Liberal Radio Group Says It Is Close to Acquiring 5 Stations

[Manix]

<snip>

Democratic investment group planning to start a liberal radio network to counterbalance conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh says it is close to buying radio stations in five major cities.

The acquisitions would represent a major move toward making the network real. After its conception was announced in February, many radio analysts and even some Democratic activists predicted that the network would face too many challenges to get off the ground, including finding stations to run its programming and bucking a historical record replete with failed liberal radio attempts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/national/01RADI.html

[Voltaire99]

1. "...in the spirit of 'The Daily Show'."

...including news analysis segments, talk shows and entertainment programs in the spirit of "The Daily Show," the spoof news program on cable television's Comedy Central that skewers Washington.

That's all very nice. Everybody would like to be as good as The Daily Show: SNL, which once was, has been trying for twenty years to be so again.

Problem is, it's very, very hard to do great, funny satirical sketch humor for the five to seven minutes that The Daily Show manages five times per week. Now, imagine filling hours and hours of radio time...

Buying radio stations is a start - but only a start.

[NJCher]

2. on the other hand

There is a wealth of talent out there. Communications is one of the most competitive fields.


Cher

[AWD]

8. Nitpicking...

....for the record, The Daily Show only runs new shows 4 times a week. They tape shows Monday-Thursday and then run repeats on Fridays.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. I'd like to apply for the liberal hate radio jock position

I think I could be better than Rush... and I would be opiates free too :)

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Myra]

4. I'd listen to you Cronus

I hope the NY Times report is true.
Hard to believe anything they print,
but I hope...

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. It does make me wonder - "almost" closed the deals...

Was that so that the deals could be made to fall through?

LICK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Myra]

5. Ohmygod the NY Times is such a rag!

"Some political analysts have attributed past failures to liberal audiences' lack of interest in hearing their own views repeated."

Uh, I guess those political analysts are ignoring the fact
that the non-fiction best seller lists are jammed with
progressive authors, and progressives tour the country on
speaking engagements and regularly sell out venues with thousands
and thousands of seats.

Apparently that news wasn't "fit to print."

[papau]

7. lack of interest in hearing their own views repeated? - DU draws well

I am without the writing skills/communication skills of Will Pitt and others at DU, and therefore find the phrasing and presentation of Democratic Party objectives by those with those skills very interesting.

Sounds like the NYT is just repeating GOP controlled media excuses for not presenting a fair political picture. I started a thread on Liberal Talk radio that might be of interest:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=3258

Liberal Talk radio – some shows that should be book marked by folks at DU

For example: The Thom Hartmann show - Monday - Friday noon to 3:00 PM http://www.thomhartmann.com/show.shtml is nationally syndicated on radio stations across the USA daily, Monday through Friday, from noon to 3 pm EST through the i.e. America Radio Network (115 radio station affiliates), and is also broadcast on Stream 145 on the Sirius satellite radio ("Sirius Left" - their progressive talk channel), and streamed live on the web from i.e. America Radio's home page. The program is also rebroadcast daily on the www.radiopower.org website as a stream from midnight to 3 am and from 6 am to 9 am EST. There's also a three-week archive of the program on the White Rose Society's website. And, I.E. America http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=radio&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieamericaradio.com%2F provides several Radio personalities, distributed via satellite to Radio stations, who provide more liberal points of view. RadioLeft.com http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=radio&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radioleft.com%2F went live May, 2001 and produces two hours of conversation daily which is then repeated. And on a much smaller scale, OutrageRadio.com http://clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=radio&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outrageradio.com%2F will soon start up with a one-hour program each week. It is a Manhattan-based liberal talk-show program internet Radio show that bills itself as "Liberal talk with an attitude.", with James Linkin, who with Michael Tulinan owns the effort, hosting the show, featuring interviews with heros of the progressive, liberal world. By next year, the partners aim to produce a daily radio show. Linkin and Tulipan were formerly director of computer operations and director of operations, respectively, at streaming video provider iNEXTV.com, which went belly-up in 2001.

