The Arbitron ratings show a decline in Air America listerners even in New York after being on the air for over a year. Why is the market share for Air America not growing if it is doing as well as you say? By comparison conservative talk shows are showing increases in rating in most markets. I’m concerned that Air America will not be around next year to voice my views.

Sorry, but I’m not really worried about your conclusion. You make a vague, unsupported and unsourced statement about one of more than fifty stations and you draw broad conclusions from it. Even if you’re right on that one fact, how much of a drop–fifty percent, or one percent? The devil’s in the details. But I suspect that it’s not even true–that some naysayer looked at the numbers and chose some specific segment in a non-contextual way and divined a drop, or maybe even took it as a drop relative to something else but not itself. Or maybe AAR had an initial surge, dropped, and then has risen steadily since, but not yet reached the initial surge point. Who knows? If you don’t show your source, there’s no way to know if there is any veracity to your claim whatsoever.

No source, no believability. Come back with something solid and we’ll talk.

Here are facts provided by the LA Times in a column by Brian Anderson (yes, he is biased but I’ll get to that). First: Based on Arbitron ratings AAR is 24th in the NYC metro market, worse than the all Caribbean station it replaced. Second Bill Bennett, conservative Bill Bennett, launch a radio program at the same time as AAR and his show is on in *124* markets, 18 of the top 20. Finally, Rush alone has more than *7 times* the weekly audience as all of AAR programs. I am not at all certain that AAR will fail. But the numbers show that “growing” is not the same as “big.”
Anderson is bias, plugging his book “South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias.” You can make of that what you will. And he does not say which Arbitron ratings he is looking at. I take it, he is referring to recent ratings but you may find differently. Finally, satellite radio might save AAR or it might just allow it to exist as an oddity in a radio market that might fracture as the tv market did with the advent of cable.

PS the Anderson column ran April 18, 2005.

Eric:

As you pointed out, there is bias (to say the least!), and the “facts” represented in the article (an actual link wouldn’t hurt, guys) are far spottier than Anderson claims AAR is itself–not unusual for conservative critics. For example, in the first month or two of AAR’s run, some conservatives were quoting ratings that included periods before AAR went on the air; later, they used figures from portions of the ratings that were worst for AAR (like focusing on off-hour shows instead of the top lineup) and were non-relevant in terms of ratings. Marketers look at the all-important 18-35 year-old male demographic; Anderson didn’t quote that demographic, he quoted the overall ratings for the station in the market (the kind of comparison an amateur, not a marketer, makes), and wildly exaggerates it’s drop–WLIB’s overall ratings went from 1.3 at the start to 1.2 in the most recent complete quarterly ratings, hardly the miserable “sinking” that Anderson paints–and without a look at key demographics, it’s impossible to say whether AAR has even sunk at all!

As for the Bill Bennett comparison, I’d say that’s pretty iron-clad evidence that Anderson is being dishonest about things: the Bennett show started out in syndication on a pre-existing network that could put him smack in all the markets at once–something Anderson “forgot” to mention. Bennett didn’t have to create his own network like AAR. Also notice that Anderson didn’t quote Bennett’s ratings, but switched immediately to Limbaugh’s. Now, even without noting the difference in networks and time they had to establish themselves, if Anderson had compared Franken’s show with Limbaugh’s in the key demographic, that would be something else. It is strongly telling that he did no such thing. Conservatives have been deliberately misrepresenting things like this since AAR went on the air.

If AAR was really doing that lousy, then why is AAR and progressive radio in general catching on so much? Why is it expanding to a larger and larger number of markets and stations? Why are major media sources reporting on its success and spread? (And after the Ann Coulter issue, no way in hell can you tell me that TIME Magazine is “liberal”! Nor was the opinion by TIME a unique one either.) Why would XM Satellite sign AAR for a multi-year exclusive deal if they were in the ratings toilet? Why would Clear Channel, a network with clear right-wing leanings, be signing AAR onto its affiliates if they didn’t see a cash result from it?

