Talk:Air America Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Why is Piquant's "Gloria Wise" loan listed as an Air America topic?

Given that AA has changed hands and that this loan was apparently done by the parent company anyway, it seems odd that this bit of history still has its own section (and a mis-named page elsewhere at Wikipedia). This is like noting the Walter Reed scandal on the Chrysler page because it was part of the parent company's doings... or, more aptly, the Daimler bribery scandals which were part of the FORMER parent company's doings. I appreciate the cleanup done on this page but think there's still one section left to go. Davert (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right Wing Conspiracy to Buyout Air America stations and convert to Christian Broadcasting?

Both KXXT in Phoenix [1] and WLIB in NY were bought out and converted to Christian Broadcasting. Is this part of a conspiracy to shut down Air America?

No. KXXT was independently owned, and the owner sold the station to a Christian broadcast group. WLIB ownership did not change hands. They almost leased time on the station to Randy Michaels (who owns part of the Ed Schultz Show) but that didn't work out. WLIB saw a hole for gospel music and went for it. I'm guessing they wanted to do a format that served the black community, and that certainly does. Otherwise, there is no conspiracy. And many AAR affiliates are owned by big companies like Clear Channel, Entercom, CBS, Saga, etc., and they aren't going anywhere unless the owners want to sell. It's not a concious effort by religious groups. They'll buy whatever they can get their hands on, and don't necessarily seek out particular formats to displace. --Fightingirish 07:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In a word: NO. Lets be mature and rational about this; not everything is a right-wing conspiracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spnst3 (talk • contribs) 19:05, October 1, 2006 (EST).

I would agree that these particular buyouts were not likely aimed at Air America specifically. One thing worth noting however is that there is a small area of FM bandwidth that is reserved for public interest, with the intention of being used by small, community based stations. Formerly this was peopled with NPR, student stations and local religious services. In the past few decades however, an increasing number of large religious groups have been using this loophole to grab space cheaply from small community groups, which also has the effect of drowning out the smaller stations with their nationally funded transmitters.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21639/ http://www.wcbn.org/articles/barney.html

So I agree that Air America may not have been a specific target, but dismissing an honest question as immature and irrational is hardly helpful in this forum, particularly when you haven't taken the time to consider or research the question itself. - KellyLogan 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, first of all, I'd have to agree with the other guy in that when anybody buys out a radio station that may or may not have to do with Air America, it is immature and irrational to then assume "right wing conspiracy to buyout air america stations and convert to christian broadcasting". In addition, I would hardly consider "an "alternative" news website", and a student-run radio at a university to be 100% trustworthy sources of information. Perhaps if the question had been posed as "Is someone trying to buyout Air America?" Then the question would have been valid but the usage of Right Wing Conspiracy and convert to Christian Broadcasting turns it into an irrational (conspiracy theory) and immature (jab at Christians). It paints a picture of Christians as evil, scheming villains plotting to tear down the great Air America to avoid having to counter their arguements or something and replace them with brainwashing religious messages. Which, in my experience, with a little rephrasing, is the practice of left leaners. (please note emphasis on in my experience, I'm claiming this only about people I've met). 66.69.88.64 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Air America Radio and the revert war

At the bottom of the AAR article is a list of outside sources and websites, and I notice that there has been a little revert war. I don't have too many problems with this, though there does seem to be too many unimportant articles and opinion pieces listed here. For one, NewsMax is not a legitimate news source. They are very slanted and often not very accurate, and from all that I could find, Soros never was financially involved in AAR, therefore the headline is very misleading. Could we at least just scale this mess down and put up articles that everyone can agree on?--Fightingirish 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC) GET PAID While I might agree NewsMax is not a legitimate source, it is at least as legitimate as DailyKos, MediaMatters, TruthOut, and etc that far too many here have far too little trouble with. Wikipedia needs to display a little consistancy, and you need to provide examples of the "inaccuracies" you claim if you want to be taken seriously. I'm restoring the NnewsMax article. 67.72.98.93 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not legit and lies, out it goes, in my opinion. I'd like to see some evidence that Media Matters is invalid. User:davert

