Air America Radio Files for Bankruptcy

[dclistener]

Alas, I have WOXY back for my music. But I will lose Air America Radio for my politics. What a bummer. I really hope an angel investor will come in and save Air America. Air America Radio didn't have much of a chance because they received so little corporate advertisement. After all, most Fortune 500 aren't going to pay for radio air time if that radio network bashes CEO billionaries, tax cuts for the rich, supports stronger environmental regulations, promotes pro-labor union positions, and criticize the Iraq War.

Perhaps, they should just stream broadcasts over the Internet and forget terrestial radio a la Woxy.

Most liberal and progressive people use the Internet for communication and information about political developments. Losing Air America is not a huge blow to the progressive movement. Talk radio-for whatever reason-is more popular with conservatives in this country. So the Republicans and chatter heads at FOXNews will do cartwheels and say, "we told you so" about liberal radio. Little do the idiots realize that liberals get their information from far more sources than just partisan broadcast radio.

The Republicans will be a minority in the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate by January 2007.

[gwar469]

why doesn't Al Franken pony up some cash to keep it running? or was he already doing that?

[seafoamgreen]

yeah, this is no shock. I hardly ever listen to it, it was like turning the volume up on democrat/left whining. woo-hoo. and i'm normally so into lefties patting themselves on the back.

oh. and i'm fairly sure this is because they never hired Ed Asner. That would have been radio gold.

[The Big Crunch]

I listened once for an hour or so, I hated it. I don't like stuff like that, it's so blatantly one-sided, hate filled, and downright propagandistic. Al Franken also annoys me.

Here's a possible take, or two:

- There's probably some serious truth to the stereotype that a good deal of "Liberals" who listen to the radio are tuning into NPR for news related programming. Now, here's my opinion, based on being a regular listener to WAMU in the DC area. Yeah, in general it may have a slight Liberal bias, but I would argue not much. I've heard about several nonpartisan studies over the last year that have dealt with the idea of bias in news coverage. All of these (including one done by a conservative think tank) put NPR at around the center or slightly left. Interestingly enough The Wall Street Journal came in on most of these at about the same level or slightly to the right. The point is that centrism in media (or claims at trying to be centrist) has really been under attack as simply being "highly liberal propaganda in disguise" because the main demagogues of the right's "Talk media" (Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh) are sooooooooooooooooooo faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar to the right. In my opinion, radio listening Liberals would rather hear balanced news programming that features intelligent, mannerly, and balanced discussions in which various sides of the issues are discussed thoughtfully and critically. They don’t really care to hear a bunch of folks going on for hours and hours in a ceaseless parade of snarky, blatantly one-sided political attacks.

- Just for reference here, I listen to the Diane Rheem Show, To The Point, and Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Occasionally some other news shows, but that’s really it. Maybe there are some REALLY liberals shows that occupy the NPR stations elsewhere, but IMO, these are pretty balanced shows.

- Yeah, this insinuates that Liberals have a greater tendency towards critical thinking. Yeah, it insinuates that they are better at processing info and actually desire the option of making their own opinions in a more independent fashion than a large number of conservatives. Yeah, it’s a sweeping generalization that I freely admit IN NO WAY applies to all conservatives. Lots of conservatives hate Limbaugh, like NPR, are highly educated and intelligent, and really don’t like people yelling at each other. However, in general, I think these stereotypes hold out enough that it partially explains why there is a market for conservative radio programming that blatantly peddles highly enraged and inflammatory propaganda, while the same strategy from a Liberal side ends up failing to find enough of an audience to be financially successful. I suppose you could argue that there just aren’t many Liberals out there, and thus there is no audience, but opinion surveys and voter registration records seem to quantifiably disprove that theory. I guess you could also say that Liberals are just too dumb to listen to political radio because they can’t understand the news, but that also seems to be thoroughly laughable. Based on voter registration, it’s about a fifty-fifty split in how people designate themselves, thus it must be something within the mind-set of the listening audiences that responds (or doesn’t respond) to a specific type of program.