That a conservative pundit takes shots at it with fragmentary data and misleading comparisons–and when that pundit is selling a book which would suffer from the idea that progressive radio is doing well–hardly holds up.

And lest we all forget, we are still in the very early, formative days of progressive talk radio. Ultimately, time (not “TIME”) will tell the story. Tell you what: come back in four years, after which AAR will have been around roughly as long as Limbaugh had before he even started to get respectable ratings–and we’ll see. I’ll still be here, unless I’m hit by a bus or something.

I don’t have any facts or data to back up why I feel Air America will fail except that I listen to both conservative and liberal stations. To put it simply, the Air America personalities are not professional and talk down to their audience. They cannot laugh at themselves and all I hear is just continuous whining about the Bush administration. I think Air America already has hit its peak and had no choice but to sign on with XM radio, who is just trying to fill hours and hours of programming. Sirrus just signed Martha Stewart in a separate deal. This is no different. I think its clear that Air America is doomed to fail if it can’t succeed in the New York market, one place where you know there would surely be an audience. RIP Air America.

Randy: you said it well: you have no facts or data to back you up. I listen to AAR, and I don’t feel in the least “spoken down to”; I don’t know what you might think an example of that might be. Can’t laugh at themselves? How long did you even try to listen? Three minutes? Never listened to the daily �liberal agenda� fax from the Streisand compound? Or any of the dozens of other bits that poke fun at themselves as they jab at the right wing? They laugh at themselves all the time, for crying out loud. You obviously listened to your preconceptions and not the radio.

As for “whining” about the Bush administration, (a) I believe they “whine” about the Republican Congress and right-wingers in general (and many times about Democrats as well); (b) pointing out the errors, malfeasance, hypocrisy, stupidity and downright dishonesty of the right wing is pretty much half of the idea of the format–pointing out what should be done is the other half, and they do plenty of that; and (c) what do you think Limbaugh and his colleagues have been doing for 15-20 years and still do today? Whining about liberals is what made conservative radio what it is today.

Your insinuation that conservative radio is more professional may be justified by a certain slickness, but the attitude is far uglier than AAR; their style is arrogant and dismissive without bothering to get their facts straight, condescending to whomever they disapprove of, and downright hateful towards anyone who disagrees with them. And, ironically, in that I believe lies their ratings success: people respond to that, even those who disagree but listen so they can get pissed off. People respond well to those who act with arrogance and the attitude that you can never be wrong. On Maher the other day, there was a Bush flack, someone who worked for the White house, who berated the liberals present–not once, but five or six times–for, as he put it, “tacking terrorism onto the gun issue.” He made them out to be shameless bastards for saying that it was wrong to allow terrorists to so easily arm themselves in the U.S., that the government doesn’t try to screen for terrorism in gun slaes while being draconian on so many lesser issues. He got on their backs for “tacking terrorism” onto the issue. As if that weren’t the most hypocritical thing to come from a Bush man. I mean, this is a guy whose job it has been to tack terrorism onto practically EVERYTHING the Bush administration has been doing since 9/11, and yet with full confidence and brazen hypocrisy he berates others for doing so. It’s this kind of shameless I’m-right-no-matter-what and you’re-wrong-no-matter-what and it-doesn’t-matter-how-wrong-I-am-so-long-as-I-say-it-with-confidence kind of bulls****ing attitude that plays ever so well in Peoria, that’s what the right-wing talking-heads crowd has down pat and that’s what people like to hear.

If AAR lacks in any respect, it’s that not enough of it is as dark and conceited as conservative radio can be, not to mention that they often bore people with facts (is that the “talking down” you mentioned?). AAR is perhaps a bit darker than I’d like it to be, but not dark enough to have the same kind of venal appeal that Limbaugh and his ilk do. If anything, that will be its weak point.

But hey, dismiss all you want with no facts or data in hand (you must be a conservative!!), AAR and progressive talk are doing quite well. As with Apple Computer, its downfall is constantly predicted and yet somehow it never comes.

More facts:
“Arbitron figures released March 2, 2005 show Air America’s San Francisco station, KQKE-AM, garnering a 1.0 share in the latest quarter, down sharply from a 2.4 share in the same quarter a year ago. The slot switched from oldies to Air America last fall.”

