air america needs you

We received an invitation the other day from Air America to become an Associate. They're raising money ala NPR by selling memberships.

Of course the right wingers, who regularly scorn the fledgling liberal network are hooting and poo-pooing the way they do. They've been predicting AAR's demise since it took off like a pregnant pole-vaulter last January.

The little company had a rocky start, not the least of which was because Evan Cohen, the shady first AAR CEO, told everybody he had enough money to keep the start-up going for 3 years when actually he only had enough for 3 months.

While screwing over other investors in a web of lies and finaglings, he "borrowed" 875k from the Gloria Wise Boy's & Girls Club in New York and put it into the infant Air America.

After Cohen's house of cards collapsed, a new company, Piquant was formed with new investors--real investors--led by Seattle's RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser. When the B& G Club scandal broke out, Piquant agreed on principle, to pay back the money -- they were not legally bound to do it. It was  just another flaming bag of dogshit left at the doorstep of the struggling start-up by Cohen.

Conservative bloggers Brian Maloney and Michelle Malkin, made it a cottage industry for months reporting on every twitch of the "scandal," finding conspiracies and damning evidence in Al Franken's jokes and bemoaning that the MSM conspiratorially ignored the story.

They created a volumes of text made to look like volumes of scandal. But when you blew away the fluff of stern adjectives and self-righteous partisan glee--there was nothing left but the sad story of a corporate asshole sticking it to his investors and employees.

BlatherWatch followed this so-called scandal from Day Uno; ransacked the blogosphere and every news outlet we could think of; dutifully read every dogged word and followed every link Maloney and his saucy moppet, Michelle Malkin told us to follow, and still came up with bupkus.

(Our readers know us well enough that if there was anything to it, we'd go with it. We're crazed, but unapologetic liberals around here, but we've never held back on criticism of any stations or talk hosts, no matter whether they're liberal or conservative. If Air America had truly ITALschtupped a Boys and Girls Club, we'd scream bloody murder. (As would the DA in New York).

We don't really know how well or badly AAR is doing, it's spotty for sure. But it is a very young company, bucking industry inertia and conventional wisdom that only conservative talk works.

We're still pissed at Seattle's AAR station, KPTK (1090AM) owned by Infinity Broadcasting. They're just place-holding...their numbers just hang there, mainly because the only other liberal outlet in town, KIRO has done so poorly lately.

Many radio people around town, agree with BlatherWatch (OK, we agree with them) that with some local programming, KPTK could be a gold mine in this liberal town. 

But we're tired of saying it. KPTK station manager Jim Trapp really has no say in the matter, and has been given no budget for anything but syndicated shows. They'll get another bump in the ratings again next book, when KIRO's futzing around with no real replacement for Allan Prell, and general lack of imagination, will put them back down off the tiny rise they got over the summer.

God, that's so depressing.

Infinity has real stations to run: like no 1 in the market, country KMPS; the new Jack station KJAQ, which seems to be doing better, classic rock station KZOK and more. Their new national  programming honcho is busy these days replacing Howard Stern, who leaves for satellite radio in January.

AAR is tiny now and not much threat to the dominant right wing media. But the very idea of lefty radio gaining traction is threatening on the face of it to Republicans. The right has made great gains by mastering am talk. That's why they're so scornful, and put so much energy into dragging AAR down, even before it's up. 

Al Franken, a popular national figure and talented comedian is probably running for the Senate in Minnesota against weasal-y Norm Coleman, the pointless Bush point man, who's been compromised many, many times in his short Washington career and is vulnerable in that swing state. Hence the thick mudhoney being spread on Franken.

Here's AAR's letter: if you hate what the right-wing is doing to this country, send 'em a few smollas...

October 31, 2005
Dear Friend of Air America Radio,

It’s Halloween and the right-wing is terrified…of you.

Want to know why? Here are just a few examples:

On October 17th, Rush Limbaugh said this to Sean Hannity:

“In my mind they don’t even exist…for a moment you almost feel sorry for then.

Then you realize no, they don’t exist. And they don’t pose a threat.”

But on October 28th, less than two weeks later, Al Franken, broadcasting on a network that Rush once called “Dead Air America,” beat him like a drum:

"Air America Radio announced today that 'The Al Franken Show' beat 'The Rush Limbaugh Show' for the first time in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., two of the top twenty-five markets, in the target demo of 25-54, according to Arbitron Summer 2005 Metro. The two shows air at the same time ( 9am-12pm ) in both markets.'

While poor Rush is whistling by the graveyard, his fellow ghouls are out screaming and shrieking and rattling their chains:

    Bill O’Reilly recently predicted this to a group of advertisers:  '[Air America ] is about to fold ... because Americans don't want to hear that their country sucks 24 hours a day."

But somehow those pesky facts never seem to get inside the "No Spin Zone." Here are a few:

   BRACK~~The ratings for the Bill O’Reilly radio show in New York were worse in the demo of A25-54 than those on Air America that he described as “catastrophic.”