- I may be wrong here, but Air America was a whole network devoted entirely to Liberal (basically Democratic) propaganda, right? Is this how conservative radio works? Don’t they usually just have shows that run on networks that are technically “unaffiliated” and offer other talk programming such as sports talks shows in between guys like Rush and Hannity? Maybe the error was assuming that there is any type of audience on either side of the political aisle for a station that does nothing but spew one-sided political propaganda 24/7?

[slopechz]

I listened once for an hour or so, I hated it. I don't like stuff like that, it's so blatantly one-sided, hate filled, and downright propagandistic. Al Franken also annoys me.
You mean like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, etc. etc. etc.

[dclistener]

Being from the DC area myself, I like to listen to WAMU as well. The Kojo show during the early afternoons is good listening.

I still listen to WPFW 89.3 FM for talk radio. I think the station still devotes certain programming to left-leaning talk hosts and viewpoints. The music playlists have an interesting mix of American jazz and ethnic Caribbean tunes.

Anyway, Air America Radio gave me red meat. Once in a while, I really enjoyed hearing complete slams of the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress. But yeah, I didn't have to use my brain when I listened to Al Franken, Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy. I should just nodded my head in agreement and cursed at anything Republican. If anything listening to Air America Radio would raise my blood pressure and cause serious emotional problems. I would get so fired up that I wanted to take a baseball bat and beat the crap out of the first right-winger that I met on the street.

[markalot]

I listen to NPR. I think there news shows are about as unbiased as can be expected. Fresh Air and Diane Rheem, while sometimes fun to listen too, really need some more balance if they're going to stay on public radio. When Terry Gross has to interview someone she doesn't agree with the questions she asks just go all to hell, otherwise she's a damn good interviewer.

Notes from NPR's omnbudsman were very good http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?columnId=2781901 until he left.

IMO liberals and progressives, like all of us, really want you to know that their way of thinking is correct and this seeps into the reporting. Many times this bias is disguised as critical thinking. I do NOT think some of the FOX shows are more biased than many of the opinion shows found on NPR. Instead I think liberals still aren't used to giving up some ground to the conservatives and the idea someone can come out so biased against the 'correct' way of thinking is astounding.

Both sides are equally wrong, something else neither one can deal with.

Air America sucked like Rush Limbaug sucks. I think that was their goal, so I suppose they succeeded. To bad the audience is one that avoids bad things.

[Breeze]

As I explained to a friend who was lamenting Air America's demise... like it or not, that whole free-market thing that GOPers love to talk about does exist. It's not enough to just put a product out there--people actually have to want it and like it enough to come back to it. And from what I ever heard of Air America, that was not the case. I mean, God bless Al Franken--the guy's smart, a great writer, an engaging speaker, and funny as hell. But he sucked out loud on the radio.

My friend then said that liberals should have supported the network regardless of its programming/quality, because it was in their best interests to do so. But I explained that he programming has to be good for people to have an interest in it. You can tell people that something is for their own good, but if they aren't into it, they won't care.

And to go along with what Crunch said, it's silly to think that right-wing radio is full of GOP shills but left-wing radio is 100% fact--although this apparently was not an uncommon assumption. My aforementioned friend considered AA (and Franken in particular) a source of "news." But let's face it, a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece; it's all preaching to the choir.

Perhaps Air America has served its purpose... even if that purpose is to be an example of what not to do the next time someone tries something like this.

[Handy Smurf]

anyone ever see the documentary about the "birth" of Air America? Its actually pretty interesting. This is their second time going under, then, isnt it?

[seafoamgreen]

anyone ever see the documentary about the "birth" of Air America? Its actually pretty interesting. This is their second time going under, then, isnt it?

yup. i can't remember the title, but it did manage to make air america look rather shady.

[The Big Crunch]

Fresh Air and Diane Rheem, while sometimes fun to listen too, really need some more balance if they're going to stay on public radio..
Stay on the air? You gotta be kidding. Hell, they could both go totally biased and probably stay on the air; those are two of the most widely syndicated programs in the NPR stable. I’ve only heard Fresh Air a few times, it comes on at 3:00 am in the DC market. I heard her interview Springsteen once though and thought it was really good; she actually had some original and interesting questions.