This meaure of ratings compared from Fall 2003 to Fall 2004 “In Providence […] ratings at WHJJ-AM plunged after it replaced its conservative line-up with Air America, from a 3.5 share of the 12 and older audience to a 2.6 share. Meanwhile, […] Providence’s conservative station, WPRO-AM, �saw a surge during the survey period from a 4.4 to a 5.1 audience share.�

Last quarter referred to is Fall 2004
“Air America�s Boston station, WKOX-AM, got a tiny 0.6 share in the latest quarter, compared to a 4.3 share at WTKK-FM and a 4.0 share at WRKO-AM, both of which are conservative”

And this from Air America’s President Jon Sinton re: the January-released Arbitron numbers: ‘”WABC [conservative radio home of Sean Hannity] is the story here,” Air America President Jon Sinton told the News. “The huge billboard and TV campaign they did for Sean shows you the power of television and marketing for radio, and hats off to them. They got the numbers.”‘

These numbers don’t say AAR can’t grow. But they do say that there are important markets where it is not only not growing, but shrinking in audience. Yes, in Oregon it is growing. But come on, Oregon? Did anyone ever say of Oregon “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere?”

Yes, ratings by demographic category are important. However, you cannot discount the overall ratings numbers. They show that conservative radio has mass appeal, but progressive radio has niche appeal.

Finally, while these facts come from various conservative sources, note they are all based on Arbitron numbers. To paraphrase Mario Cuomo- Don’t believe me. Go look it up for yourself!
Eric

In my opinion, the founders of Air America Radio realized that the liberal voice in this country no longer had a monopoly in broadcasting with the creation of the Fox News Channel, the steady decline in newspaper readership and the growth of the internet and blogs like this. Conservative talk radio was successful because there was nothing like it in the media. The reason why Air America is not successful is because they have not given their listeners any reason to want to listen to it. You have to admit that mainstream media is still pretty liberal so Air America is just one more outlet for the DNC’s propaganda machine, whom, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were partially funding AAR behind the scenes. I enjoy my freedoms as an American and the two party political system and I don’t want to see the Democratic Party go away, but I think they need to do some soul searching as to why they have lost both houses of congress and white house and come up with something other than conspiracy theories. They should remember FDR and JFK for their great leadership, but not act in the past. Democrats need new strong leadership that will move them from the far left to more mainstream. I don’t feel that Air America is helping in that arena. Thank you for your time.

Eric:

Now I’m beginning to see why you didn’t supply a link or name your source–your sources are far-right-wing pundits. Michele Malkin is not exactly what I would call a supplier of “facts.” You simply regurgitate what people like Malkin, Coulter and Limbaugh say and you’ll get zero respect here. You didn’t look up the facts, you just went to the extreme right and reproduced their quotes–again, without name or link, which doesn’t surprise me much. Malkin’s playing with the numbers the same way I described above; give me some time, and I could play with the numbers to make it look like Rush Limbaugh is crash-diving and will be off the air in a matter of months (his New York station’s ratings seem to be nose-diving, from 4.5 to 3.5 since last Fall! Are you convinced yet?). That doesn’t mean it’s true, it just means I cherry-picked the facts, just like Malkin did.

That the ratings are not easily accessible and the demographics are completely missing make it impossible to present a facted response to your quotes, which you know–and is likely why you regurgitated Malkin’s trash and did not answer any of the points I put forward. You don’t answer my questions, I see no reason to counter right-wing trash you throw at me.

Results matter most: all the right-wing pundits are doing is tossing about highly selective, out-of-context overall numbers. But the people who have the demographics–Clear Channel and XM Satellite, for example–people with actual money on the line–they’re signing on to Air America in numbers. Additionally, note that while the naysayers you find are all right-wingers, the sources I quoted stating AAR’s success (TIME, biz.yahoo, LA Weekly, The Mississippi Press) are all mainstream.

So what does that tell you?