    ~~In the key 25-54 demographic which talk radio offers to advertisers, the Summer 2005 Arbitron ratings showed that Monday-Friday from 2-4 PM when O’Reilly is on WOR-AM and which at Air America’s 1190 WLIB-AM contains the last hour of “The Al Franken Show” and the first hour of “The Randi Rhodes Show,” that O’Reilly had a 0.6 share and Air America a 1.8 share. O’Reilly had a cumulative audience of 45,800 and Air America had a cumulative audience of 95,700 .

Last month, we launched the Air America Associates program and the howling of the right-wing hypocrites was nothing short of hysterical:

Ann Coulter, the undisputed queen of self-promotion, was cackling with glee at the prospect of using Air America Radio as a marketing device for her latest right-wing screed:

"That money you were thinking about donating to become an 'Air America Associate' – Air America Ass' for short - why not do something useful with it? Buy my book for friends and loved ones."

Sorry, Ann. People just don’t seem to be paying attention to you the way they used to. As of this morning:

~~Al Franken’s “The Truth (with jokes)” was at #7 on Amazon while the paperback edition of “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) is at #1,042.

But while we may enjoy the right-wing’s fear and loathing of Air America Radio’s success, we can’t afford to sit back and take it for granted. The dramatic growth of Air America Radio over the last 19 months – we’re now on in 70 markets covering more than 60% of the nation – only happened because of you.

And we need to keep growing just as quickly, because only this morning, President Bush's idea of "Trick or Treat" was to nominate Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. for Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court. Often referred to as “Scalito” because of his extreme right-wing views, if confirmed Alito could well change the balance of the high court for a generation to come.

We at Air America Radio make you this promise. We won’t let them get away with this without a fight. But we will need your help to do it.

How can you help? Three ways:

~~If you are currently listening to Air America Radio on your local station, call them and thank them for carrying Air America programming. A list of stations is available at http://www.airamericaradio.com/stations.

~~ If you don’t have an Air America Radio affiliate in your area, let us know:

~~Join the Air America Radio community! We need you!

Thank you for all you do for our country.

    Danny Goldberg
    Air America Radio CEO

Comments

[sparky]

Just wondering why its "pathetic" for AA to ask for donations, but not NPR....
( projecting the comments I know will surface here from the usual knuckleheads..) heh

[ExDem]

I don't understand why the Boys and Girls club would give money to a radio network in the first place, unless it was for advertising. I'm sure the donors to the B&G Club wouldn't be too happy about that.

I agree that it is an overblown scandal. All sorts of hype and it boils down to one person covering up something that wasn't illegal in the first place. We should all rightly heap our scorn upon that one person, not the entire organization. There was no conspiracy. So let's deal with the one person that appears to be the sole perpetrator in this case. And let's ignore all of the howling, partisan idiots that keep trying to make this into something bigger than the questionable actions of one person. Law enforcement and the judicial system are on the case, and let it run its course now. So, let's see what happens with Scooter Libby and get on with the daily business of running the country. Oh, and all of this applies to the Air America/Boys and Girls Club scandal as well.

[David]

I am particularly enjoying listening to Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz. Yesterday Thom had a very entertaining interview with Dick Morris, which is discussed in my blog.

[Lump]

Michael sez, "We received an invitation the other day from Air America to become an Associate. They're raising money ala NPR by selling memberships."

Welll, we can now add "PIMP MY RADIO STATION" to "PIMP MY RIDE" and other PIMPS. Don't forget your bumper stickers. How much?

[Andrew]

It's obvious that fewer liberals like listening to political talk radio throughout the day, but maybe that's a good thing.

Why do so many conservatives want to listen to someone talk about problems that they are in no position to fix themselves? Until the election cycle comes back around all of this stuff is someone elses problem. We have an elected government so we don't have to do the governing ourselves. Spending several hours a day listening to someone you agree with talk about how the oposing party is "mentaly ill" is a sign of mental illness in itself.

I wish the crowd of ditto heads would pause for a moment and think about the company they are keeping.

I wish they would ask themselves why they feel that listening to endless hours of political talk radio is something they need to do before they die. The purpose of politics is security, and the purpose of security is so we can live and do other things, so if we have security shouldn't they be living and doing other things?

Conservatives laugh up the lackluster performance of AAR, but realy the joke is on them.

[sparky]

Andrew, I agree that it is not healthy to sit around listening to the radio all day. But I disagree about sitting back and letting the legislators and Congress critters do things without our involvement. WE are the government. This is OUR country. This country does NOT belong to the President or Congress, regardless of what they are saying at the moment. Both conservatives and liberals have a duty to stay informed and involved and make their voices heard. To sit back passively and assume you have no power to change things except in an election is to agree to let others make all the decisions for you, regardless of how you think. Most, not all, but most politicians listen at least sometimes to their constituents because the idea of being re-elected is in the back of their minds. We just buried Rosa Parks. She is one little woman who changed the whole fabric of a nation with one small act of civil disobedience, and she probably didnt even know thats what it was at the time. She was just tired of being told to go sit in the back of the bus. We all need to be Rosa Parks rignt now.

