Shot In The Dark: Death Spiral

March 06, 2006

Death Spiral

A story from late last week - Air America is three weeks away from losing its NYC affiliate, according to Brian Maloney.

Apparently WLIB has been bought by someone who wants to compete, nationally, with Air America. That's the long-term problem; in the short term, it will leave Air America without a huge chunk of its listenership:

Even if Air America somehow finds a last-ditch way to remain on the air in the nation's most important market, it will be at a tremendous disadvantage, compared to what it has had up until now.

Unlike our previous reporting [the Gloria Wise scandal], which the company could either deny or ignore, this will be impossible to spin. It's either losing WLIB or it isn't.

And we'll apparently know by the end of the month.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Mitch at March 6, 2006 06:05 AM | TrackBack

Comments

My God Mitch, you sure are focused on AirAmerica. If you spent half as much time investigating flubs on your side of the isle, you might even get taken seriously.

For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/national/06abortion.html?hp&ex=1141707600&en=7531f9a750177ef3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Where it is reported that the instrusive, over-regulating Repulican Party enacts laws that are both short-sighted AND ineffective.

Posted by: pb at March 6, 2006 09:26 AM

"My God Mitch, you sure are focused on AirAmerica."

I've written a few posts on the subject over the course of two years. If that's "focus"...

And it's a story - they've stolen money from charities, they're a big rainmaker scheme, and they launched with so much hoopla it's hard not to feel some Schadenfreude. They were going to show all us right-wing mouthbreathers how talk radio was done; they were a joke from the word go.

" If you spent half as much time investigating flubs on your side of the isle,"

Oh, P. There are already a couple thousand leftybloggers "investigating" our "flubs". I'll leave them to their turf, it's that's all right with you.

" you might even get taken seriously."

On the one side: 3000-3500 readers a day, every weekday.

On the other side: PB.

I need say no more.

Posted by: mitch at March 6, 2006 10:27 AM

Good Grief PB, did you even read that article? So what if parental notification didn't reduce the abortion rate? The point of the legislation was to prevent minors from having medical procedures without their parents knowledge. What was the most revealing fact in the article? That most teens getting abortions are doing so under pressure from their parents! pro-choice my eye.

Back on subject. Perhaps now we know the real reason why Franken moved his show to Mpls. To avoid the Ed Schultz effect of having your flagship sink beneath you

Posted by: rick at March 6, 2006 10:29 AM

Stuart Smalley moved back to MPLS because he wants to establish residency to run for Senate against Coleman. After 30 years in New Yawk he's still just one of us.

Posted by: Kermit at March 6, 2006 10:50 AM

You can't fault Mitch for posting about Air America, Peeb. He does do political talk radio after all. Let the right-wing kooks keep AM radio if it means that much to them. You can always watch the Daily Show or Bill Maher.

Posted by: angryclown at March 6, 2006 11:13 AM

Kermit:

That is probably the primary reason for Franken's move, but he had to be aware that his hold on NYC was failing. By moving he can claim that it was because he left that AAR failed to hold NYC. Expect Al to quit his show right before AM950 switches to an all farm report format. Air America will collapse on his departure, and then he can boast that he held up the entire network (which is certainly true).

That said, the new 950 pm drive time show is interesting in that there is some actual dialogue going on. Apparently they found some mold-tolerant hosts to work in the Air America MN Studios.... Mold Resistant Non-Monkies!

Posted by: rick at March 6, 2006 11:26 AM

PB: "you might even get taken seriously."

Mitch: "On the one side: 3000-3500 readers a day, every weekday.

"On the other side: PB."

Once again Peeb sets 'em up, Mitch knocks 'em down.

C'mon pb. This was decided by TKO long ago. Throw in the towel already.

Posted by: Brad at March 6, 2006 11:50 AM

Brad,

Thanks!

But let me just add; *I* don't take me all that seriously. Nobody should.

There are things in life to take seriously; your children, your faith, the care and feeding of your soul, pursuing perfection at one's chosen art or craft (whether it's building a cabinet or playing a guitar or brewing the perfect ale)...really, that's about it.

Some blogger in Minnesota? Not so much.