Diane’s a weird mix. On one hand she often reveals her own left-leaning views, but she does do an excellent job as a moderator, has well-informed guests from both sides of an issue, and asks solid questions to “liberal” guests, often repeating the question if they seem evasive. Her Friday news roundup show tries to have a pundit from both sides and a neutral reporter, but usually it’s 2-1 in favor of Liberal opinion. That being said, Tony Blankley, Bill Krystal, and Jim Engle of Fox news are on there a LOT, and they are fairly strong conservative voices (particularly Blankley who is the editorial page editor of the Washington Times and Krystal who publishes the Weekly Standard).

You gotta give her some credit with callers though. Yeah, she gets a lot of Liberals calling in. Yeah, their “questions” are often thinly veiled tirades against Bush and the GOP, but she does draw some lines. I’ve noticed an annoying trend of more callers calling up with much harsher words for the administration, often with a lot of name-calling and highly speculative theories (Bush planned 911, Bush knows where Osama is, all the ultra-left conspiracy crap). Diane consistently cuts those calls off and will sternly tell the callers and listening audience that she won’t tolerate outlandish and insulting theories with no evidence to support them. I recently heard her cut off a caller who opened up his “question” by saying that he felt the President was “a cold-blooded war criminal.” She immediately told him she didn’t regard such inflammatory accusations toward any sitting president as being responsible or welcome on her show. It’s kind’ve a fine line I guess. Again, she’s got a lot of angry lefties listening to her show, so the calls will mostly be accusatory and negative towards the GOP, but I think she does a decent enough job of trying to keep the discussion balanced and free of raw vitriol. Furthermore, when she gets an angry right-winger calling up to lambaste her or one of her guests for being an irresponsible or incompetent Liberal, she generally lets them have their say and her reply is almost always polite and free of any sense of putting up an angry “comeback” like you would find from a Rush or Hannity if they were told something similar by an angry Liberal caller.

[twentyshots]

My aforementioned friend considered AA (and Franken in particular) a source of "news." But let's face it, a mouthpiece is a mouthpiece; it's all preaching to the choir.


i would disagree and say that Air America succeeded in getting SOME converts, because there are a lot of AM grunts out there, somebody looking for something to chew on during their 8 hour shifts and they started questioning some things when they had a new option.......my uncle is one of them. He is not what I would call a liberal guy but has changed his entire outlook on the war and a few other things due to Jerry Springer and Ed Schultz. Especially Schultz who is a meat and potatoes/fishing/college football kind of guy= relatable. So it was mildlt effective, but just not a popular format with the liberal base.
Al Franken would regularly also take Rush Limbaugh to task about some of the things he would say on his program, so introducing doubt into the AM landscape didn't hurt the left wing cause, but really it all illustrates a larger point that talk radio is mostly tediously chasing it's own tail so yeah, some things are doomed.

[Shlep]

I listened once for an hour or so, I hated it. I don't like stuff like that, it's so blatantly one-sided, hate filled, and downright propagandistic.

You mean like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, etc. etc. etc.


Perhaps I shouldn't presume to speak in BCs' stead, but I'm assuming his response would "Yes." I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that reasonable minds agree the above-mentioned gang (as well as quite a few other conservative radio personalities) are aggressive, partisan hacks for the GOP who are frequently mean-spirited and moreover not really interested in discourse but rather convincing the already-convinced and making them feel validated.

Why they apparently need to be brought up whenever someone taks a jab at stridently liberal media flacks, I have no idea.

I may be wrong here, but Air America was a whole network devoted entirely to Liberal (basically Democratic) propaganda, right?