Randy:

The “liberal media” is the result of a PR myth. It never existed. A “monopoly”? Yeah, right. While a majority of reporters are liberal, a greater majority of editors, commentators, and media owners are conservative. Editors and owners are the ones who decide what gets reported on and how. A liberal reporter cannot get liberal bias by a conservative editor unless s/he approves it. That was the extent of the “liberal media,” a myth created by the right-wing to create the impression that the media was to the left so that people would think the truth was more to the right. But don’t take my word; take the right-wing icon Bill Kristol, who, in 1995, said that “the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used by conservatives for conservative failures.” Or Pat Buchanan: “The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive.” He further conceded: “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage — all we could have asked� For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.” There’s a lot more, but the gist is: while a majority of reporters have been liberal, a greater majority of publishers and editors have been conservative, if anything pushing the balance in the conservative direction. There never was any “liberal media,” but there sure as hell is a “conservative media” now. If AAR is the first actual incarnation of a liberal media, it is in answer specifically to the overwhelming power and influence of their right-wing counterparts.

As for soul-searching and reformation, I think you are exactly correct. Democrats need a strong leader, and have to stop shaking in their boots every time there’s a chance the public might criticize them for doing something. They need to regroup, organize, get their house in order, and then go on the offensive–just the way the GOP did in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Ironically, few are more critical of the Democrats in this area than the people on Air America Radio–they constantly criticize the Democratic politicians on these things, and make the point that a change has to come. It just depends on the actual politicians to see if they can actually play ball.

Let me point out to you that not all of the reference come from “right wingers” unless the president of AAR is a right winger! (See his quote that Hannity “got the numbers.”) Surely he wasn’t congratulating Hannity’s conservative station for nothing. Second, the sources are quoting Arbitron numbers. They all might be lying, or making up numbers or “cherry picking” but that would mean the very president of AAR is congratulating Hannity’s station for made-up or ‘cherry picked’ or irrelevant numbers! Thank you for referencing the NYC radio market ratings. They show quite convincingly that conservative radio out performs AAR by 3 to 1 in NYC. In addition, your numbers show that even riding the up-and-down of seasonal listenership, AAR failed to grow its market share over its first year in NYC. You might criticize Rush for similarly failing to grow his audience. Then again, Rush is already highly rated so the room to grow is limited. Finally AAR supporters are trying to play both-sides-of-the-street. If you point out that AAR is in a limited number of markets, they say, ‘Hey, we created a network with a FULL SLATE OF PROGRESSIVE PROGRAMMING.’ If you point out that the full slate of programming consistently draws fewer listeners than a full slate of conservative programming in just about every shared major market, AAR supporters say, “Hey, you can’t look at aggregate numbers, that’s for amatuers!’ I never said AAR had no audience. I do say it is a small audience. It is niche. Programmers are adding it to already low-rated station to see if they can secure that niche. Big deal. To take Malkin one step further, so what if AAR sells left-handed scissors to left-handed Eskimos? You’ll sell a lot more right-handed scissors to right-handed non-Eskimos. That is the AAR vs. conservative radio comparison to remember!

Let me point out to you that not all of the reference come from “right wingers” unless the president of AAR is a right winger!Your source was NewsMax. A far-right wing rag. Which again, of course, you didn’t cite or link to. Sinton was their source. Sheesh.Second, the sources are quoting Arbitron numbers. They all might be lying, or making up numbers or “cherry picking” but that would mean the very president of AAR is congratulating Hannity’s station for made-up or ‘cherry picked’ or irrelevant numbers!Show me where I said that AAR was kicking Hannity’s butt in the numbers race, overall or demographics-wise. Did I? No. I denied that AAR’s numbers were as bad as Malkin and others claimed because of their distortion of the ratings. Furthermore, Sinton was making the point that WABC’s success was due more to its massive advertising campaign; he said nothing about AAR’s independent success, which is the theme of this argument.Thank you for referencing the NYC radio market ratings. They show quite convincingly…Boy, you just don’t catch on too fast, do you? My entire point was how those numbers could be used to distort reality, not represent it convincingly. You’re just dicking around with irrelevant numbers, and making no sense to boot. I’ve been pointing out all along how overalls don’t mean squat, and you never seem to get it.