From this hobby I take what I need, and leave the rest. I hope my readers do as well.

Since I have a lot of regular readers, apparently at least some people do. Including, one would suppose, those of you who come here in the mistaken impression that you can assail my content or logic.

Posted by: mitch at March 6, 2006 12:28 PM

A bit off topic, but I see Fast Eddie come out of the same evangelical free church I do on Sunday mornings. For the life of me I am flabergasted how he can listen to the teaching of this conservative, "born again", bible believing church on Sunday morning, and then spew the exact opposite on the radio. (Bethel's url:http://www.bethelfc.com/opencms/opencms/Bethel/index.jsp )

What if he really is just a greedy closet conservative in liberal drag?

What a thought!

Or perhaps he is just on assignment checking out what the "righties" are talking about.

Really, what does happen to liberals when they die?

Posted by: chris at March 6, 2006 12:32 PM

“Really, what does happen to liberals when they die?”

Well if you want to ensure they don’t rise again, you need to stake them in the heart.

Crosses and holy water have been known to work as well.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at March 6, 2006 01:14 PM

"What if he really is just a greedy closet conservative in liberal drag?"

That's been a theory about Fast Eddie for quite some time; he was a Limbaugh-like conservative blowhard for years; the market is obviously a crowded one, and Ed is far from the most talented player in the field.

The theory; he saw the dearth of talent on the left, and decided to "switch", thus becoming a big fish in a small pond. It may have worked; he went from being a mediocre local conservative talent to being a national syndicated play, and one of the better liberals on the air to boot.

Not all THAT dumb, really, if it's true.

Posted by: mitch at March 6, 2006 02:04 PM

" you might even get taken seriously."

On the one side: 3000-3500 readers a day, every weekday.

On the other side: PB.

I need say no more.

Wow- now THAT is arrogance. First Mitch, I neither believe I am so right as to justify an edifice to myself, second, a great deal of your "audience" stems from your involvement in Hatriot.. bully for you, you have a bunch of hate filled sychophants.. woooo hooo..Third, don't confuse readership with being taken seriously.

A "few" posts, more like dozens and dozens, but whatever you want to say.. I might call such a lie, but I suppose a few dozen might be construed with "a few", well in PlanetMitch anyway.

The point is, worrying about AirAmerica makes you look shallow and defensive and venal, which apparently, based upon your rather juvenile response, is true.

One other comment Mitch, you get criticism from lot's of decent folks, not just me, so consider your words a bit, you sounded like a pompous ass with this last respoonse. Is that your intent?

There are DOZENS of leftyblogs, MANY of which have much higher readership than yours, and they don't have a ready made atvertising source like Hatriot Radio.

Posted by: pb at March 6, 2006 04:07 PM

Mitch,

You are PB, aren't you?

He's a caricature; a cartoon, if you will. You invented a fictional troll to inhabit your comment threads to prime the vituperation pump and stir up the locals.

You had me fooled until you tipped your hand:

"First Mitch, I neither believe I am so right as to justify an edifice to myself, second, a great deal of your "audience" stems from your involvement in Hatriot"

Sometimes parody can be *too* good.

Briliant!

And...

Curious.

Posted by: LearnedFoot at March 6, 2006 04:24 PM

Yep, those Kool Aid boys have fake comments of me all the time. Their rediculous!

Read my bog!

Eva

Posted by: Eva Young at March 6, 2006 04:26 PM

"Wow- now THAT is arrogance."

Nope.

It's an objective number.

The rest of it is crap you're reading into the situation.

" First Mitch, I neither believe I am so right as to justify an edifice to myself"

Wow. We finally have something in common!

"a great deal of your "audience" stems from your involvement in Hatriot [sic - and do you mean "Hateriot"? Because "Hatriot" implies a disturbance over headger].. bully for you, you have a bunch of hate filled sychophants.. woooo hooo.."

Wow. You were the one talking about "arrogance" - but you've just passed a blanket moral judgement - and a damning one at that - upon over 100,000 complete strangers!