I seem to recall one of the main reasons stated for starting Air America Radio was to get Bush booted out of office in 2004; this, of course, did not happen and I have no idea why anyone behind getting the network off the ground to begin with thought it would. Considering that Air America was loudly and unabashedly marketed as a stridently liberal sort of thing, I can only imagine people who decided Bush should never have made it into office in 2000, let alone get removed in 2004 and were in no way in any need of being sold on the idea of voting for Kerry would be tuning in. One could only hope that people with the money and influence to get a syndicated radio network pretty much willed into existence wouldn't be cement-headed enough to think Limbaugh fans would be heading across the dial to Air America and not only listening to it with an open mind but eventually having an epiphany, realizing Al Franken is right, and switching party affiliation.

Though I suppose conservatives may have made up a sizable segment of Air Americas' audience for the same reason that quite a few liberals tune into Limbaugh: to reaffirm their loathing of the other side.

Of course, I thought Air America was a boneheaded idea from the word "Go." I share the perception most seem to have that talk radio is dominated by conservatives; I'm not sure why this is, other than perhaps because TV news is considered to be more often than not left of center (yes, I know know, Fox News...) and whether or not it really is, I think hardcore conservatives believe it to be so. In any case, quite a lot of liberals (including Franken) seem to think that this state of affairs in the result of deep-pocketed conservatives with a lot of clout in terrestrial radio seeing to it that right-wing broadcasters have been able to bully their way into most of the market while pragmatically and unfairly marginalizing liberal ones. That uber-conservative radio shows are profitable enterprises due to the large demand for them doesn't seem to occur to them; if there was a huge hue and cry for liberal radio, there'd have been no real need for Air America. Though I don't think there was a need anyway, since in you want to see Bush and his crew get savaged on a pseudo-news show, there are already two perfectly good options available: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

[slopechz]

Why they apparently need to be brought up whenever someone taks a jab at stridently liberal media flacks, I have no idea.
Glad you asked. The media has been branded "left wing liberal leaning" by the far right for the longest time. That's just bunk.

Besides, we need hate speech from both sides of the ledger to even things out. :p

[markalot]

Glad you asked. The media has been branded "left wing liberal leaning" by the far right for the longest time. That's just bunk.

There is something wrong with your statement. I think it's the assumption that you're correct. Just because right wing media exists and sucks doesn't mean mainstream media is not biased.

If PBS (that's P as in Public) can continue to fund shows like Bill Moyers then there will be right wingers insisting that they get equal time.

[The Big Crunch]

If PBS (that's P as in Public) can continue to fund shows like Bill Moyers then there will be right wingers insisting that they get equal time.
I never really watched it in the first place, so I could be wrong, but I thought Moyers had stopped doing his program.

[markalot]

I never really watched it in the first place, so I could be wrong, but I thought Moyers had stopped doing his program.

He did, he retired. I wasn't trying to make that the point. PBS continues to feel like it's ok to fund shows that are obviously very left of center. It's that old problem again with someone thinking that they are correct so it must be ok.

The same thing happend with the gay parents on that one kids show (Arthur Busters travel show or something). Even though the MAJORITY of americans are against gay marriage because liberals think it's ok they felt like they could breech the subject on a kids show. Because, of course, they're correct and everyone else is wrong.

It's not a good way to win friends and influence people, that's for sure, but it gets the cheerleading squad pumped up.

[slopechz]

I never really watched it in the first place, so I could be wrong, but I thought Moyers had stopped doing his program.
He did! ;)

[Shlep]

Glad you asked. The media has been branded "left wing liberal leaning" by the far right for the longest time. That's just bunk.

True, though I've found in my experience that the media (at least "the mainstream media") usually tends to lean in the opposite political/ideological direction of whoever you're talking to when the subject of slant or bias in the media comes up. It often follows that if any of these folks are regular listeners/viewers of some partisan hack, they'll be quite enthusiastic in praising that person (or show, or website) is a welcome and sorely-needed antidote or voice in the wilderness of the otherwise hostile media.
`

[slopechz]

He did, he retired. I wasn't trying to make that the point. PBS continues to feel like it's ok to fund shows that are obviously very left of center. It's that old problem again with someone thinking that they are correct so it must be ok.

The same thing happend with the gay parents on that one kids show (Arthur Busters travel show or something). Even though the MAJORITY of americans are against gay marriage because liberals think it's ok they felt like they could breech the subject on a kids show because they're correct and everyone else is wrong.

