![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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 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more as the number grows -- the section perpetuates misinformation, as the data will always be incomplete and quickly outdated.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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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. – Clockwork Soul 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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..?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
I've started a template for Air America. It can be found at {{ AAR}}. -- Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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 Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
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:
I'm not sure this belongs in the intro. Is there somewhere else this should go? Under the controversy section? Oh well. -- Lord Vold e mort (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 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)
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
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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.
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
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)
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) .
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?
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)
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)
This is according to a NY Post story. How do we work this in? -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Given that this is ONLY a rumor based on a blog, I don't think it should go in at all. davert
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)
Apparently Wikipedia auto-complains at 34KB. Any thoughts on spliting the article?
Thetrick 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
Cwolfsheep 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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. – Clockwork Soul 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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..?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
I've started a template for Air America. It can be found at {{ AAR}}. -- Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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? 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)
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)
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)
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 Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
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:
I'm not sure this belongs in the intro. Is there somewhere else this should go? Under the controversy section? Oh well. -- Lord Vold e mort (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 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)
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
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)
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) .
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)
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.
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.
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
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)
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) .
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?
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)
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)
This is according to a NY Post story. How do we work this in? -- badlydrawnjeff ( WP:MEME?) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Given that this is ONLY a rumor based on a blog, I don't think it should go in at all. davert
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)
Apparently Wikipedia auto-complains at 34KB. Any thoughts on spliting the article?
Thetrick 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ruthfulbarbarity 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
Cwolfsheep 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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)