Back in the late 60’s, NBC was congratulating itself for having finally killed off what they considered a dog of a TV show, as it was floundering in the overall ratings. Until a ratings analyst came up and told them about demographics, still a new science in those days. “Congratulations,” the numbers man said. “You just killed off your top-rated show.” The execs were stunned, and may not have even believed him. But that show–Star Trek–went gangbusters in syndication, and eventually spawned four spinoff series producing 25 seasons of shows between them, not to mention 10 motion pictures, netting the studio billions of dollars in advertising, box office and merchandising profits.

That’s the difference between overall numbers and key demographics.

And you still haven’t answered the key point I made yet again in the last post, instead tangenting off into irrelevancy on some minor point. No wonder. You know you’re wrong.

Quote Luis “Results matter most: all the right-wing pundits are doing is tossing about highly selective, out-of-context overall numbers.”

I simply point out that the president of AAR was congratulating WABC for driving up Hannity’s numbers, aka ‘results’- numbers that were impressive enough for *him* to mention them. He did say “They got the numbers.” He could have said “AAR got the numbers” but he didn’t. Still he only works in radio, so he is an amateur unlike you

You also dismiss all numbers that come from right wing sources. Again, there is no logical reason for this. The numbers are there. If they are false, prove them false. All you say is what *you* can or cannot prove by selective numbers. You don’t have to agree with the conclusions I draw, but that won’t make the numbers go away.

You also as much as say that finding information second-hand (not directly from being an Arbitron subscriber for example) somehow diminishes the information. That is silly. You are providing information on your own site- some your opinion, some the opinions or “facts” from others for which you often provide a link. Linking to TIME doesn’t make the information any less or more valid than information from Malkin. TIME isn’t right just because its “TIME” anymore than CBS was right re: presenting false documents on Bush’s Guard service just because it was “CBS.”

Indeed you are right that results matter. You just have to pick your results. Conservative radio has a huge audience. AAR does not. AAR might get its “results” being the niche voice of the leftist few. I ask you to name any ratings result that AAR in your opinion should achieve. I think in most cases conservative radio will have already achieved it. It is simply my opinion that AAR will never have the listener base of conservative talk.

I simply point out that the president of AAR was congratulating WABC for driving up Hannity’s numbers, aka ‘results’- numbers that were impressive enough for *him* to mention them. He did say “They got the numbers.” He could have said “AAR got the numbers” but he didn’t. Still he only works in radio, so he is an amateur unlike you Boy, are you na�ve. You think that a far-right rag like NewsMax is going to give you the real and full message from Air America Radio’s president? How old are you? You think that was the entirety of Sinton’s remarks? That’s sad.

But since you seem to believe that Sinton is indeed an expert, then here’s some more from him–just not from NewsMax, who would never print a positive article about AAR no matter what.AAR is enjoying monthly double-digit ballooning in ad sales revenue � a rate that Jon Sinton, AAR’s president, expects to continue for the next two years. … Ratings show a younger, more diverse audience. “The average talk-radio listener is 60 years old, but the average Air America listener is 48,” Sinton told Carolina, adding that during nighttime programming, “in a format that is generally two-thirds male and one third female, Air America is 52/48. We are almost precisely evenly balanced between men and women.” The network is also doing well in terms of brand recognition. A study issued last month by the consulting firm Paragon Media Strategies indicates that Limbaugh’s is the name most familiar to talk radio listeners, followed by � drum roll, please � Al Franken. — SourceAnd speaking to how far AAR has gotten in such a short time, reaching 17 of the top 20 markets in one year:By early-fall (2004), Air America Radio had surpassed affiliation projections. �I think we�re at about `Year 2.5� right now,� Sinton opines. �You couldn�t predict that would happen. The traditional scenario is you get on in Tulsa and � if you�re decent � you get on in Oklahoma City. In a few months, maybe you�re on in Kansas City. A market like Chicago is a couple of years away. A lot of syndicated and network programming never gets on in New York and Los Angeles. I think [what we�ve done] is huge.� — SourceSinton undoubtedly said much more of that kind of thing in the interview NewsMax quoted from, but you’d never know it to read NewsMax.