Ascribing "hate" to them (especially given that there is, other than Michael Savage, not a single show on the Salem Network that manages pique, much less "hate" - but then, knowing that would require you to know something of what you're writing about, which is clearly out of the question), that whole group of absolute strangers, is presumptuous at best, and a form of *geniune* hate at worst.

Oh, yeah - you're wrong, anyway. My traffic predates the Northern Alliance's success in the ratings, such as it is (and it IS successful, but success on weekend radio in the Twin Cities is a pretty relative thing).

"Third, don't confuse readership with being taken seriously."

Gosh, d'ya think?

It's not a commentary on my relative worth as a human being. It's a statement of objective fact. I have 3000 readers a day; they don't all agree with me, but many of them keep coming back for whatever reason.

I guess they're all filled with hate, huh, P?

(And what WOULD your excuse be, if that's the case?)

"A "few" posts, more like dozens and dozens, but whatever you want to say.. I might call such a lie, but I suppose a few dozen might be construed with "a few", well in PlanetMitch anyway."

And it makes a difference to you precisely why?

Radio was my first career, P. I have also written a post or two about my lingering affection for the business. Doing talk radio was the first great love of my life - catch that post a few years ago? I enjoy it as a hobby these days. I criticize Air America's politics as a partisan commentator, and their technique as a non-partisan practicioner of the craft.

And if I want to write 2,500 posts on the subject, then just move on to the next post, because as always, I write what I want to write about, and if you don't like it, start your own blog.

"The point is, worrying about AirAmerica"

Worry?

You give THEM too much credit.

"One other comment Mitch, you get criticism from lot's of decent folks, not just me, so consider your words a bit, you sounded like a pompous ass with this last respoonse. Is that your intent?"

If I said something in the woods, and PB wasn't there to hear it, would it still be _______ (arrogant, pompous, whatever)?

"There are DOZENS of leftyblogs, MANY of which have much higher readership than yours, and they don't have a ready made atvertising source like Hatriot Radio."

Er, yeah?

So?

I'm in about the top 1,200-1,500 blogs on the Bear Ecosystem, traffic-wise; many lefty, right-wing, center, sports, science, geek, literature, pr0n, fashion, entertainment and diary blogs get more traffic than I do.

And that's fine, because my blog is what it is; my hobby.

You are neither clairvoyant nor especially insightful about your opponents or my audience. Perhaps some actual research is in order - because the talking points aren't serving you well at all.

Posted by: mitch at March 6, 2006 04:33 PM

So, this is what a bloggers fist fight looks like!!

A nice diversion to a grey day of paperwork!

Just remember, the best fist fights involve a beer at the end...

Posted by: chris at March 6, 2006 04:45 PM

Mitch..

First, for the 10th or 20th time, snipping is a really crappy form of response. Try to take things in context.

Second, your ego is showing.

Third..

Hmmm... so when Micheal Medved said Christianity doesn't mean loving strangers, or when Hannity describes the left as traitorous.. that's not hate speech...

Sure..

Fourth..

" First Mitch, I neither believe I am so right as to justify an edifice to myself"

Wow. We finally have something in common!

Yes.. we do, neither of us think your opinions should warrant the kind of ego you invest in them.. I don't build one to myself, you've done so here, but further than just spout opinion, you attack your dissenters.

Fifth..

And that's fine, because my blog is what it is; my hobby.

You are neither clairvoyant nor especially insightful about your opponents or my audience. Perhaps some actual research is in order - because the talking points aren't serving you well at all.

Not sure where clairvoyance was an issue - whether your "readership" predated Hate Radio is your own assertion, but I'm sure you had opportunities to plug it prior to NARN so let's not be completely disingenuious. Regardless, your claiming it has it's readership due to it's craft (i.e. when I suggested your opinion is not relevant/topical considering the base hypocrisy). The fact is you may have readership for lots of reasons, none of which have anything to do with your logic. To which you've responded "yah think", a really clever reply by the way, but also one which says on the one hand "neener they are so relevant, just look at my readership" and on the other says "but my readership isn't necessarily tied to topicality or logic." Decide which side of your face you want to talk out of. Whether the suggestion of over focus on AirAmerica amounts to irrelevant attack when contrasted against the major failings facing this administration is for your "readership" to determine. That you would with such obvious hubris call your detractors inconsequential and of no value (or relevance) describes someone who is either desperately insecure or supremely arrogant. ALL of us can learn a few things from our critics, you certainly rank in that list.