[PeakLimiter]

My goodness, somehow this got left out of Golberg's letter. HaHaHa...support us by buying a bumpersticker for $50!

Heard in the Hub on Boston's WTKK-FM, O'Reilly turns out to be one of the market's strongest national programs, crushing competition from Air America's two area stations, WXKS-AM and WKOX-AM.

While WXKS produced just a tiny 0.5 audience share in the most recent Arbitron report, sister WKOX remained in last place with a 0.2.

Meanwhile, conservative WTKK-FM remains in 11th place, after factoring in a recent drop to a 3.1 percentage of the radio audience.

[sparky]

Apples and oranges...you are comparing long established stations to stations that are starting from scratch. If Rush is put on KIRO, he gets a station that has been in the area for years and already has a following with Rush-wanna-be Dori Monson. New stations with a new format take a long time to get established and build their audience.

I get the feeling that you think that if Air America goes away that the voice of the left will be silenced.
In your dreams.

[PeakLimiter]

Oh thank you Sparky for your completely uninformed and barely insightful so called information on the radio industry. Too bad your "best guess" couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You talking about the radio industry is like listening to the opinion of a fast food counter clerk about the etiology of headaches rather than a neurosurgeon. Sparky, let's all know just exactly how much experience you have in any aspect of broadcast media?

[ExDem]

The voice of the left proliferates the public airwaves already. It's called ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS news. What is considered the conservative network - FOX? On a good night, FOX News draws about 2 million viewers on cable TV. The broadcast networks draw 10 times as many viewers every single night.

Those anchors and the newsrooms that support them are all liberals. Same with the largest newspapers in circulation (NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.). Survey data has proven this over the years. When Clinton was President, over 80% of the people surveyed in the media declared that they had voted for Clinton. A survey last year showed that only 7% of people working in broadcast news and newspapers declared themselves as "conservatives". Over 35% declared themselves as "liberals" - 5 times as many. The rest claimed to be "moderates".

In talk radio, conservative talk shows have dominated. One reason is because the views of conservative people have not been reflected in the mainstream media for years. One reason liberal talk radio fails to gain much of an audience is that it competes against the rest of the mass media which echoes much of the same views.

But don't confuse talk radio with news. The news on FOX tends to be fairly balanced. They are willing to have panel discussions with 2 liberals and 2 conservatives on their news programs. Contrast that to Sunday shows like This Week where the panel might consist of one conservative (George Will) and 3 liberals (George Stephanopolis and 2 ABC reporters). The other programs on FOX News Channel are conservative hosts doing talk shows, NOT THE NEWS. And again, they draw an audience of less than 2 million for those shows anyway.

So, don't worry about the voice of the left. The mainstream media will continue to be populated overwhelmingly by liberal voices. There isn't some massive liberal conspiracy or cabal. Instead, it's just that the mainstream media is populated with people that have a certain world view and they choose stories or report on them based on their world view. Thankfully, people now have choices because of cable TV, talk radio and the internet.

[PeakLimiter]

While vitually all of of ExDems statements are ABSOLUTELY factual and well known by anyone who actually works in the industry, It's also important to note that amongst the cable news offerings, FOX is running away with number one, with double or more the viewers than CNN. Just for example let's have a look see at O'Rielly. 3.5 million viewers. Next nearest competitor, Ole Larry King on CCN with 1.2 million, As far as "newsblocks" are concerned, ditto. Shep Smith crushes CNN by 2 million as well.

[joanie]

This constant rant about liberal media being everywhere is starting to wear on me only because I don't think I know what it means anymore. ExDem, just what makes "all the media" so liberal and only Fox News conservative?

All those liberal journalists work for big corporations. Do you not believe those journalists know who butters their bread?

Also, the NY Times with the help of this great liberal named Judith Miller certainly gave the Bush administration a hard time selling the Iraq war, didn’t it?

I look for outlets that give me objective analysis. How is it that NPR doesn't do that? People who listened to NPR reflected the highest understanding of the relationship between Hussein and 9-11 and people who listened to Fox had the lowest understanding. Less than seventeen percent of NPR listeners believed there was a connection between Hussein (who didn’t even like BinLaden) and 9-11; over 60% Fox viewers believe Hussein was behind 9-11. Explain, please, what is so liberal about presenting the facts.

Please don't give me a sermon on objectivity. Explain why NPR listeners were more informed about Saddam Hussein and 9-11. That's all I'm asking.

One more thing: I watch CSpan far more than I listen to radio these days. Does that mean that CSpan is liberal media just because I'm a liberal?

Lump, try to refrain from commenting about trivialities in this post. Thanks in advance.

[joanie]

One more thing, ExDem. You site ABC news as being left leaning. Last time I looked, I wouldn't call Cokie Roberts and Sam(???) as left leaning. Maybe once in their lives, but not today. They represent the rich!!!! And their opinions are not liberal.