Further, this entire Sinton business is nothing but a tangent. I never even suggested that WLIB was doing better than WABC–that’s your sidetrack. You originally posted the Sinton quote in response to my posts that AAR was performing well, and as such, it was irrelevant–then you got sidetracked because you thought it wasn’t a right-wing source even though you got it from NewsMax.

The contention of the original entry was this: AAR is doing extremely well for a network patched together from nothing in its very first year of existence. I noted that it was not yet surpassing heavily established conservative radio icons (that would be an incredible achievement so soon), and that demographics are key–which you have as yet not been able to deny. All you can do is blather on about overall ratings, which are meaningless to advertisers, like Volkswagen and Geico, who are signing on to AAR despite your expert conclusion that the network is not doing well.You also dismiss all numbers that come from right wing sources. Again, there is no logical reason for this. The numbers are there. Oy, vey. You don’t read too well, do you? How many times do I have to repeat that they use OVERALL NUMBERS, not KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, and are SELECTIVELY CHOOSING poor numbers and ignoring good numbers to MISREPRESENT the truth. Hey, maybe the words I’m using have too many syllables, maybe that’s why you’re not getting it.You also as much as say that finding information second-hand (not directly from being an Arbitron subscriber for example) somehow diminishes the information. That is silly.And you are too. You think Michelle Malkin gave you the whole story about the numbers? You think that by reading right-wing web sites to research a left-wing organization will net you the entire story and not just carefully selected information out of context? Jeez, I hope you aren’t taking a class in Logic at school, you’d flunk in a minute.Linking to TIME doesn’t make the information any less or more valid than information from Malkin.Linking to a range of mainstream voices, as I did, is far more credible than linking to two far-right wing spin centers. If I quoted only Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, guess what your first criticism would be?TIME isn’t right just because its “TIME” anymore than CBS was right re: presenting false documents on Bush’s Guard service just because it was “CBS.” And there it is, the ultimate imaginary trump card of the right-winger with nothing to show for his argument. As if one story by CBS (as opposed to the dozens of Clinton-bashing stories CBS jumped onto in the 90’s, which I guess don’t matter) where the network was duped in a story too juicy for the editors to pass up–that this somehow proves all for the right wing. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “Memogate” invoked when a right-winger was flailing about for some way to win an argument about the media. In your case, somehow CBS’s one misstep makes TIME biased on the left, even after the Ann Coulter love letter they recently published. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Look, it’s obvious that you’re just going to keep ‘overlooking’ the obvious, spouting regurgitated BS from right-wing sources, ignoring every point that’s made and going off on tangents, and generally foaming at the mouth. I’ve paid you far more respect than you’re due or worth, and have no intention of wasting any more time in this manner.

To add my two cents, quoting that Rush has a weekly audience of 20 million really doesn’t say anything. He’s on 600 stations! On the other hand, AAR only has 52 stations.

Randi Rhodes keeps saying that every market that she is on head-to-head against Rush, she beats him. That’s her biased take – so I state it for what it is worth.

I would like to see the actual data where Randi Rhodes beats Rush in head-to-head markets. I sincerely doubt that claim. In my opinion, she is so unprofessional, she shouldn’t even be on the air after the stunt she pulled as a gag regarding assignation. It was not funny. I think her listeners should let her know that.

A stunt about “assignation”? A secret meeting? A spelling error, perhaps…

I’d like to see the data as well. As I said before, it probably has to do with the key demographics, and those you have to pay for. The only such numbers I ever found were after the first full three-month ratings period, and showed that among listeners 18-to-34, Franken and WLIB got a 2.9 ratings share compared to WABC’s and Limbaugh’s 0.4 showing. This even though in the overalls WABC performed better as a station–but even in a wider age range, 25-52, in the times slot between Franken and Limbaugh, Franken performed better, getting a 3.4 to Limbaugh’s 3.2. Obviously, Limbaugh was pulling in older listeners by a wide margin–but they matter less in advertising. — Source

From the Chicago Tribune today:

`Air America’ return may not be a good thing

ez
Published May 3, 2005

There’s good news and bad news for Chicago-area liberals this week. And it’s the same news.