Regardless, you seem rather pre-occupied with Air America, far more than they are with NARN - why is that Mitch? Why are you worried about a fledgling network? I'm certain they won't take from your audience, and you won't take from theirs. Is it some sort of sick glee at seeing your political counter point fail? If so, that's pathetic.

Posted by: pb at March 6, 2006 05:23 PM

"First, for the 10th or 20th time, snipping is a really crappy form of response. Try to take things in context."

Yeah, Mitch, stop tearing apart PB's arguments in razor-sharp fashion. How dare you use his own faulty logic against him by throwing his words back at him. How can he expect to win a debate when you keep ripping him down point by point?

"Third..

Wait a minute, PB, didn't you just chastise Mitch for snipping? And now you just snipped? What are you, a hypocrite? Oh. . . right.

"Yes.. we do, neither of us think your opinions should warrant the kind of ego you invest in them.. I don't build one to myself, you've done so here, but further than just spout opinion, you attack your dissenters."

See that the beauty of PB's logic. When he writes an 8 billion word rebuttal to one of Mitch's posts, he's being a "dissenter," but when Mitch responds to PB's "dissent," he's "attacking."

PB is a parody unto himself, well worth the filibustering laughs.

Posted by: Ryan at March 6, 2006 06:37 PM

"First, for the 10th or 20th time, snipping is a really crappy form of response. Try to take things in context."

That statement will come back to haunt you very shortly.

"Second, your ego is showing."

That is a psychological inevitability. Everyone's ego shows; having no ego to show is a psychological disability. And inasmuch as I am the most modest, humble, self-effacing person in the entire world, that is merely what it is.

"Hmmm... so when Micheal [sic] Medved said Christianity doesn't mean loving strangers, or when Hannity describes the left as traitorous.. that's not hate speech..."

THAT's the best you can do in calling it "hate radio?"

Criminy.

I can't speak for Hannity. I'm not familiar with your context-free "snip" of Medved's comment, but having heard, read and met Medved over the past 25 years, I am fairly certain you're taking him out of context.

Fact: There is less hate in a day on Salem Radio than there is in one hour of the Mike Malloy show.

"Wow. We finally have something in common!"

"Yes.. we do, neither of us think your opinions should warrant the kind of ego you invest in them."

No, that's not it.

"I don't build one to myself, you've done so here, but further than just spout opinion, you attack your dissenters."

Um, P?

First - yes. You have most definitely built yourself an "edifice". It may not be apparent to you, but it's very definitely there.

And I don't "attack" anyone, although calling it such is certainly dramatic. I argue my point. I get to do that. By your leave.

"Not sure where clairvoyance was an issue - whether your "readership" predated Hate Radio is your own assertion"

Yes. And it's a fact.

", but I'm sure you had opportunities"

Ah, the old "PB is sure!" standard of evidence!

So where were these "opportunities", P? You know so much about what I do and my history - let's hear it!

Assuming you're not speaking, as they say in Latin, "Ad Rectum".

" to plug it prior to NARN so let's not be completely disingenuious [sic]. Regardless, your claiming it has it's readership due to it's craft (i.e. when I suggested your opinion is not relevant/topical considering the base hypocrisy)."

Er...huh?

"The fact is you may have readership for lots of reasons, none of which have anything to do with your logic."

I "may", huh?

Well, that's an interesting assertion. And when I say "interesting", I mean "just plain silly".

" To which you've responded "yah think", a really clever reply by the way, but also one which says on the one hand "neener they are so relevant, just look at my readership" and on the other says "but my readership isn't necessarily tied to topicality or logic."

Well, under the circumstances "ya think" was probably generous. Were I not the impeccable gentleman I am, my reply might have been more like "Do you f*cking think so, genius? No f*cking s**t! Those 3,000-odd people no doubt have 3,000 odd reasons. God bless 'em all".

""Decide which side of your face you want to talk out of."

P, you are ranting now.