Perhaps you are having a hard time distinguishing between right and far fight. As a far left leaner, I can vouch for the fact their is very little of it out there today. But, I guess we all see the world through our own biased prisms.

[Andrew]

Conservatives do better on the radio and on FNC because conservatives don't like news, they like opinions. They call NPR liberal but NPR doesn't have a Limbaugh, an O'Reilly or a Hannity. Calling NPR liberal is a NUTTY CONSPIRACY THEORY.

The only reason Shep Smith gets ratings is because if most of the viewers were to reach for the remote they might have a heart attack. They probably don't want to watch anything else anyway because they are boring and incurious people. Not the high contrast to liberals who prefer their information WITHOUT the opinion.

They don't call KVI a news station, they call it a "talk" station because it's opinion talk. FNC is a misnomer, it should be called FOX Talk Channel, but what the hell, FNC viewers think O'Reilly IS news. They don't even know the difference. Since they can't figure out what to think about the news they need O'Reilly to cherry pick the news for them and even tell them how they should feel about it. He even says he's "looking out for you." Thank God someone is telling them what to think, they might wander off and join some cult otherwise.

Why should we liberals be demonized because we like to become journalists? It's not our fault that you're too busy hoarding your money, polishing your guns or killing animals for sport to become journalists.

[joanie]

At a CSpan book festival reaired today, David Brooks iterated that people who like numbers are republicans and liberal arts majors are democrats. He included engineers in that group of republicans. Curious to me because I teach high end kids here in Seattle and have several kids with parents in the sciences: currently four children have both parents who are engineers. I get to know them quite well and none of them likes the current administration. They may be republican(I don't know their party affiliation) but they are far more liberal than conservative. In fact, we all joke about Bush.

I'm not at all sure Brooks was totally right on that. He prefaced it by saying "research shows . . . " but I have caught him in other misstatements so may not be entirely accurate.

[Lump]

joanie sez, "Lump, try to refrain from commenting about trivialities in this post. Thanks in advance."
Not a problem here, Joanie. Your comments about the MSM runs along with your revisionist history lessons. I'm just sitting back enjoying loonieism at it's best enjoying the last good German beers I brought back with me. Prosit!!!

[blathering michael]

Thanks Andrew for pointing out the difference between news and commentary. Conservatives have been told for years by such as Rush and Sean that their rants & spins & screeds are all the objective news sources they need. It's surprising and depressing how many people like exDem apparently stopped reading anything that might report something that challenges their beliefs. Interesting also to look at the careful studies by such as Pew Research and the Poynter Institute and see who comes up with the least biase...NPR who so often almost tips over backwards to be fair, is almost always rated the most objective. I'm sure they'd slur these tediously serious media research groups as liberal pointy-heads, but look at the political decisions ExDem, Lump, Scrilla, Texas, Alabama, Montana and Kansas have made based on the information gotten from their choice of media. The 2004 election of Geo. Bush will be seen in history of one of the greatest triumphs of ignorance since Prohibition.
I've never been so worried for the future and well-being of this country and I'm not young.

[Andrew]

sparky, our only (legal) power is to vote or run for office ourselves but there are alot of road blocks for ordinary people who want to run for office and the positions that can be acquired probably don't aply to national politics anyway. The idea that simply knowing more about the problem helps fix it in is illogical. I think most of us who pay any attention to politics are in it for the drama. Most of us never realize an impact from politics proportionate to the amount time we spend paying attention to them.

[sparky]

Andrew, I understand what you are saying and to some extent I agree. I thought you were implying that we can "only" sit around and watch. That is the part I disagree with
:-)

Peak! Michael pays me a LOT of money to keep you stirred up. Keep it up baby--I need the money!!

[joanie]

Off the topic I know, but did you read that the House passed a bill that would eliminate federally protected critical habitat on 150 million acres of largely undeveloped public and private lands. The Senate is poised to act next . . . I just mention this because of your comment, Michael, that you are worried for the future of this country. Bush is wreaking havoc on this country and few people seem to know and or feel empowered to stop it. It is irreversible. (I got this from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/04/bush-admin-slashing-mill_n_10107.html)

Sparky, I agree with should be able to do something; but, for the life of me, I don't know what. If the majority of people remain ignorant, we are doomed.

[Lump]

The blatherer sez, "I've never been so worried for the future and well-being of this country and I'm not young."