It's not a good way to win friends and influence people, that's for sure, but it gets the cheerleading squad pumped up.
Hmmm, so what is your point, PBS is liberal and biased? FNC is conversative and biased. So what.

[slopechz]

True, though I've found in my experience that the media (at least "the mainstream media") usually tends to lean in the opposite political/ideological direction of whoever you're talking to when the subject of slant or bias in the media comes up. It often follows that if any of these folks are regular listeners/viewers of some partisan hack, they'll be quite enthusiastic in praising that person (or show, or website) is a welcome and sorely-needed antidote or voice in the wilderness of the otherwise hostile media.
`
I gotcha. I don't really see the media as having a liberal slant for the last 6 years. Do you?

[markalot]

Hmmm, so what is your point, PBS is liberal and biased? FNC is conversative and biased. So what.

One of them is funded with tax payer money and claims to be unbiased, the other is a commercial venture.

[drougan]

One of them is funded with tax payer money and claims to be unbiased, the other is a commercial venture.

Yeah, but they're not completely public. Otherwise we'd never have to put up with the pledge drives. And aren't most of the public station budgets more dependent on member donations than gov't (i.e. taxpayer) money?

I should think that engenders a certain free market quality to the programming, right?

[Breeze]

One of them is funded with tax payer money and claims to be unbiased, the other is a commercial venture.

Which one has that "fair and balanced" slogan again?

[markalot]

Which one has that "fair and balanced" slogan again?

I don't care because I'm not comparing the FOX crap network to PBS. I watch PBS, I don't watch FOX.

[The Big Crunch]

One of them is funded with tax payer money and claims to be unbiased, the other is a commercial venture.
Does it really claim to be "unbiased"? Also, a LOT of the financial support comes from private donations.

[markalot]

Yeah, but they're not completely public. Otherwise we'd never have to put up with the pledge drives. And aren't most of the public station budgets more dependent on member donations than gov't (i.e. taxpayer) money?

I should think that engenders a certain free market quality to the programming, right?

And if they want to segregate shows via private / public funds then I'm cool with that, but when you take donations and those donations aren't restricted to certain programming then I think you have to make sure that the programming is as neutral as possible and yet still engaging. That means you don't have to produce wimpy shows but you do have to try for some kind of balance.

Since I would prefer PBS not have any conservative leaning opinion shows I think a show like Bill Moyers was just bad for the network.

[Jumpman]

And if they want to segregate shows via private / public funds then I'm cool with that, but when you take donations and those donations aren't restricted to certain programming then I think you have to make sure that the programming is as neutral as possible and yet still engaging. That means you don't have to produce wimpy shows but you do have to try for some kind of balance.

Since I would prefer PBS not have any conservative leaning opinion shows I think a show like Bill Moyers was just bad for the network.


It may have been bad for the network, because of the negative attention that it brought, it was and is a very good show. NOW is still around, but hosted by David Broncoccio (sp???). He really did bring up issues that were found NOWHERE else in the television media, such as a great report on Chapter 11 of NAFTA, among other things. Sure it could show lefty leanings, but the show very often had on conservative and republican politicians, businessmen, whatever much in the mold of NPR. Unfortunately the GOP decided to go on a witchhunt, cut the show to 30 minutes from an hour and give us that wonderful piece of shit Tucker Carlson to add "balance". So I agree in the end it was bad for the network, but at least NOW is still on in a limited form, and just this last week they did a show on the FCC's (still ongoing) attempts at media consolidation, something that touches a chord across the ideological spectrum.