The right – as it balloons the size of government with entitlements and corporate welfare contracts designed to help the richer among us – tries to sell via right wing hate radio that the word “liberal” means bigger, more centralized government that is laden with entitlements; higher taxes, a reticence to oppose enemies of the nation with military might, a willingness to abdicate authority to international organizations such as the United Nations, with a values agenda that is against faith in God, the traditional family; Constitutional rights and constraints, all proven by the nature of the folks and organizations that support one or more parts of the liberal, progressive, Democratic Party agenda.

We need to take back the language and not let the GOP right wing nuts – or their foot soldiers called the media – brand the Democratic Party organization in this way. We need to not let our tolerance for different viewpoints – an American Strength – be used to tar and feather us as advocates of ideas that are not central to our political beliefs.

But the right has a natural advantage in hard core political programming. The right wing and their friends in the US Media have shown that programs and personalities pushing the illusion of mythological freedom while hiding the reality of control by the corporate and rich is any easy sell to advertisers. Indeed, right wing voices pushing sales to help you protect your self-reliance, defend against the dangerous Other, and give you status via consumer choice and free market effectiveness, if you only had the money, are a natural advertising dollar magnet for corporations. Advertisers may not flock to shows and personalities that promote true political progressiveness, of the kind that addresses social inequality, the relationship between capital and labor, environmental activism (and the sacrifices needed to undertake it), the Rights of Man, and the practice of inclusion and community. There is not much glamour in Programming that explains what it is like to worry about the transmission on the ten year-old car needed to get to work, the trade-offs between employment and health care for single moms, between prescription drugs and food for the elderly, and job training and the minimum wage for the chronically unemployed. Indeed explaining either how right wing judges help the GOP help the rich and corporate, or preaching the need to replace reactionary judges in an Orin Hatch world where it is un-American to challenge law as right wing political viewpoint, may not draw any advertisers.

Even I.E. America has "Talkin' Pets with John Patch" and "Antique Talk with Christopher Kent". Radio as commerce first, with entertaining, informative hosts giving casual, informative chat, may be all we can hope for – but that would be a great improvement over today’s right wing hate radio.

[JPace]

9. "DU draws well"

Thanks for all the good information and
well stated pro liberal radio view.

[Myra]

17. Thanks for the great and informative post papau!

eom

[ScotTissue]

10. Buying stations??

Um, that seems a little weird. I guess we have to get some market share, and buying stations can do that--but that's a huge outlay. Dorf Limbuck doesn't own any radio stations. Neither does G. Gecko Lizard. The radio stations are supposed to pay you!

[Mentalist]

12. I smell total doom

I think this venture is going to bomb and bomb big. Where are they going to come up with the $200 Million MINIMUM they are going to need just to turn on the mic? And the 5 stations they are looking at buying will be 3rd rate, low wattage stations with little chance of commanding high advertising dollars.

And Al Franken and Garafalo? Come on. They are great for a book, the occasional one off speech, and the 5 minutes on the talking head shows, but 15 hours a week, each? I do not think they have it in them, nor do they have the temperment and charisma to attract, carry, and hold a large listening audience.

And if they want to run with an "angry liberal" schtick it will be like Morton Downey Jr. Will attrack a big audience early then grow tiresome and no one will listen, quickly.

[Myra]

18. Ah yes, the ubiquitous nay-sayer

At least one in every thread.

Protests!? Hah! They accomplish nothing.
Lib'rul radio!? Hah! It'll accomplish nothing.

The common denominator of these...nattering nabobs
of negativism, (:) who says Spiro Agnew doesn't have a legacy!?),
is that they never have a realistic alternative to suggest.
It's just sooo easy to sneer at other people's efforts.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goforit]

23. Are you sure you are on the right website?.....LOL!!!

Take any oxycotin with Rush lately?

[Mentalist]

26. and again

not a single refutation of what I said.