You're obviously a very smart guy and a knowledgable and talented writer and I worry about you missing your meds, but you're so skewed to the left there would be no reasoning with you. You wouldn't give a Republican any credit for anything. When the rant for the war is only "Bush Lied" and yet the video tapes show exactly the opposite but when you ask a loonie where is the proof he lied, the screaming starts again. The nuttiness about "We Invaded Iraq For Their Oil" is sheer lunacy as Iraq is a member of Opec and we couldn't buy oil from them if we wanted. There was a 15 month timeline between 9/11 and the start of the war. All of the defense committees in the congress were allowed to see the intel on Iraq and they voted to invade. The Dems in the 90's also concurred that Iraq was a threat and were all in line to approve the invasion the country. Perhaps they knew nothing would happen as the President had no testicles to do anything about it, but shout "You Better Watch Out Because I'm really getting mad". The screaming about WMD's and the falsehood should be answered in the MSM as "We know he had them, we know he used them, and Where Are They Now?"
If you ask a leftie to show where the lie is, they just go on a rant because they can't. We know they found 500 tons of uranium and while it was not weapons grade, yet, it is so conveniently removed from the news. The lefties point out that Iraq was never going to be a threat, but they never figured that Bin Laden was either. The newspapers are distorted because the majority of the news news is all reprinted from either the NY Times or the Washington Post. Don't think so?, just look at the front pages of todays paper. All the major newspapers in the country are skewed left. Just look at the front pages of the above mentioned plus the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution, Dallas Daily News, LA Times, Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, Portland Oregonian, and the 3 daily fish wrappers here including the Tacoma Trib,,owned by the Sac Bee. Those papers account for all the major population centers and the surrounding population in the USA. All the little newspapers through out the nation also subscribe to the wire services and all but the local news is reprinted from the big dailies. Never any good news at all, only doom and gloom. I have a new neighbor, an army sargeant, who just moved in last week after returning from Iraq. He's absolutely furious about the crap he reads in the paper and how it doesn't mention any of the good things that have happened and how it's a joke that most of the reporters are hunkered down in the green zone and never venture out into the field. And if you think the papers are not lefties, just look at the recommendations on the editorial page at election time. See any "righties" there" Of course not. The economy is humming along with record tax collections and high employment. Any good news there, of course not. The lefties complain about the wages are now lower and a there is a huge deficit. But, if you cut their favorite programs, boy do they scream bloody murder. Lefties scream about the pork going to Alaska, but bend over and kiss the buns of the dumbest senator in the US when she brings pork here to Washington. Rants about tax cuts for the wealthy, but no mention that it's the rich who pay most of the taxes. The richest man in the world is not a Republican and there are far more Democratic millionaires in the Congress than the Republicans. Front pages scream about Bush's poll numbers, but never mention that Democrat presidents have had similar ones in their second term. I for one give Bush a no approval on his job and have refused to contribute any money to the Republican Party till Bush closes the border and stops illegal immigration, drugs, weapons, and probably terrorists too. But while the lefties crow about poll numbers, they conveniently forget that the public doesn't like them any better and they are unable to convert negatives to votes at this time. I hope that Bush for the remainder of his term sticks the Dems in the eye, forgets about any bipartisan cooperation since all he gets is a bloody nose from it, and just goes full speed ahead and let the left piss and moan and howl. But, remember tonight, while people around the world are fighting and dying, you'll be able to sleep in your own bed and wake up tomorrow safe and sound.

[chris]

Who found the uranium? Jeff Gannon, the White House stenographer Judith Miller? Yes Truman went out with low ratings but Eisenhower at least brokered a deal to end the war. I don't see Bushler taking that kind of advice these days.

The BushDavidians of the White House are running things and Cheney and Condi are loyal to the end until flame and smoke overcomes them. Yeah Lump, all of America really wants to see half billion dollar bridge being built to a city of a few hundred--where's the comparision to that here in Wash?

It really comes down to a president who can say he made a mistake and hurt the country--Clinton did do that and his ratings after impeachment were in the high 60's. Will it take someone to give Bush a blowjob so we can start impeachment and the national nightmare can end?

[Andrew]

Oh, Good Lord you're one to call someone else a blatherer. Can you keep it under five thousand words?

Those attacks against liberals are straw man attacks. Rather than attack actual liberals you build up an imaginary abstract liberal that feel comfortable knocking down.

Unlike conservatives, liberals are not absolutists, we don't all revel in the bad poll numbers, we don't say Republicans never did any good, we don't insist America become a communist tax state. etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Unlike you we are not absolutists, so we don't think Saddam Hussein was a great guy, but what we disagree with is the obvious fact that the White House HAD TO DECEIVE AMERICANS TO SELL THE WAR. Why the fuck should that have even been necessary if it was such a Godly thing to do?

Are you going to tell me the White House has to lie to us to get the job done? That's what you want isn't it? For George Bush, Hannity or O'Reilly to tell you bed time stories and tuck you in at night?

Unlike conservatives no one liberal thinks alike. We are liberal because we embrace many ideals whereas you embrace only one, Jesus Land. If you want to attack liberals you have to figure out which one you're attacking first. The liberal straw man you attack isn't any liberal here.

[Andrew]

that last post is for Lump

[Eric T]

Lump is right! You cannot fool everyone forever! Here comes the truth! What will you people do when you realize that you have been wrong? Its OK to move in the right direction.

[chris]

Where is the 'truth', eric?

[joanie]

Wrong about what, Eric?

[Andrew]

Very good Eric, You've used rhetoric! You get a gold star!