Media Matters is a partisan, Soros-funded Democratic operation.
It's not a legitimate news source, and billing it as such is inaccurate. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/ ) has never received funding from Soros, directly or indirectly, and is not affiliated with any political party. Media Matters qualifies as a legitimate news source because its reporting is factually accurate. Which is not true in the case of NewsMax. Clore 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity has already proven her inability to be unbiased in this case. I'd count Media Matters as much more legitimate than NewsMax et al. Davert 15:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on. I think rational people can agree that neither of them are "legitimate" sources of unbiased news, right?
Mitchberg 16:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Responding to Ruthfulbarbarity, Not that there's anything wrong with getting money from George Soros - I wonder why conservatives never have to explain who they get money from or why? - but Media Matters doesn't actually get any Soros funding. They do get funding from other organizations Soros funds, but unlike some people, I don't consider MoveOn to be "a Soros front." If you look at the intake of funds, you see it's very widely spread. They're no more "a Soros front" than the Republican party is "a Saudi Arabian front" or the Heritage Foundation is "a Coors front."

The question of credibility also has little to do with partisanship and more to do with accuracy. I would generally believe statements by Republican ex-President Gerald Ford but not Ann Coulter, because of their track records, though both are in the same party and are grouped together politically. Likewise, I'd believe statements by that guy from SNL but I'd want confirmation from that guy from Flint (yes, I sometimes forget names.) There are more and less credible sources on both left and right, and that does enter into whether they're valid resources for Wikipedia. Davert (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AAR announces new schedule, effective September 18

I added the new schedule, which was released to affiliates and the media. This is cited by, among others, Radio and Records, which is an industry news source. Also added a current event tag. --Fightingirish 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a false assertion or implication of Bankrupcty may be actionable defamation

The Supreme Court case of Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985) said so. Be careful editors if you post untrue damaging facts. Chivista 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we attribute to a source, we'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If the plaintiff is public figure, then ordinary care (i.e. absence of malice) would usually hold us okay. If it is an ordinary plaintiff we cannot be careless and if we quote someone (or blog) who we know or should reasonably know is unreliable, then we need to do some checking. There was a defamation case where the judge said that a "tale-spreader" is just as liable as the "tale-teller"... so we want to avoid liability. :) Think Progress does not seem to have an axe to grind and is not generally thought unreliable. Chivista 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, we are only repeating what other sources wrote. There would not be actionable claims against Wikipedia, only against the original source. Also, Greenmoss Builders would NOT be the controlling Supreme Court case. Air America is a radio network that made a business decision to engage in public debate and has held itself out as public entity, with a outlandish public persona. They have chosen to interject themselves in the public debate of ideas and as such they would qualify a public figure under the terms of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. Air America, when they sued the original reporter, not Wikipedia, would have to prove "actual malice." The lower level standard of Greenmoss would not apply. Air America's cause of action would get nowhere. So we should report all the developments and make clear that we properly attribute who is making what statements.--Getaway 19:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Getaway has the law correct and writen crisply! :) he must be an abogadoo! Chivista 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It is looking like yet another disinformation campaign by the right-wing noise machine, perhaps intended to scare off potential advertisers. Is it the truth, or lies, or half truths? It is the wet dream of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and O'Rielly to have the airways to themselves. Let's see who from Air America is on the air tomorrow.Edison 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that in the intro paragraph there is a badly written section about "news", more a prediction of the future, that even describes itself as "not encyclopedic". Shouldn't something like that be hashed out here in discussion until there are actual facts to report? For instance, a well written section, here, could be copied over if it turns out to be true. In the meanwhile, I know I should be bold, but I'd rather just suggest it, I think that whole "imminent ch. 11" thing should be simply removed (or copied to the discussion in case it proves to be the earliest mention of somethign that happens). At most, there could be a section added called "Myths and Rumors," if it is the consensus that AAR is such a rumor magnet that it becomes an encyclopedic fact (like I would imagine JFK conspiracy theories could be). Thank you for your time. human 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but befiore I made my edits, it was just a mere prediction floating out there without even a reference. Maybe we should remove or change it to the Romours section. Chivista 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see the file has been changed to a more sensible arrangement - I am going to edit the "rumor of demise" part so it reads a bit better near the end, I intend no change to the meaning, though. Someday it may not be of encyclopedic value, but for now I think it remains interesting. human 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
haha, looks like the speculation was true, almost prophetic, October 13th 2006, AAR indeed did file for bankruptcy... -peterp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.72.141 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 October 2006.