[Myra]

33. Well Mentalist

It's, as you probably know, impossibe to refute
a prediction of the future.
But I can easily refute your implication that there
won't be a large listening audience with the fact that
books by liberal authors are all over the best seller
lists, and every one of the many lectures I've attended
featuring liberal celebrities has sold out venues with
thousands of seats.

As far as seed money, I'd imagine they've taken that
into account. Gore et al ain't exactly poor.

But finding advertisers who aren't corrupt corporations,
yeah, that I can see as a problem.

Still, I'm curious about why you're so eager to pronounce
it DOA. And I can't help but notice you have nothing productive
to suggest as an alternative.

It's easy to attack those who are trying to make
a difference, and difficult to work to make a difference.
Sounds like you like to do it the easy way.

[Mentalist]

35. You got some things wrong

But I can easily refute your implication that there
won't be a large listening audience with the fact that
books by liberal authors are all over the best seller
lists, and every one of the many lectures I've attended
featuring liberal celebrities has sold out venues with
thousands of seats.


I didn't say there would not be a large audience. I said of 2 specific talked about possible hosts that they would likely draw a large initial audience and then fade. Writing a book, doing the talk circut, and appearing on talking head shows is a whole different game than being on the air 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, 300+ days a year. I personally do not see them doing it. Hopefully I am wrong, and only time will tell.

As far as seed money, I'd imagine they've taken that
into account. Gore et al ain't exactly poor.

AnShell Media, who started this was started with $10 million and then the Drobny's sold it. I still have yet to hear an explanation of why they bailed out, or how much they got for it. And $200 Million is not an easy amount to raise. Al Gore is not involved in this so I don't know why you brought him into it.

But finding advertisers who aren't corrupt corporations,
yeah, that I can see as a problem.

Which ones aren't "corrupt" in your eyes? And if this venture is to survive and prosper they are going to have to attract as many big dollar sponsors as possible. Including from giant, evil, corrupt companies.

And for how many years have we been hearing about "The coming liberal radio network"? More years than I have fingers. And the AnShell Media launch date has continually been pushed back and back and back.

My predictions of failure are based on the repeated inability for any such project to ever get past the "talking" stage. Its time for action, not talk.

[Cooley Hurd]

28. Oh please... its not the message that attracts people to RW radio

If it was, then RW radio would've died years ago. It's the personality of the messenger and the messenger's ability to convince the listening sheep that they're victims. RW radio does this via hyperbole and lies. We can do it thru telling the truth.

And, both Al and Jeanene have more personality in their ear lobes than Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly or Savage have in their entire, smelly bodies...

[Cheswick2.0]

30. yes, God knows there are no liberals with the talent of a Rush Limpbrain

or Sean Hannity. :puke:

[librechik]

15. Since local station executives won't let liberal content on no matter

how high the ratings or who sponsors it, it seems like owning the airwaves is a good beginning.

[bvar22]

11. The REAL problem will be acquiring SPONSORS.

Presenting a viewpoint that will undercut CORPORATE propaganda and work for LABOP and the MIDDLECLASS to have a voice in the running of our country does NOT offer large corporations a return on their investment. The lack of CORPORO-Sponsorship will be an overt problem, but the RICH ELITE REPUBLICANS (and DEMS) will use ANY and ALL covert means to sabotage such an outlet for the OPPOSITION!

[goforit]

25. Sell all foriegn products!.......Or evironmental products!!!....I'll buy!!

It will be a blast!!!

[pdove]

13. Of very little use

Since the neocons has full control of the mass media like CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, ABC, and so few people will listen to radio.

[librechik]

14. Where do they come up with this BS about liberal broadcasts being doomed?

I've never seen any clear cut statistics to prove that point; in fact, the latest 3 examples I can think of (Donahue, Rhodes, and Malloy) were all top rated in their markets and they STILL got cancelled!