Air America, the left-wing talk-radio network that disappeared from local airwaves due to a financial dispute shortly after it debuted a year ago April, appears certain to return to a new home at 850 on the AM dial.

The formal announcement will come “within the next 24 to 48 hours,” said Fred Eychaner on Monday morning. He’s the owner of Newsweb Corp., which operates nine area radio stations, including the future WCPT (for “Chicago’s Progressive Talk”).

It’s good news for lefties because local talk radio is now dominated by conservative voices. WLS-AM 890 has gradually sloughed off or muted its liberal hosts, while WIND-AM 560 is now a full-time outlet for syndicated right-wing programming.

It will be refreshing to hear steady chatter from Bush administration critics for a change, instead of the defenders and apologists who now dominate the dial. Even though my listening tastes run toward balanced debate and an illuminating clash of ideas and philosophies, I’ll take our side’s agitprop over theirs any day.

But it’s bad news for lefties because AM 850–now oldies rock station WAIT–is a weak, daytime-only station based in Crystal Lake. It sends out a 2,500-watt signal (compared with WIND’s 5,000 watts and WLS’ 50,000 watts) that reaches the west and northwest Cook County suburbs and into downtown, but is weak in much of Lake and DuPage Counties and southwest Cook County.

Air America had much better coverage when it rented time last year on the transmitter of WNTD-AM 950.

And 2004, with its polarizing presidential election, was a zestier political climate for talk radio than 2005 is.

Isolated ratings reports from around the country suggest Air America, which is on some 50 stations, most of them low-powered, is struggling. The station drew less than 0.1 percent of the overall listening audience in Washington, D.C., in recent ratings, 0.3 percent in Los Angeles, 1.2 percent in New York City, 0.4 percent in Boston and so on.

An Air America spokeswoman in New York said that listenership among the target audience of 25- to 54-year-olds has been “consistently encouraging,” particularly for hosts Al Franken and Randi Rhodes. She had no national numbers to back up that assertion.

The format starts with a built-in disadvantage–most liberals got out of the habit of listening to commercial talk radio during its right-wing renaissance in the late 1980s. Now it’s attempting a daytime-only Chicago revival in a political off year.

It looks to me like a recipe for failure. Inevitably weak ratings will tell advertisers and programmers that there’s no market for left-wing talk, dooming us to decades of smug, hectoring conservatives.

“I don’t believe that,” said network co-founder and major investor Sheldon Drobny of Highland Park. I asked him if 850 AM is the proper station at the proper time for Air America in Chicago. “We’ll do fine. The socioeconomic profile of our target audience is excellent. And it’s either this or no broadcast at all.”

Drobny sounded a little frustrated with me. I’ve been bugging him since last year about the curious lack of an Air America outlet in the hometown of not only its wealthy co-founder, but also the hometown of Eychaner, who is a Democratic Party mega-donor along with being a broadcast impresario.

Eychaner could have started up an Air America outlet at almost any time with a fraction of the dough he’s been heaving at liberal candidates and causes in recent years.

Then came a false alarm in mid-March when Al Franken announced on the air that Chicago would be back on the air March 31 to mark the network’s first anniversary.

“It took a lot longer for all the contracts and technical issues to come together than we thought,” said Eychaner. He insisted that he’s not mixing his business with his politics here–that WCPT is simply a good investment.

Newsweb Corp. station’s vice president Harvey Wells and officials at Air America hedged far more than Eychaner did Monday about if and when a formal announcement will come.

This leaves open the slim possibility–or is it a hope?–that the news about WCPT-AM is just another false alarm.

Note: I live in Cincinnati and on most days I can pick up WLS, although I have local channels that I listen to. I think it is only a matter of time……..