[slopechz]

Unfortunately the GOP decided to go on a witchhunt, cut the show to 30 minutes from an hour and give us that wonderful piece of shit Tucker Carlson to add "balance". So I agree in the end it was bad for the network, but at least NOW is still on in a limited form, and just this last week they did a show on the FCC's (still ongoing) attempts at media consolidation, something that touches a chord across the ideological spectrum.
A witchhunt you say??? I find that SHOCKING. :D

[The Big Crunch]

just this last week they did a show on the FCC's (still ongoing) attempts at media consolidation, something that touches a chord across the ideological spectrum.
Oh yeah... :rolleyes:

But this is also an issue that many a conservative pundit could quickly bring up as being evidence of "Liberal bias" on NOW. I can easily see someone like Sean Hannity railing against PBS for making an overblown piece of hype that assaults smart businesses like CCC by creating a big scare about the purported negative impacts that their success is having on the American culture. They'd say it's just another case of a Liberal program bashing the free enterprise system and seeking to impose a bunch of hindrances to well run businesses. Because Michael Powell would get a healthy dose of criticism in a show like this, you'd hear them whine about PBS once again going after officials in a Republican administration. In the end, the question would be why we fund a station that produces programs that are critical of successful American companies like CCC while targeting Republican appointees. Obviously a show that is critical of media conglomeration is nothing more than a Liberal hit job that is both ideologically driven and distasteful to the American values of free markets.

Segregate shows via private/government funds? So, would you segregate the employees who are paid by those funds into the right and left wing receptionists and janitors? The right-wing and left-wing office products? The right and left-wing HR personnel? It's more than just TV shows that the money goes towards.

I don't watch all the shows (or even many) but I watch a few, and it seems like they do a pretty good job being fairly balanced. Look, it's easy, VERY easy, to piss off an ultra-conservative. It's like they want to be pissed off at anything they feel is threatening to them so they look for those moments. It's almost a type of paranoia IMO. If you do a show about slavery, then you're being un-American by emphasizing negative parts of our history. A children's show in late October that mentions Halloween? You're advocating the occult and witchcraft. A special on Bob Dylan? Liberals advocating Bohemian lifestyles and drug use. A show on Genetics? Liberal advocating that we play God with our bodies while probably indirectly suggesting we legalize public-funding of stem cell research. This could go on and on. Pissing off a conservative who wants to be pissed off is like shooting fish in a fishbowl.

[slopechz]

How did this thread turn into a PBS thing?

[markalot]

But this is also an issue that many a conservative pundit could quickly bring up as being evidence of "Liberal bias" on NOW.

But wait. Just because I think NOW was biased doesn't mean I think the reaction by the right wing asshats is ok or appropriate.

[seafoamgreen]

I think the standard line of PBS is that shows like Bill Moyers' are counterbalanced with shows like Wall Street Week and that show on religion and ethics. i'm not sure whether i buy that.

But bias doesn't really bother me so much as political and media illiteracy. It's really not that hard to see bias when it exists if you know what to look for. Why not make a push for this sort of thing in schools, so that instead of monitoring everything for opinion, we give people the means of looking constructively at it.

wait, i just realized how stupid that sounds. :p

[Shlep]

It occurs to me now that perhaps news of Air America's death may be exaggerated...isn't this like the 138th time they've "experienced financial trouble," "lost money," "started tanking," and the like?

Bankruptcy != finished. If it did, we'd hardly have any airlines left.

[twentyshots]

It occurs to me now that perhaps news of Air America's death may be exaggerated...isn't this like the 138th time they've "experienced financial trouble," "lost money," "started tanking," and the like?

Bankruptcy != finished. If it did, we'd hardly have any airlines left.

true. i don't think it means they are gone per se, but getting crutches.

[almaniac27]

I usually listen to talk radio for the entertainment value. Air America is not the only progressive talk out there. There are some very intelligent shows out there that aren't AAR, like Thom Hartmann or Lionel. The Young Turks are also very good and I wish they hadn't jumped from Sirius to Air America. I miss them since I can't listen very much in the morning. Air America has some awful shows out there like Randi Rhodes and the recently fired Mike Malloy. Those shows have no substance, they were just extremely partisan ranting and raving shows, just like Michael Savage or Mark Levin, except they were on the other side of the aisle.