[edit] AAR and Randi Rhodes

Just a quick question. If the Randi Rhodes show is a call-in show, then why does she spout her ininformed, hateful rhetoric (often times most of what she says are just plain lies. The statement not supposition that the VP shot his hunting companion because he wasn't conservative enough) for sometimes an hour at a stretch and only take about one call every hour on the average? Could it be that here statements are highly suspect and just about anyone with half a brain could prove her wrong, or, it is that she just doesn't have enough sheep in her audience to provide enough callers for her mind numbingly long spew session?--12.171.163.31 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page isn't for the discussion of the shows or AAR, but for discussion regarding the article. Is this something you're trying to incorporate somehow? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Send your question to the Reference Desk. Edison 20:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It IS about AAR in the fact that Randi Rhodes' comments and the way she conducts her radio show as well as Seder and Stuart Smallie is the reason for AAR's demise.--72.16.132.20 15:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


"Assuming facts not in evidence"They seem to be going strong today. Sorry to disappoint the Right Wing Noise Machine ™ Edison 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If the Randi Rhodes show is a call-in show, then why does she spout her ininformed, hateful rhetoric (often times most of what she says are just plain lies.
Because, love it or hate it, talk radio (left or right) is entertainment. Whether the host is Sean Hannity, Randi Rhodes or anyone in between, the whole goal is to entertain people so they tune in so advertisers buy lots of air time. That - not number of calls taken - is the only measure of success in talk radio.
Well - conventional talk radio, anyway...
And to answer, it's a combination lecture and call in show. First she talks about something, then she takes calls. Is that better? Davert 23:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiot Watch: Me...

OK, I just edited some text in one section (rumors of demise), I didn't touch any formatting type symbols as far as I could tell, and now the TOC seems to have vanished. I hate to seem like such a wikinewbiepedian, but did I accidentally mess something up? Drop me a note at my talk page (and/or edit here) if I did screw up and it wasn't some sort of wiki fluke. Thanks, and sorry for interrupting the discussion with my potential cluelessness. human 03:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

Current:

Ratings for AAR affiliates have been low primarily in markets where stations have been hindered by signal limitations, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Washington, DC.

I think this is misleading. The rating in Washington was zero, not low. Also, in Cincinnati, they were on a 50,000 watt station and also drew few listeners. They were switched to a co-owned, lower power station there.

This article states that it has an average of 1.2 shares across the nation. That statistic needs context. 1.2 shares out of what? 10 shares? 100 shares? 42 shares? If it does not have context, it is a useless statistic. (Dace48 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

It means 1.2% of the people tuned into the radio at any given time.
I'm working on an article on Ratings that I'll link to from the "Ratings" mention in question.
Mitchberg 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an .mp3 or .wav file possible?

It would be wonderful to add either that trumpet "waaaahhh woooowww" noise or a sound bite of Nelson, the bully from the Simpson's, saying his signature "ha ha!"

Recommendation:

Outside of liberal strongholds, Air America ratings have been low. Examples: Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Washington, DC. In some cases, being on low power or high AM frequency stations has contributed to these low ratings, and the trend is continuing (New York, Cincinnati)

I think that would be a terribly biased way to phrase it. User:Davert

Also, why does this page delve into every scandal and mistake Air America ever made, while Fox News doesn't delve into every scandal and mistake they ever made? WHat's with the double standards? User:Davert

First Fox News survives because it is sucessful. It is the highest rated news channel. Air America it can be argued would be out of business if certain people(George Soros and other) did not finance it. Tannim 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the AAR network is known primarily, if not exclusively, for:
1. Scandals surrounding its on-air talent and management. Specifically, its inability to remain solvent.
2. Its remarkably low ratings.
Simply because information does not reflect well upon a subject does not mean that it can be consciously excluded. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bears this out...