" Whether the suggestion of over focus on AirAmerica amounts to irrelevant attack"

I am the sole judge of relevance.

" when contrasted against the major failings facing this administration"

a) comparing a radio network to a government is specious.
b) You're wrong about the administration anyway.

" is for your "readership" to determine. That you would with such obvious hubris call your detractors inconsequential"

Never did that. I merely said that your opinion about my irrelevance is both gleefully acknowledged and, *simultaneously*, refuted by objective fact. Cognitive dissonance may well ensue; deal with it.

" and of no value (or relevance) describes someone who is either desperately insecure or supremely arrogant."

Third option: poking fun at an overstuffed ego that would seem to need deflation.

"ALL of us can learn a few things from our critics, you certainly rank in that list."

Well, duh.

And yes, that answer is also as much thought as such an arrogant assertion deserves.

"Regardless, you seem rather pre-occupied with Air America, far more than they are with NARN - why is that Mitch?"

Um, because Air America is a national network funded by a network of liberal plutocrats that features a pack of seven-figure salaries that was launched to IMMENSE media hoopla, by an apparent con man. Politically, they are a joke. In terms of pure radio technique, they are hopeless, and worthy of immense laughter. Their hubris and self-promotion deserves to get poked; Al Franken's show alone has a bigger payroll than the entire Salem Network on-air lineup, and his ratings universally stink!

I have some knowledge of the business, and I have every right to comment.

"Why are you worried about a fledgling [sic] network?"

Er, "Worried?" Pffft. Again, your assumptions are comical.

They are a subject for commentary.

And they are not "Fledgeling"; they've been in operation almost two years.

" I'm certain they won't take from your audience, and you won't take from theirs. Is it some sort of sick glee at seeing your political counter point fail? If so, that's pathetic."

So then your glee at the alleged "failings" of the Administration are also sick and pathetic?

What precisely is the difference?

I mean, at least I have been/am in the business, and have some pseudo-professional interest in how radio is done. Which is more than any analog you have in politics. And yet you comment!

Posted by: mitch at March 6, 2006 06:47 PM

That Mitch is a K.O.

Time for a beer.

(PB, I think that you are every bit as intelligent as Mitch…until you start letting your emotions get ahead of your logic. Facts are just that; facts. They have a way of standing on their own without the attached sentiment. Your emotion while entertaining, detracts from your facts…and I hate to admit this but you do have some facts…sometimes)

Posted by: chris at March 6, 2006 08:07 PM

Since PB succeeded in pulling this thread off topic, I’ll just steer it onto another one regarding this earlier comment:

“A bit off topic, but I see Fast Eddie come out of the same evangelical free church I do on Sunday mornings. For the life of me I am flabergasted how he can listen to the teaching of this conservative, "born again", bible believing church on Sunday morning, and then spew the exact opposite on the radio.”

Chris:

As a fellow EFC’er, I sure hope you do your best to make Mr. Schultz welcome when you visit your church. Believe it or not, there are evangelicals that are liberals. For my friends that meet that description, I choose not to get into political discussions with them; it’s just not worth jeopardizing the friendship. To be honest I read some evangelical-liberal (E-L) articles, I don’t quite get where they are coming from. The most charitable way I can put it is their position is that the role of government is to protect the poor and oppressed, pacifism is a public as well as private virtue These issues are so important that they merit sacrificing social issues that motivate conservative-evangelicals.
Social issues regarding sexuality, marriage, etc. are spiritual issues to be addressed within the body, or it least they take that position in order to fit in with their secular brethren. I think it is at this point that E-Ls either decides that conservative social issues are between man and God only-thus off the table politically, or simply allow Christian Doctrine to take back seat to political dogma.

I suspect that E-Ls think the same way of evangelical conservatives; that we buy into capitalism and war-mongering in exchange for advancement of our social agenda.

Badgering E-Ls on their politics is just asking them to join up with Bible-optional church up the road. try starting on common ground

Posted by: rick at March 7, 2006 11:01 AM

Rick,

I've known Chris for (checks watch) 35 years; I think you needn't worry.

Posted by: mitch at March 7, 2006 11:15 AM