Being a total radio geek, I'm a big talk radio fan. I don't just listen to the progressives, 55KRC is also on my presets and I often listen to Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. I usually end up in a yelling match with my radio, but at least I know what the other side is saying and I still usually take the liberal side. If any of you guys have Sirius, try Thom Hartmann, or if you live in an area that carries Lionel, give them a try. Hartmann is on channel 146 from 12 noon to 1 pm, but his whole show is replayed at midnight. Lionel is on in Cincinnati on 1360 WSAI from I think 9 to 1 am. The nine o'clock hour is a replay from the night before. Al Franken is good too.

[TomZ]

I won't miss Air America - I put them in the category of hate radio - same as some of the far right radio programs, e.g., Limbaugh. I think if you listen to either extreme side too long, it will rot your brain. Both extremes are insane.

[weezer6]

randi rhodes was the absolute worst talk show host i have ever heard. she was/is unbearable.

[purdueman_in]

He did, he retired. I wasn't trying to make that the point. PBS continues to feel like it's ok to fund shows that are obviously very left of center.

You are quite right, of course. Just look at all of these liberal shows:

NOVA, Masterpiece Theatre, Sesame Street, Curious George, Antics Roadshow, America Quilts, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Clifford, Nightly Business Report, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, McLaughlin Group...the list goes one.

[Unrequited]

Political talk radio is shit. Doesn't matter whether it's left or right wing, it panders to the lowest common denominator. People who listen to it are just looking for reinforcement of their already held beliefs.

[Handy Smurf]

randi rhodes was the absolute worst talk show host i have ever heard. she was/is unbearable.
in the documentary, which I mentioned earlier, Randi Rhodes was such an asshole during an interview with Ralph Nader that he hung up on her. Just watching that contemptable cunt on film was like nails on a chalkboard

[markalot]

You are quite right, of course. Just look at all of these liberal shows:

NOVA, Masterpiece Theatre, Sesame Street, Curious George, Antics Roadshow, America Quilts, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Clifford, Nightly Business Report, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, McLaughlin Group...the list goes one.

Curious George is a damn hippy.

[purdueman_in]

Curious George is a damn hippy.

And, of course, we *know* the demographic PBS is going after with Antiques Roadshow, eh? :p

[snarf!]

I would get so fired up that I wanted to take a baseball bat and beat the crap out of the first right-winger that I met on the street.
Good thing I never met you on the streets in DC. Not that I am a right-winger. However, when conversing with someone who is biased one way or the other I find myself playing devil's advocate just to be contrary. ;) I happen to think both sides are complete fuckwads and for the life of me can't figure out why they can't just meet somewhere in the middle. Not directed to anyone on the boards. Just a general sentiment.

[Shlep]

If anything listening to Air America Radio would raise my blood pressure and cause serious emotional problems. I would get so fired up that I wanted to take a baseball bat and beat the crap out of the first right-winger that I met on the street.

As right-wingers are generally horny for the Second Amendment and most likely to be carrying a licensed, concealed firearm, this may not have been wise. ;)

[twentyshots]

in the documentary, which I mentioned earlier, Randi Rhodes was such an asshole during an interview with Ralph Nader that he hung up on her. Just watching that contemptable cunt on film was like nails on a chalkboard

wow. i knew she was a stooge, but how do you get Ralph Nader to hang up on you?

[Unrequited]

wow. i knew she was a stooge, but how do you get Ralph Nader to hang up on you?

Easy, Ralph Nader has a gigantic ego.

[ThomasC]

Was there ever Air America Television? I could've sworn I saw them covering 9/11, even though AA Radio didn't start until 2004. I was watching through a 9/11 TV web archive back in 2001 or 2002.

[twentyshots]

Easy, Ralph Nader has a gigantic ego.

i hear a lot of disgruntled democrats say that, but have no reason to believe it.

[BigSugar]

As right-wingers are generally horny for the Second Amendment and most likely to be carrying a licensed, concealed firearm, this may not have been wise. ;)

speaking of, i just got a totally sweet holoscope and bipod for my AR-15. not exactly conceal carry, but damn it's sweet!

air america. poorly conceived. poorly executed. poorly funded. three strikes and your out. next.