You know when a broadcast exec cancels the top-rated show claiming it was "ratings" that caused the cancellation that the claim is BS and it's only POLITICS!

I remember instead how unbelievably popular "liberal" tv and radio is. Ask Norman Lear how much money he lost on All in the Family. Ask James L Brooks how much money he lost on M.A.S.H and The Simpsons.

Ask Limbaugh himself why, since he's whining about how liberals control all the networks, that the executives at those netwqrks continue to cling to money-losing properties. Really? CNN, ABC, NBC? PBS and all those other "liberal" networks are money losers? Yes, that's why they have continued to stick around for 80 years or so!

This "loser" line is just another Big Lie. Liberal shows are ALWAYS ENORMOUSLY popular; they just don't want you to know about that!

[Mentalist]

20. Donahue?

Donahue, top rated? What have you been smoking? I think the PBS special on the crop rotation techniques of the anceint summarians got higher ratings than Phil. Phil got creamed by every one of his competitors. Who did he go up against that he got higher ratings than? Or did Phil have a radio show that I didn't know about?

Simpsons liberal? I would call The Simpsons probably the most centrist, poke fun at all sides show on television. Ever watch the episodes with Clinton? Or Grampa demanding things because he's old? Or when he was getting checks for doing nothing and he thought it was because the democrats were in power again?

All in the Family was liberal, but Archie Bunker became an American Icon and loved by millions. Remember the Bunker for President signs and bumper stickers?

[librechik]

21. I meant on MSNBC. He was the top rated show on MSNBC

for a few weeks before the cancellation.

What have I been smoking? I'd tell you but you'd want some.

Yes, the Simpsons are liberal, IMO. You're welcome to yours.

Yes, I remember the Bunker--and he was the butt of many liberal jokes. Sure he was idolized by many RWers, including my Dad, but back then we had a pluralistic society and people were allowed to like whoever they wanted and it was all good for the debate. I don't like to think what would happen to any creative team that tried to do the same thing today.


Watching your post count climb--still waiting for any indications you are a liberal yourself, Mentalist. Not holding my breath.

[Mentalist]

22. Maybe

the Simpsons lean to the left, but only slightly. What "liberal" show would have Clinton talking about how he had sex with pigs or saying "I'm a terrible President"?

[librechik]

24. That proves its liberal--liberals are allowed to criticize their president

Conservatives won't, no matter how crappy he is.

[demdave]

27. You are mistaken, Donahue couldn't get an audience.

During this month, a "sweeps" month in which ratings are watched closely to set advertising rates, "Donahue" averaged 446,000 viewers. O'Reilly drew 2.7 million viewers, up 28 percent from February 2002, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Connie Chung's CNN show that debuted shortly before "Donahue" averaged 985,000 viewers this month, Nielsen said

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/


Tuesday, August 13th, 2002

One month after launching a new prime-time lineup crowned by talk show veteran Phil Donahue, MSNBC is still struggling in the ratings and has seen "Donahue" get crushed by CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight."
The mood at MSNBC has turned from hopeful to grim over the last four weeks, insiders said, as Donahue's ratings spiralled down, last week falling to 393,000 viewers from a start of 660,000 viewers. For the month, Chung beat Donahue by 44%. Both shows still lag far behind Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."

http://www.nydailynews.com/business/v-pfriendly/story/10651p-10040c.html

In 2002, Phil Donahue returned to television to host a show called "Donahue" on MSNBC. It's debut ratings were strong, but its audience evaporated over the following months. In late August 2002, it got the lowest possible Nielsen rating of 0.1, significantly less than Connie Chung's 0.6 and Bill O'Reilly's 1.0, and less than MSNBC's average for the day of 0.2.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Phil-Donahue

[librechik]

29. again, I say "Best ratings on MSNBC"

NOT better than Connie or O-Lielly-- or whoever. I did not say that.

Just the best prime-time ratings on the channel which cancelled it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/27/tv.donahue.ap/
snip

"Donahue's political talk show, a distant third in the cable news ratings in his time slot, was abruptly pulled from the air after Monday's show. The show premiered last July 15.