[Lump]

Andrew sez,"Oh, Good Lord you're one to call someone else a blatherer. Can you keep it under five thousand words?"

Andrew, you better stand on a chair since my "blathering" went over your head.

[PeakLimiter]

Support Err America!

http://larslarson.com/LinksNStuff/LarsSpoofs/Attachment_GetAttachment.aspx?id=1466&fd=0

[ExDem]

Simple question for people on this blog. You're not trying to answer for the entire world, just share what YOU BELIEVE. How do you answer the following question:

I believe that the press corps and major media's attitude toward President Bush's administration can best be classified as:

(a) Friendly (willing to trust, to give the benefit of the doubt, giving preference for the positive side of events)

(b) Neutral (present both sides equally, withholding any judgment in reporting, needing convincing evidence before drawing conclusions)

(c) Hostile (distrusting, assuming the worst, bias toward highlighting the negative)

[Jon]

Joanie:
"Also, the NY Times with the help of this great liberal named Judith Miller certainly gave the Bush administration a hard time selling the Iraq war, didn’t it?"

Uuhhh....how many articles did Miller actually publish on Iraq in the lead-up to the war?

Andrew:"... but what we disagree with is the obvious fact that the White House HAD TO DECEIVE AMERICANS TO SELL THE WAR."

Deceive them how?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

What did Bush say that was materially different than the above quotes or what was coming out of the Clinton White House during the 90's? If you think the war is/was a bad idea, fine, but don't rewrite history and say the opposition said Saddam had NO WMD's, and only Bush said so, because it's simply not true.

Back on thread.....

Why is AAR asking for donations? Why is it seemly struggling? Who on the left who isn't under a rock doesn't know about AAR? I can't figure out why AAR hasn't taken off, unless people don't like the programming, for whatever reason. I do agree with B. Michael, if AAR stations got more local folks, they would be doing better.

[Andrew]

I don't think it's odd that Air America is asking for donations. If wealthy liberals want to pay money to listen to liberals talk than so be it. It's not there fault that traditional volume and advertising won't support their radio preferences on its own. Conservative talk works with a traditional model because they have a higher volume of listenership meaning that advertising alone will support the station's costs. The fact is that even though it's rare to get funding this way there is nothing wrong with it.

Think of it as a cross between subscription based satelite radio and regular advertisement radio.

Jon: The White House deceived everybody by not revealing that their case for war was mostly based on the words of one unreliable source and they asserted that the uranium/niger story was credible knowing that it had been discredited. They weren't honest with even you, their constituancy. End of story.

Ted Kennedy saying Iraq has weapons doesn't make what the White House did OK. Infact I don't give a shit what Ted Kennedy thinks. Did the White House not deceive us?

I like everyone else thought Colen Powell was a stand up guy and that his presentation was the product of the finest intelegent agency in the world. Boy did they fuck me.

ExDem: the White House press corps is upset that they were lied to about many things, particularily the Rove/Libby involvement in plamegate. McClellan said they weren't involved. Being neutral doesn't imply that someone should tolerate lies does it?

[joanie]

Quickie for Jon: Judith Miller set the tone for the New York Times editorial board. They believed she knew what she was talking about and had good sources. So, this bastion of so-called liberal press actually supported Bush on the war. They didn't know she was being used. They trusted her and they trusted her vouching for her resources. They have parted ways with her.

Can you cite one article (not a columnist who speaks for him/herself) where the paper took issue with Bush on the war and weapons of mass destruction prior to the war?

ExDem: You keep setting up these multiple choice questions but you never respond to ones put to you. What's the deal here?

By the way, I pick A. Mainstream media gave him the benefit of the doubt after 9-11 and up through Afghanistan and even into Iraq and "mission accomplished." If you disagree, please cite examples.

[joanie]

One more for Andrew: the White House press corp be damned! They are just as culpable in all this as those they now accuse. They don't do the hard stuff . . . the beltway journalists are so in the pockets of government it is sickening. I have no empathy for them at all. They need to get off their proverbial butts and do some real investigating again.

As for Scott McClelland, he's in a feduciary role and has to trust his boss. So, he's got egg on his face. Goes with the territory.

No sympathy for him either. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

[ExDem]

Joanie,

I think the only question posed to me during this thread was from you. You ask where is this liberal media you keep hearing about? OK, some easy examples:

1) Swift Boat vets vs Forged National Guard memos. George Bush's National Guard Service has been covered during every campaign he has been in (twice for Governor, twice for President). There is nothing left for the press to cover here, yet they continue to perpetuate the story. A forged memo comes to CBS, and despite no support from the document experts they had look at the memo, and despite the fact that it was only 1 person making the accusation, they run with the story anyway. Meanwhile, 200+ veterans from the same unit John Kerry served with in Vietnam come together to voice their complaints about Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander In Chief, based on his behavior and performance in Vietnam. They raise provocative allegations that the candidate won't disprove by releasing records. The mainstream media ignores the story altogether, despite a large number of credible characters raising the charges.