[seafoamgreen]

i hear a lot of disgruntled democrats say that, but have no reason to believe it.

to be fair, i hear it from ex-green party members who feel like nader's second presidential run tore the party away from it's mission of small scale, grassroots organizing and in doing so made it a joke.

[Shlep]

speaking of, i just got a totally sweet holoscope and bipod for my AR-15. not exactly conceal carry, but damn it's sweet!

"Holoscope"? What is this contrivance of which you speak? Is that one of those quick-acquisition sights with the floating reticle in it?

[the happy prole]

i hear a lot of disgruntled democrats say that, but have no reason to believe it.

I've met a lot of politicians, but Nader is still one of the most egomaniacal people I've ever encountered.

It's not actually that he's a primadonna. It goes further than that. He's 100% sure he's completely correct and no one else has a clue what they're talking about. He's convinced he'll go down in history as a genius. You have to have a gi-normous ego to throw your hat into the ring in a situation where the predicted outcome is that you will simply split the vote and allow the third-choice candidate to win.

There's no conflict between his personal interests and the national interest so he doesn't have to decide how much to sell out. And to give him his due, there are many ways in which that oversized ego works for his supporters.

[twentyshots]

You have to have a gi-normous ego to throw your hat into the ring in a situation where the predicted outcome is that you will simply split the vote and allow the third-choice candidate to win.


so because he has his own principles and no chance of winning he shouldn't run? that is exactly why he should run. that is exactly why i voted for him twice. as a matter of principle. it is more important now than ever for a third party to run. get a green out there, get a libertarian out there. it sounds like we are content to suffer through a two party system forever just because it would be messy to reconstruct. maybe it will never happen. maybe the majority really wants it to happen. at the current rate of corruption i imagine they will someday because Washington D.C is a massive star waiting to collapse on itself.

unless there are some personal traits of Nader's that make him unbearable, i just don't see it what you guys speak of. would he be anymore an egomaniac than anyone else running for office? the very act of running for office requires SOME ego.

and i don't see it just like i don't see him costing Gore the election because there are hard numbers in Florida that say otherwise. so when i hear that his running for office alone is the source of his egomania, that seems disingenuous to me. perhaps we are seeing idealism and egomania differently.

[Unrequited]

i hear a lot of disgruntled democrats say that, but have no reason to believe it.

Talk to anyone who's ever worked directly with him. I know several former Nader supporters who despise the man. He's a major self-promoter, period.

[BigSugar]

"Holoscope"? What is this contrivance of which you speak? Is that one of those quick-acquisition sights with the floating reticle in it?

aye! that it is my friend. all the better for targeting and eliminating the various fruits, vegetables and small trees on my friends farm where we shoot. those damn watermelons are breeding like crazy this year and they move like gazelles! LOL!

Err America. To "Err America" is human. To go silent? Divine.

[Buzzstein]

so because he has his own principles and no chance of winning he shouldn't run? that is exactly why he should run. that is exactly why i voted for him twice. as a matter of principle. it is more important now than ever for a third party to run. get a green out there, get a libertarian out there. it sounds like we are content to suffer through a two party system forever just because it would be messy to reconstruct. maybe it will never happen. maybe the majority really wants it to happen. at the current rate of corruption i imagine they will someday because Washington D.C is a massive star waiting to collapse on itself.

unless there are some personal traits of Nader's that make him unbearable, i just don't see it what you guys speak of. would he be anymore an egomaniac than anyone else running for office? the very act of running for office requires SOME ego.

and i don't see it just like i don't see him costing Gore the election because there are hard numbers in Florida that say otherwise. so when i hear that his running for office alone is the source of his egomania, that seems disingenuous to me. perhaps we are seeing idealism and egomania differently.

I'm with you on this twenty. I've never really sensed that Nader has much of an ego, but I don't know the man personally. Even if he does have a giant ego I still say he's a better alternative than any of the Republicrats. And I'm certainly not going to vote Libertarian. They scare me (even though I have some respect for them). In my opinion there have been no better presidential candidates than Ralph Nader in the last few years...giant ego or not.