The legendary talk show host noted that "Donahue's" ratings were better than anything else in struggling MSNBC's prime-time lineup.

"It took almost three years for Fox (News Channel) to overtake CNN," Donahue said in a statement Wednesday. "We had six months."


Yes it seems that politics, not ratings, was the culprit

snip (from the same CNN article)

"Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity"

The Faux news version
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79691,00.html




CNN/Fox not enough? here's confirmation from one blogger among many:

"Did Donahue have bad ratings? Arguably, he did. He was getting smacked by O'Reilly every night. I mean, smacked hard. But he was pulling the strongest ratings of all of MSNBC's prime time line up. Imagine that you own a hockey team that isn't scoring very well. Do you fire your best scorer? That's exactly what MSNBC has done, because their best scorer is a liberal. This is an outrage. "

http://terminusblog.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_terminusblog_archive.html

want some more? Here's a story about how Donahue was regularly beating Chris Matthews at MSNBC

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/16127/view


and I could go on. But why bother? Again I assert that IMO the only reasonable excuse an exec has for cancelling the highest rated prime time show on HIS network (even considering that it was not winning against other similar shows on other networks--nobody's arguing that MSNBC is a ratings winner under any circumstances)

is POLITICS--they didn't want any criticism of Shrub during the "war"
so Donahue had to go because it was the only show on MSNBC that might raise a critical voice (though it rarely did, as I recall)


NOBODY can get an audience on MSNBC. Even Donahue, who "regularly beat Chris Matthews."

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. phil had much higher ratings than joe 'dead intern' has ever had

but msnbc has given that asshole over a year "to build an audience" where phil was fired after 6 months (due to his antiwar views more than anything, as msnbc memos have shown)

[demdave]

32. top rated in their markets ...was what I responded to

If you wish to change that to "the best prime-time ratings on the channel which cancelled it." Then you may be correct.

[librechik]

34. got me there--but Malloy and Randi Rhodes still stand

both of them were tops in their markets--then Malloy got cancelled, and Rhodes is repeatedly cut off from syndication.

I'm just saying that the "liberals=bad ratings" CW is BS and I stand by that. They can't claim that the "media is liberal" and count off all the networks we liberals run on the one hand, and then on the other hand claim that attempts at liberal media have a history of failure.

That doesn't stop them from saying it, tho.

[demdave]

36. I don't think I am able to get Malloy or Rhodes

or maybe I just don't watch that much T.V. :), My only real examples that I can cite first hand are Donahue on MSNBC and Colmes on radio and now on Fox. Donahue was interestinf years ago when he was original and somewhat edgy....for the 60s and 70s. He then was out-shocked , for lack of a better phrase, by the slew of sleaze merchants that came along. When he came back recently he brought his old style out of the closet and tried to make it work. It didn't. He tried to remake himself and the show, which in the days of 200+ channels is sure death. If you don't capture market share out of the box you are doomed.

I used to listen to Alan Colmes on the radio and I can assure you he is better now than then, if you can imagine that. He had absolutely no debating skills, would hang-up on over half of his callers because he had no rebuttal and would actually take the other persons position when he was talked down. He finally was taken off the air. Now we all know how he is on T.V. today.


If they do get radio stations we will then see if the liberal media is a failure or not. I just hope it rises above the level of name calling and "hate Bush" parties that I see now. While it is entertaining in this type of forum, I do not think that it will serve our cause in the general public. Unlike here, others do not blame Bush for everthing that goes wrong in their lives. It would quickly be held up in ridicule if this is all it offered. I don't want our best effort to end up as an SNL skit.

We need to offer ideas and alternatives....answers, not Al Frankin and Comedy Central.


Sorry about the length, the kids are in bed and I now have time. :)

[HEyHEY]

16. SHoot I had the press release for this sent to me

erased it though...sorry kids