2) The whole context of what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq is totally distorted. These 2 countries, ruled by either dictators or repressive regimes, have been liberated. Iraqis have voted several times, despite terrorists killing people to discourage voting. Iraq approved a Constitution recently by an overwhelming majority. All of this with only 2,000 soldiers lost over a 2 year period. We lost more soldiers than that by 9:00 am on one day at Antietam, or at Normandy. Yet, the vote on the Constitution is reported on a day or two, while the roadside bombs are covered daily. The drumbeat is that the war is a total failure when historic progress has been made despite the enormity of the task - that perspective is totally lost or left out.

3) Economic news is consistently reported in a negative light. We were in a full out recession 5 years ago. Bush campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts. The mainstream media reported how no one wanted these tax cuts and how they would "cost" the government too much. In the summer of 2001, the tax cuts passed convincingly with 12 Democratic senators voting for the package - even though the media was so out of step with the people on this issue. There is never any reporting that the strong economy today is a direct result of the tax cuts. Instead, the media continues the drumbeat of tax cuts = cost, even though the tax revenues into the US Govt are at record highs because of cuts in the tax rates. And even though the US economy is growing at a rate that is 3 times stronger than Western Europe, the media still doesn't report it.

If I had time, I could document lots of other cases. Again, there isn't some cabal that gets together to synchronize their stories. However, the people in the media are not reflective of the general public. As such, they report from a world view that is liberal even though the majority of the country votes conservative.

[Andrew]

That just proves that liberals become journalists. Sucks to be you.

[Andrew]

Note to Dori Monson, John Procaccino and Frank Shiers: you can't all have "the" big show. You guys need to work out which of you infact has "the big show".

[ExDem]

Liberals do become journalists. Just like liberals become professors and social workers. That's fine - it's a free country and people should pursue their interests.

Journalists are at risk of becoming something they dread - something they find scarier than being labeled a conservative. They are at risk of being irrelevant and laughable. There are plenty of journalists nowadays that like feeling important. Because of the internet and so many cable/radio stations, they don't have a lock on reporting of information any more. As a result, the majority of the population can see even more clearly now how out of touch the media is with average people. People can get all sides of the issue with a few clicks of the mouse. The general population doesn't inhabit the same echo chamber these press people seem to live in.

People aren't generally stupid - although several people on this blog have posted items that claim that the majority are stupid, deceived, vote against their own interests, etc. The majority is rolling their eyes nowadays when the press tries to parrot the Democratic talking points. For instance, the press tries to echo the notion that a Supreme Court candidate is "out of the mainstream" or "an extremist" because they support something reasonable like parental notification before a minor can get an abortion - even though the vast majority of Americans believe the same thing. I guess we're supposed to believe that the majority of our society is out of the mainstream? Huh?

I'm not in the media, so I'm no expert. But I can just imagine the press corps running around in professional circles that serve as an echo chamber to liberal beliefs. Then, they run around in social circles of the same type of people. They just cannot see themselves the way the rest of the country sees them.

It's like the famous story of the sad New York city Democrat after the 1972 landslide victory where Nixon carried 49 states. That person uttered in disbelief, "I can't believe McGovern lost. EVERYONE I KNOW VOTED FOR HIM."

Uh huh....

[ExDem]

Liberals do become journalists. Just like liberals become professors and social workers. That's fine - it's a free country and people should pursue their interests.

Journalists are at risk of becoming something they dread - something they find scarier than being labeled a conservative. They are at risk of being irrelevant and laughable. There are plenty of journalists nowadays that like feeling important. Because of the internet and so many cable/radio stations, they don't have a lock on reporting of information any more. As a result, the majority of the population can see even more clearly now how out of touch the media is with average people. People can get all sides of the issue with a few clicks of the mouse. The general population doesn't inhabit the same echo chamber these press people seem to live in.

People aren't generally stupid - although several people on this blog have posted items that claim that the majority are stupid, deceived, vote against their own interests, etc. The majority is rolling their eyes nowadays when the press tries to parrot the Democratic talking points. For instance, the press tries to echo the notion that a Supreme Court candidate is "out of the mainstream" or "an extremist" because they support something reasonable like parental notification before a minor can get an abortion - even though the vast majority of Americans believe the same thing. I guess we're supposed to believe that the majority of our society is out of the mainstream? Huh?

I'm not in the media, so I'm no expert. But I can just imagine the press corps running around in professional circles that serve as an echo chamber to liberal beliefs. Then, they run around in social circles of the same type of people. They just cannot see themselves the way the rest of the country sees them.

It's like the famous story of the sad New York city Democrat after the 1972 landslide victory where Nixon carried 49 states. That person uttered in disbelief, "I can't believe McGovern lost. EVERYONE I KNOW VOTED FOR HIM."

Uh huh....

[Andrew]

While your claim that liberal media is waning is dubious, what is perfectly clear is the O'Reilly, who is by definition, partisan, biased, opinionated, colored and a jerk is getting the highest ratings of any show on cable news channels.