I’d like to know why, lets just say less than one hundred, came to the Marijuana march to stand up for drugwar change and patients in pain in our city, of lets just say, a million, eligible participants? Uncaring? Stupid on the subject? Bigots?
It must be fear! Must! Jail size 10x, homicide doubled, one and a half million arrested yearly (called our present control), children in grade school playing with what we wonder. History taught us what to expect from prohibition, we got it, and few dare say on record (unless ready to retire) this is wrong.
Why isn’t it being discussed as illegal to have folks this scared by their wonderful government finishing our fourth decade of turmoil? When 80% of America at least approve of medical marijuana, never have I seen a public debate. The only positive result of war that couldn’t have been achieve with simple education and control is … what? We have become a police state which at one time was considered negatively. Every time citizens get to speak behind a closed screen they say they care and of course let the guy do what he wants, or the doctor recommends. What effect does this have to our federal government? None.
What do we do? No one cares or too tied up in capitalism. Plus we all got what we want legally or not and that is all that matters.
No, no, no, no. Think I’ll just get in my truck and go car bomb the nearest police station!
Just kidding. But I’m glad my name isn’t on the list of legislatures going down in history supporting this failure
This is a serious subject and needs to be discussed. If done properly a lot of lives could be saved, free thinkers not condemned, jails change to schools, respect returned to government when honesty again becomes a requirement.
No, no, everyone would just become dopeheads, demanding welfare. But is this the respect I, you, we have for our fellow man? Does he deserve it? If he does, condemning him as bad and imprisoning hasn’t helped. Jesus types would promote these actions? With the money now being spent on the war and imprisonment converted to creating less troubled citizens, life sure couldn’t be worse. Add the taxes made and it would be clearly a positive stance in comparison
Also in this day and age, we don’t really need those troubled folks in our society and welfare would be no more expensive, while giving big brother a positive look and claim. Hate could turn to be compassion for ones fellow man. Honesty could come back. We could honestly teach our children to not abuse drugs using the boys on the street as resulting possibilities. Call it their job even. Providers could stand proud! War could be shelved. Someone needs to mention this to America to at least have a complete public debate on the side somewhere, someday. All I am saying is give peace a chance. It won’t be perfect, but mutual respect would be better. Government telling the people they trust them to behave civilly after becoming an adult and teaming up the country and worlds adults to keep our kids from playing on the subject. Waving the red flag to drugs and rewarding those who distribute to the youngsters is not working the way we want.
To simple ignore the subject as though it is going to get working one day doesn’t say much for our morals, intelligence or freedom and cival rights.
But maybe Nixon was right. “Fear not education” is the way. It has risen the republicans to the top with the RR and corporate greed holding hands at their side, keep the people divided, W gets reelected. No ones being hurt by this conniving that develops worldwide the governments overpowering the people while still calling it democracy?

Similarities between Iraq war and drug war
1) Republican presidents
2) Fear without reason was lead reasoning for support
3) Corporate profiting
4) Knew from our history neither would work
5)”With us or against us” forcing moderate freethinkers to be against USA
6) Civil rights diminished

Could you explain why liberalisim has been changed to “progressive or progressive policies” by those movers and shakers out in the forefront? I know I don’t feel complelled to describe myself as a progressive. So why does everyone in the liberal movement seem to think they have to?

This is a particular point of contention with me. I like the term “progressive” in and of itself; it’s a good and accurately descriptive term.

What I don’t like is that it also represents as concession to right-wingers using language to war on liberals, harkening back to Bush the Elder’s “The L-Word” attacks on Dukakis. The wingnuts, led especially by Gingrich, led a frontal assault on the very name of liberalism, trying to make “liberal” a dirty word. I don’t like conceding to such low-life, dishonest tactics, which is why you’ll see I used “liberal talk” more then “progressive talk” in my entry.

And that’s my solution: use both. Both are good words, good names, and I’ll continue to use both. But if we abandon the word “liberal” then we’ve let the right-wingers win a critical battle, and we’ll have let them set the tone.

All I have to say is Rush Limbaugh has been #1 for years and Air America is now bankrupt.