go. This give you the date.I remember listening for over two hours because of the nature of the broadcast. I then had to go into work and could not listen anymore...
>>>Remarkably, this outspoken critic of “shoddy reporting” is the same man who, on March 10, 1994, urgently warned his audience, “Brace yourselves,” and then shared a report “that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton…”
106 - Dave Nalle
Right there, in your own words is an indication that Limbaugh did not make the outright claims you originally said he did. You say that he 'shared a report'. That means that he has plausible deniability. He didn't say it, he was merely repeating what someone else had said, which might or might not be true. That's how you do it if you want to smear someone and not take responsibility for it.
Dave
107 - casey
>>>Right there, in your own words is an indication that Limbaugh did not make the outright claims you originally said he did. You say that he 'shared a report'. That means that he has plausible deniability. He didn't say it, he was merely repeating what someone else had said, which might or might not be true. That's how you do it if you want to smear someone and not take responsibility for it.
The only thing Dave was that if I would have continued on the article it said:
As recounted at fair.org (Extra!, July/August 1994), “Limbaugh took this baseless rumor from a small insiders’ newsletter and broadcast it to his radio audience of millions, adding his own new inaccuracies: *****The newsletter did not report"as Limbaugh claimed"that Foster was murdered, or that the apartment was owned by Hillary Rodham Clinton.***** Limbaugh’s repetition of an unfounded rumor has been credited (Chicago Tribune, 3/11/94; Newsweek, 3/21/94) with contributing to a plunge in the stock market on the day it was aired.”
I guess its okay if he changes it to say what he wants.. You guys are unbelievable..
108 - Dave Nalle
So, Limbaugh was passing on rumor and speculation. That's what I said in the first place. I still don't believe he presented them as fact. From what I recall from listening to it he very clearly couched his statements in language which unambiguously presented the material as hypothetical, not fact.
>>I guess its okay if he changes it to say what he wants.. You guys are unbelievable..<<
Who are 'you guys'? Got a little paranoid fantasy going have you?
Dave
109 - casey
By the way Dave, I have a 1/2 inch stack of papers here that give some of the falsehoods that Limbaugh has said over the years before I stopped listening to him...
Since you listened so close do you remember the one about Chelsea Clinton's Sidewall Friends school where he said they assigned eight graders to write a paper on "Why I feel guilty being white'. His source was suppose to be CBS news which said they never reported such a story. Sidewell Friend said it would never do that as one-quarted of their students are non-white.
110 - Dave Nalle
>>By the way Dave, I have a 1/2 inch stack of papers here that give some of the falsehoods that Limbaugh has said over the years before I stopped listening to him...<<
I don't doubt it. You seem to have a real obsession here. But I bet if you go through that stack objectively you'd find that most of the 'falsehoods' are not so much lies as supposition and innuendo with very few instances where he comes out and says something clearly and unequivocally false.
I'm not arguing that Rush isn't a propagandizing scumbag, but he is at least somewhat careful about not saying anything blatantly libelous. Notice that he hasn't been successfully sued over anything he's said.
>>Since you listened so close<<
I listened occasionally years and years ago. I just happen to remember the Vince Foster shows.
>> do you remember the one about Chelsea Clinton's Sidewall Friends school <<
It's Sidwell Friends, not Sidewall.
>>where he said they assigned eight graders to write a paper on "Why I feel guilty being white'. His source was suppose to be CBS news which said they never reported such a story. Sidewell Friend said it would never do that as one-quarted of their students are non-white.<<
Never heard that story. Sidwell is extremely liberal - run by Quakers - so it's a believable story. And in fact, from what I've read Limbaugh got the story from a journalist (not with CBS) who had been told that such an assignment was given out by a parent of a kid at the school. So it was a third hand rumor which Limbaugh repeated. Not a lie, but at the same time an example of poor judgement and absolute lack of discrimination when something he heard matched his expectations.
That kind of thing is characteristic of Limbaugh. He doesn't lie, he just repeats stuff he hears from other sources which he likes without making any effort to confirm if they are actually true. That way he can pass the blame to the original source and make the point he wants to make without actually, technically lying.
Dave
111 - Jeff b
hey you guys, stop the jibber-jabber, and get back to work
112 - casey
So, Limbaugh was passing on rumor and speculation. That's what I said in the first place. I still don't believe he presented them as fact. From what I recall from listening to it he very clearly couched his statements in language which unambiguously presented the material as hypothetical, not fact.
I'm sitting here laughing because I just found out that Limbaugh can't lie.
First you tell me you remember his programs on Vice Fosterm then you say maybe you missed that one, then you want a transcript of the program, then he was just sharing a report, which gives him plausable deniability and finally when I show you he changed the report you say:So, Limbaugh was passing on rumor and speculation. That's what I said in the first place. I still don't believe he presented them as fact. From what I recall from listening to it he very clearly couched his statements in language which unambiguously presented the material as hypothetical, not fact.
I would be ashamed to have to change so many things in such a short time...
113 - Dave Nalle
I said maybe I missed a show, because what you were saying didn't match my recollection of that sequence of shows. Then you changed what you had said to show that Limbaugh did not actually make a direct lie, confirming my original belief. It was not I who changed position, but you.
>>I would be ashamed to have to change so many things in such a short time...<<
Are you blushing?
Dave
114 - casey
Not in the least and anyone that reads what transpired will understand what I said.
115 - Dave Nalle
You said that Limbaugh had lied, then you described the situation in more detail and it was obvious that it wasn't a lie, but repetition of speculation from another source. The difference between those two is pretty clear to anyone except you.
Dave
116 - casey
Definitions of liar on the Web:
a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it.
117 - Dave Nalle
The first definition is self referential and therefore useless. The second one is much better, but as should be clear it relies on intent. To prove someone is a liar you have to prove that they knew what they were saying was untrue and said it anyway. So long as there is a reasonable possibility that it might be true in their mind when they say it then it's not a lie.
Dave
118 - casey
person who has lied or who lies repeatedly
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false; and novels, though false, are not lies. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. A person who tells a lie, a
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar
119 - Dave Nalle
Again, intent. You have to prove Limbaugh knew what he was repeating was false. Good luck.
Dave
120 - CASEY
*****The newsletter did not report"as Limbaugh claimed"that Foster was murdered, or that the apartment was owned by Hillary Rodham Clinton.*****
121 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but as I recall Limbaugh just put those ideas out as speculations of things that MIGHT have happened based on the newsletter. He didn't say that he had any evidence that they had, just presented 'what if' scenarios. It's a bit slimy and certainly partisan, but it's not lying.
Dave
122 - B. Samuel Davis
As for Air America, I don't see how you get around the 1 share in New York City. The .02 less than when it was just WLIB, which, by the way wasn't just Caribbean music - it had an evening political talk show which in some ways is remarkably similar to Air America. What I find distinctly odd about Air America, however, is not its anti-Republican rants, but rather its pro-Democratic slant. That distinguishes Air America from the radical WBAI, although sometimes it seems that Air America is even more radical than BAI. As a side note, I was surprised to learn that BAI accepts government funding - how does that square with Republican efforts to have public broadcasting - which is supported by tax payer dollars - be "fair and balanced"?
123 - Robert Hill
Being one of the Coloradians that affected the radio... I listen to 760 AM to get a laugh and find out what's going to be put through the ringer next. The only reason that I don't listen to 630 AM as much is that 710 KNUS is a fantastic place to also get information. Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved... Great lineup. There is almost too much good conservative talk radio to choose from out here.