So for all your accusations that the media tints liberal, you conservatives are eating up heavily tinted news in your favor by the shit load.

You can say what you want about the credibility of our side but it's still nowhere near as embarrasing as yours.

[Lump]

Andrew sez, "You can say what you want about the credibility of our side but it's still nowhere near as embarrasing as yours."

Andrew, your diaper needs changing.

[Andrew]

If my oponents use their time on the floor to hurl insults instead of refuting my arguments does that mean I win the debate? I think so! Yay! I'm a winner!

[ExDem]

Andrew,

O'Reilly is an opinion guy, not a journalist. His opinions don't infect the front page stories on the New York Times or Washington Post. Guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, etc. are all perfectly up front about who they are and the viewpoint they promote. The people that are supposed to report the news are not so open and honest. They're liberal - why don't they just admit it and get on with it? There's plenty of people that will still watch CNN or read the NYT if their reporters and news staffs admitted they were liberal. Their viewers and readers already know it anyway.

The conservative folks don't trust those outlets and don't like what they report, so they've already moved on. At least these liberal lions in the news business could go to sleep at night with a clean conscience. Instead, I'm sure most of them will continue to claim that they are "objective" and continue pouncing on stories about mass murder in the Superdome after Katrina (based on unverified rumors), or Rove will be indicted (wishful thinking), or Cindy Sheehan has such a large following (of about 12 people), or the economy is terrible (despite unemployment rates of 5.0%), etc. As long as the charade continues, the news professionals continue down the path of being laughed at by anyone other than the most devoted liberals.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the Dan Rathers, Tom Brokaws, Soledad O'Briens, Katie Courics, etc. to admit that they're liberals to their news audiences.

[Mesa]

Niel Cavuto, Brit Hume report the news as anchors on their own shows...they do not give any indication that they are presenting anything but a "fair and balanced" view of the news.

The laughing goes both ways...

[Mark D]

Andrew wrote:
"While your claim that liberal media is waning is dubious, what is perfectly clear is the O'Reilly, who is by definition, partisan, biased, opinionated, colored and a jerk is getting the highest ratings of any show on cable news channels."

Then the next post Andrew wrote:
"If my oponents use their time on the floor to hurl insults instead of refuting my arguments does that mean I win the debate? I think so! Yay! I'm a winner!"

I guess you aren't a winner.

[Mark D]

And speaking of liberal occupations, real surprise to find out Joanie is a teacher in Seattle. Also Joanie, your example of a few engineers you know and that they go along with you in "making fun of Bush" proves nothing. For one, it's only a few people in liberal Seattle. Second, I myself will just go along when someone liberal starts talking politics and bashing Bush. I usually just don't want to bother creating tension. This is true for both people I just meet as well as friends of mine. Many liberals I know are very emotional about their political "beliefs" and it is just pointless to even trying to disagree.

Example: A woman I recently went out with was discussing the new Supreme Court nominee. She was going on and on about how abortion was going to be made illegal. I just sat there and nodded until about an hour went by and I couldn't take it anymore. I finally asked her why Roe v. Wade being overturned would be such a huge deal to her. She replied that she would have to go to Canada for an abortion. I then told her that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that abortion would most likely still be legal in Washington and in most states. That the Legislatures would be able to vote in each state and decide the issue. Instead of further discussion, she got upset, told me I was lying, and wanted to go home. Of course, this is one example but typical of many I've had.

Third, Joanie, if you are the teacher for their children, you will be giving them a grade. I wouldn't disagree with you if my children were in your class.

[Andrew]

I'm not saying that O'Reilly calls himself a journalist. I only care about who is watching what and conservatives are favoring opnion covered news over opinionless news, wether it be on FNC or any other channel.

While you nit pick persuasions your missing the bigger picture.

Conservatives are looking up to authority figures to interpret the news for them the way a priest interprets the intentions of the bible in a way that is relevant to modern life. They aren't taking interest in ordinary journalism. They are sheep that need shepard to lead them.

I am genuinely scared by the fact that conservatives gravitate towards pack mentality. You could sign off on a holy war if you wanted to. Sean Hannity could single hanedly declare war on Islam at any moment.

Liberals are less similar to one another than conservatives and that's why we have less cohesion as a groups and for the same number of people we have less influance. Liberal talkers can never become hugely popular because liberals can't be spoken to as a single group. But this advatange of cohesion conservatives have doesn't make them right any more than Nazi's were right.

[Andrew]

Mark D, the difference is that my insults come with refutes. There's often don't.

I'm all for insults as long as there is substance in them or with them.

[Andrew]

Mark D says "Many liberals I know are very emotional about their political "beliefs""

The thing about alot of liberal positions is that they are anti-belief.

Take abortion for example, we don't want to outlaw it because we lack a belief that fetuses inherently have the same rights as individuals with birth certificates.

Many of us lack the belief that smoking pot is a sin, or that one religion's premises should factor into the laws and policies that aply to all Americans of and and every religion.

When you say political "beliefs" I'm looking in your direction.