Please stop writing that the rating or demise of Air America "bears something out." It is a POV comment. It is unfactual. It is an opinion. I am tired of seeing it here again and again. It is a usless comment as well. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. Just let it go. thank you, Noit 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth: Why Air America's Signal is so Weak

Okay, folks... A quick review of the facts:

  1. 1. Air America was a bad idea from the start. The goal was to cater to the far-left... A very unreliable audience (in terms of numbers, age groups, etc... ..demographics)... Not a very good market for advertising in the first place.
  2. 2. Air America PAYS radio stations to carry their program!
  3. 3. Repeat: Air America PAYS stations in order to get on the air. Conservative talk radio hosts GET PAID for their programs... Hell, all other radio works like that; it's called the free market... (But we all know that liberals have trouble understanding capitalism anyway..:) A.A. is just not attractive to major advertisers, so they lost money (if you keep paying for airtime, and for your host's salaries-- without making any profit, you eventually go bankrupt...
  4. 4. The whole right-wing conspiracy theory, (you know, the one involving Air America's lousy radio signal) is totally disproven when you finally realize that Air America PAYS to get onto the airwaves...

They cannot afford decent radio capabilities, so they end up high on the dial, where the weakest (and therefore least expensive) signals are... For example, here in Atlanta (before they stopped bradcasting), they were like 1690 AM !!! That's why they had a bad signal!!! Why doesn't anyone get this??? Regalseagull 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)regalseagull

==Well, I suppose I could respond to this, but it seems you're basically a drive-by. But to shoot some holes in your fiction writing, I should point out that Bill O'Reilly's syndicator, Westwood One, paid very large sums of money to clear his show in New York, L.A., and possibly other large markets. And while AAR did lease time on a few radio stations (as is a very common practice in radio), the vast majority of stations merely pick up the programming just like any other syndicator. AAR offers their programming on a barter basis, which is typical for most syndicated radio. If you do indeed come back and happen to read this, better check your facts next time.

Actually, the truth, as is often the case, is somewhere in between.
While brokering time isn't unusual in talk radio, it's unusual for A-List programming. Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Prager, Medved, Savage, Ingraham - as far as I know (and I grew up in the business and still have a toe in it), none of them do it at all.
O'Reilly, boogeyman that he may be on cable, is not especially successful as a radio personality; he's hardly the show to compare with to judge "success". (I can't stand O'Reilly's show...)
It wasn't unprecedented for Air America to have to lease its clearances in the big markets, but it was hardly a good sign. And while most of AAR's affiliates are barter, as you note, the fact that they have to broker their clearances in so many of the Top 20 markets, objectively, doesn't augur well.
If I were AAR's VP of Programming, that fact would be keeping me up nights right about now.
Mitchberg 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, okay? Dubc0724 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance of this... .V. 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rush? Is that you? ;)

