Air America Died
- Thread starter philologus
- Start date
philologus
Subgenius
Or entertaining hosts with interesting topics.
vincegamer
Active member
Or that Jerry Springer just isn\'t fun unless you can actually see the inbread hics beating each other up.
philologus
Subgenius
This is what I couldn\'t understand. Why couldn\'t they muster up some one with a sense of humor or who was well-versed enough to entertain. I too found Air America shrill, longwinded, and repetitive. Stewart and Maher can be funny at times and at least that helps but cats like Franken are just annoying.
So they modeled it after conservative talk radio. That was pretty daft. There just aren\'t enough of them stinkin\' free-thinkin\' non-conformin\' leebrawls who go for that whole \"please tell me what to think so I don\'t have to!!1!\" talk radio thang.
Seems Air America never had a target audience and was doomed to fail from the get go.
philologus
Subgenius
This is precisely it. No market or inferior product. Either case makes for a poor business model.
No Such Agency
New member
That\'s what I thought - moderates and left-wingers (to the extent that a mainstream left wing exists in the US, which isn\'t much) are not accustomed to having someone come on the radio and dictate their thinking patterns for the upcoming week. This is not to say that there aren\'t any left-wingers who are into groupthink, but they aren\'t used to being \"dittoheads\" for a radio personality. People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O\'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter etc. are vile, angry racists, homophobes and religious bigots whose sole goal is to pump up those sentiments in their audience members, thus making them susceptible to fear/hatemongering political campaigning by certain parties. It\'s just as well that they don\'t have many \"liberal\" counterparts.
I assume their target audience was already listening to NPR. I know I was.
I don\'t however subscribe to the \"doomed\" theory. If they had been truly interesting and entertaining, I might have listened more. It just seemed... tedious.
EDIT: the concept that conservative talk radio has flourished because it\'s just marching orders for the faithful while liberal talk radio failed because liberals are too free thinking is rather condescending. There is room in the market for entertaining liberals! Did you ever listen to Tom Leykis before he went all Howard Stern?!? Great stuff!
Basically just echoing what others have said, but Air America was simply boring the few times I listened to it. If I want to listen to news, there is NPR. The most vocal \"liberals\" are just as obnoxious as Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of their ilk. I can only stand so much Al Franken and Michael Moore, and Janeane Garofalo was so irritating I developed road rage.
What we need are radio personalities who are funny and don\'t take themselves too seriously - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert style. The Simpsons & South Park creators could probably pull it off, and they go after both sides of the political fence. Wishful thinking...
What we need are radio personalities who are funny and don\'t take themselves too seriously - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert style. The Simpsons & South Park creators could probably pull it off, and they go after both sides of the political fence. Wishful thinking...
I have to disagree. I have listened to Limbaugh and Hannity for years, and they are both very entertaining. They have good points at times, but generally they are just full of hot air. They are pundits, but I don\'t think they are racist or homophobic.
I listen to NPR just as much, and a proud Labor Union member (actually I am an officer in our Local Labor Union, as well as the newsletter and website coordinator).....So, I get the \'left side\' view point just as often.
But honestly, don\'t you think CNN and most of the broadcast channels have a left wing bias anyhow? If not a bias, then a severe tilt to the left. Air America\'s audience already had the bases covered.
philologus
Subgenius
My original point was that I listened, and found them boring. I try to hear all sides of a debate. But I agree with Mike here, saying that \"liberal\" radio doesn\'t work because libs are unwilling to take \"marching orders\" presumes the lib shows were giving marching orders. Which, if your assumption is correct, means they didn\'t know their audience. My original point. The theory sounds as cracked as the one I heard from some conservatives: i.e. the reason cons. radio does so well is it\'s listeners actually hold down jobs and are therefore in the car going to and from work everyday. Both are foolish arguements. I think the market couldn\'t handle political commentary that wasn\'t also entertaining. The Ipod Generation have very finite attention spans (for the most part).
Edit: I also find it disturbing that I\'m, apparently, the only one wary of getting my news from the govt. (NPR)
Sand Rat
New member
Umm, NSA I hate to disagree with you, but the most singularily racist thing I have ever heard uttered by a politician came from an avowed liberal - \"I do not believe that the government has the right to tell a white woman what to do with her body\"
Uttered by Ann Richards, while debating the abortion issue with Clayton Williams on a statewide broadcast.
Then we\'ve got good liberals like Robert Byrd of West Virginia - Member of the KKK.
But hey, they are good liberals and shouldnt be beat up for it, right?
WeR138
New member
I find it amusing that someone can post what was clearly a joke at the expense of the ACLU and they are taken to the woodshed. However, if you read Ann Coulter or watch Bill O\'Reilly, you are the frothing follower of vile, angry racists, homophobes, and religious bigots. But back to the subject at hand. The reason that liberal radio has failed time after time is that there is little incentive for people to tune into a radio program when they can watch the exact same thing on the t.v. newscast of every station except Fox.
Just a little NPR story...
I try to get my news from a variety of sources. I forget whether it was shortly after the election or ignaugoration, but some nimrod asked Bush if he\'d pardon Bill Clinton. Bush, chuckling, explained that since Clinton was not charged with any crimes, it would be impossible to pardon him. I had heard it reported that way from a couple of different places, including a sound bite of Bush\'s answer. On the way home from work, I flipped on NPR. Their lead story was:
Bush Refuses to Pardon Clinton
lollol
The story included no sound bite, just the reporter explaining that Bush had said he\'d find it impossible to pardon Bill Clinton. No. No bias there!
On another note: Alec Baldwin promised - PROMISED, DAMN IT! - that he would leave the country if George Bush was elected. I\'m still waiting!
I try to get my news from a variety of sources. I forget whether it was shortly after the election or ignaugoration, but some nimrod asked Bush if he\'d pardon Bill Clinton. Bush, chuckling, explained that since Clinton was not charged with any crimes, it would be impossible to pardon him. I had heard it reported that way from a couple of different places, including a sound bite of Bush\'s answer. On the way home from work, I flipped on NPR. Their lead story was:
Bush Refuses to Pardon Clinton
lollol
The story included no sound bite, just the reporter explaining that Bush had said he\'d find it impossible to pardon Bill Clinton. No. No bias there!
On another note: Alec Baldwin promised - PROMISED, DAMN IT! - that he would leave the country if George Bush was elected. I\'m still waiting!