[edit] Problems here

It seems as though 90% of the comments on this page are bigoted right-wing anti-AA inflammation rather than real discussion. I don't think I've seen any other wikipages where most of the posters HATE the object being discussed. This is a problem because objectivity goes right out the window. Comments like "we all know that liberals have trouble understanding capitalism anyway" are obnoxious claptrap and you pretty much ruled yourself out as anything resembling an objective editor with it. Davert 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If someone really hates something, they just shouldn't bother to click the Edit button, either in the article or on the talk page. It's just good policy (and creates less junk for me to sift through). When really hardcore POV stuff comes up, it doesn't fool anyone, it's just more crap to scroll through. .V. 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? No one on the Bush page hates him? No one on the Limbaugh page hates him? Or the Hillary page? Or the Hannity page? Or the Gore, Kerry, Rice, Gates, Paolini, Cruise, Moore, Coulter, Franken, and Republican/Democrat pages? You mean no one who posts on those discussion pages posts incoherent "I HATZORS!" drivel? Wow. News to me. Maybe we could just take care of trying to make the page encyclopedic instead of saying "Air America is the Best!" "No, They Suxxors!" "No, you suxxors!" "You'r Mouther!" etc etc etc. Mmm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
Oh, by the way, I am one of those bigoted right-wing etc. people. My point was that to complain that everyone who writes "BAD STUFF!" on this page is evil, and that NO ONE on other pages exhibits this behavior ("I don't think I've seen any other wikipages where most of the posters HATE the object being discussed.") is incorrect. Facts are facts, no matter whose political group disseminates them. 66.243.210.102 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional note - why is Progress Media all over this article? I didn't notice Fox News' parent company discussed all over the Fox News page. Does anyone else think removing Gloria Wise case (not even the current owners) and Progress Media would be a problem? -- especially since AAR is now owned by Piquant LLC, NOT Progress Media. Should we not have a separate page for P.M. rather than the current redirect page? Also, who can fix that? Davert 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gloria Wise situation was only notable to right wingers. They tried desperately to make something of it, but the way you can tell its a right wing crap story is that if you Google it, you get few reliable sources, it's all Michelle Malkin, Radio Equalizer, and other far-right propagandists. The Gloria Wise scandal does not really need it's own section on this page, and it definitely doesn't warrant it's own article on wikipedia. Im going to merge this section into "difficulties", and propose the seperate Gloria Wise article for deletion. nut-meg 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Litmus Test

Clearly this article has a lot of partisan heat, especially concerning whether or not Air America is successful or not. The reason this is, is because the right believes the media is leftist while the left believes it is neutral. The argument goes that right wing radio was successful, because it had no voice in normal media channels and consequently a left wing radio station would not work because it currently has plenty of voice. Therefore Air America's success or failure is looked upon as a test as to whether normal media channels are leftist.

Explaining this is not POV; it does however make clear why this article is the way it is. Giving sourced quotes that explain why the left and right consider this article important is not a leftist position nor is it a rightist position it is simply a desire to explain the seemingly odd focus of this article. Aepryus 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

A couple of suggested changes: the first paragraph state mainly liberal point of view. Would it be more accurate to remove the mainly. I don't recall a moderate or conservative given equal time. As opposed to Fox who does. Second as Air American is a failure by it's ratings and bankrupcies should that be mentioned in the lead?Giza D 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Try Thom Hartmann. He has frequent conservative guests and lets them talk. Anon 3:42 May 23, 2007 (UTC)
Failure? Hmmm... They're still on the air. I wouldn't necessarily call that 'failure'. Sounds to me as if you've been watching too much FOX News. --Fightingirish 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning Fox as an example of giving time to liberals is interesting indeed - the only one I know of is Colmes who doesn't say much. Also, regarding the 'failure' ... NPR is a failure compared with the Big Three networks, or Clear Channel and Fox News; but that doesn't go in their lead. For that matter though many books and singers are failures according to ratings, it doesn't go in their lead (any more than 'failure' Mitsubishi, with its small market share, gets called a failure.) Man, talk about violating NPOV! Davert 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air America critics

Currently, there are three blogs listed under 'Critics'. Of the three, Radio Equalizer rarely mentions Air America anymore, Boreamerica has few readers and only posts once every week or two, and the third one looks to be relatively new and has only three posts on it. I'm all for including critics, but can't we find better critics? Hell, I criticize Air America occasionally on my blog, and I get more readers than two of the ones linked here. Yet I don't feel a link to it belongs on this article. I'm all for removing these three blog links, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason not to. --Fightingirish 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should stay, unless we can find suitable replacements. But I would say you could trim it down to 2. I also think the fan sites should be trimmed way down. --Bill.matthews 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AAR1.jpg

Image:AAR1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

i added justification...hopefully that'll hold 'em. --emerson7 | Talk 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunno how this survived on this page for any period of time

I deleted the following paragraph from the "History" section because it was pure opinion (and wrong opinion IMO, but that's not relevant ;) ) and goes against everything Wikipedia is about. People should not be arguing their political opinions in a damned entry!!! Anyway, here's what I deleted:

But most of what the conservative media identified as liberal biased has been indistinguishable from conservative biased corporate owned media's journalists and commentators simply attempting to be objective and even handed, as was the pledge corporate media had to originally make to acquire a license to broadcast and to be trusted by the public. Liberals have pointed out that if reporting that a US war in countries like Vietnam or Iraq is going badly for the United States (because it is factual even if the 3 corporate owned networks support the war) is viewed as "liberal bias", then accusations of liberal bias in the national media can be seen as a conservative strategy to encourage censorship in media that is in truth already conservative by default because it is owned by multi-billion dollar corporations. In other words, so-called "liberal bias" media is simply conservative biased media that is trying hard to avoid being little more than a dogmatic right wing propaganda machine and instead tries to actually maintain some amount of balanced journalistic and objective media reporting integrity. (A strategy similar to neoconservatives claiming the United States is a socialist country in order to put pressure on voters and the US government to eliminate token social programs that help the poor and working people.)

These conflicting assessments have created an unusual amount of interest in the health of Air America. AlexMc 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole article looks like a scarred victim of the edit wars. I think at this point people are afraid to touch it. I'm gonna get bold and start rewriting some stuff here, because quite frankly, it looks like hell. It's turned into a veiled political flame war. Time to get this thing looking presentable.--Fightingirish 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a rewrite, kids!

Okay, I finally decided to get bold and clean up this complete overlong mess of an article. I removed the wishy-washy political stuff, some redundancy, lots and lots of weasel words and opinion, outdated content and the network's schedule (which was basically on there twice). Don't worry - I left all the controversial stuff you guys love to fight over (Morning Sedition, Gloria Wise, bankruptcy) in there. It's notable stuff. In short, I hacked it down from 38K down to a slimmer 31K. Still not enough, though. I think more stuff can be taken out or moved to another page. I wouldn't mind moving the stuff about AAR being dropped by individual affiliates to the 'list of AAR affiliates' page. In this article, it's all scattered and messy, though it is sourced, so I don't want to totally obliterate it. There's still work to be done here.--Fightingirish 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Gloria Wise stuff should be removed since that was done by the OWNER of Air America - which is NO LONGER the owner. It's like holding putting the DaimlerChrysler bribery scandals onto Chrysler LLC's page. Davert 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is about all of Air America, not just the Air America owned by Piquant. So I think it's relevant. Diderot's dreams 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Should have a list of regular guests and celebrity hosts. Easymem (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it shouldn't. That would qualify as trivia and wouldn't add anything significant to the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal/Progressive links

I think that the liberal/progressive links should be changed to link to modern definitions of the terms. "Liberalism" links to Liberalism_in_the_United_States while it should probably more appropriately link to Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States. Similarly, "Progressive" links to Progressivism while Progressivism_in_the_United_States might be more appropriate (although I think a Modern Progressivism in the United States article would be more appropriate. AAR concerns itself with modern liberal and progressive concepts, and the suggested changes would be more helpful to an interested reader. Biccat (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)biccat

[edit] Not liberal

Air America is not, and has no intention of being, a liberal station. From their own statements ""We want to talk to everyone and help everyone make the right choice." The advertising statements of "No Commie speak here", and "America's Progressive Talk" has essentially alienated the two largest groups of America's "political Left", the Socialist Party and the Communist Party while focusing on the "progressive" (centrist) democratic audience. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hands up everyone who really thinks America's left wing is largely communists and Socialist Party members. What, no hands? Davert (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Read up on Modern liberalism in the United States and Liberalism in the United States. There is included a list of issues which typify liberalism. Air America hosts (and former hosts) tend to hold these views. While the AAR corporation may not necessarily hold these views itself, it sponsors and broadcasts those who hold these views, and therefore it is not inappropriate to call it a liberal network. My point being that sometimes self-characterization is inappropriate for a factual article. Biccat (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Air America is left wing radio. There is no doubt about that. But there is nothing wrong about being liberal. Easymem (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current financial status?

Anyone has any inside information on the current financial status of Air America Radio? There should be a section on this part, and should be updated quarterly.Easymem (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • If such information were available, it has already been added to the article. You cannot hide from a checkuser request by posting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense on talk pages. Stop it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)