Quote:

---

Air America's Year of Decline

The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others.

While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally — it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months — it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number one market, New York City. And in the new ratings, Air America hits an all-time low in a key demographic measurement.

The new Arbitron figures for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 rating in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk.

Air America debuted on March 31, 2004. In the network's first quarter on the air, Spring of 2004, which covered April, May, and June, Air America won a 1.3 percent share of the market audience. That number rose slightly to 1.4 percent in the Summer 2004 July/August/September period, and fell back to 1.2 percent in the Fall 2004 October/November/December period, where it remains today.

Those numbers are, again, for all listeners 12 years and older. Air America executives, however, often point to the network's performance among listeners 25 to 54 years of age, the preferred demographic target for radio advertisers. But in that area, too, Air America is struggling.

Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., for example, the daypart that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.

The numbers are just as striking when narrowed to the specific period from noon to 3 P.M., when Franken's program airs on WLIB opposite Rush Limbaugh on WABC. Even though Franken once claimed to be beating the conservative host in New York, in the Winter 2005 figures, his program attracted a 1.9-percent share of the audience to Limbaugh's 3.2 percent in the 25 to 54 age group.

Franken's performance against Limbaugh in the most recent ratings is significantly lower than in Air America's first months. In Spring 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, Franken scored a 2.6-percent share to Limbaugh's 3.2-percent share. In Summer 2004, he scored a 2.8-percent share to Limbaugh's 3.2 percent. But in Fall 2004, Franken dropped to a 1.8 percent share to Limbaugh's 4.1-percent share, all within the 25 to 54 age group.

That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skywalken:

And now the Secret Service is investigating that silly network for threats one of its hosts made against our President's life.

Air America is worse than Al-Jazeera!

---

Quote:

---

Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Conjecture. You provide an article for something that is just a sniping shot. Yet when you post something like this, nadda. Where's the proof of this? Where's your link to some "accredited" american "news" paper? Better yet, how about the BBC or some such?

---

Quote:

---

April 13, 2005
Air America Radio, Ratings, and the Explosion of "Progressive Talk"
It's been just more than a year since Air America Radio went on the air. It started with 6 stations and jumped to 11 in a few weeks, and now is broadcasting on 52 stations nationwide. It just signed an exclusive multi-year contract with XM Satellite Radio, which has a listening audience of 3.8 million. According to Arbitron, AAR corrals in excess of 2 million listeners a week. Jerry Springer (switching from circus acts to political issues) has also recently signed on as a new host; whether you see that as good or bad, it will definitely bring in more listeners. And stations who switch to AAR programming find themselves shooting from the bottom of the heap to the top of the list in many markets.

Clear Channel radio is bringing in Air America to pick up listeners to its underperforming stations; in Portland, OR station, AAR brought the Clear Channel station from 26th to 3rd in the ratings. Clear Channel is adding 25 stations to the Air America network, because progressive radio "is the fastest growing format in the country; and that is because Air America has proved it attracts listeners and advertisers," according to TIME magazine. That's not just a single opinion, by the way; a web search shows that it is the prevailing opinion: "The future expansion and viability of AM radio is being driven by liberal talk and it is flourishing." And: "liberal talk is the radio industry’s fastest-growing format." And:

Progressive Talk helped drive the News/Talk format to an all-time audience high and a bigger quarterly gain than any other radio format.... The record increase in News/Talk listenership is being driven by the explosive growth of Progressive Talk nationwide. These studies are only the latest evidence of an unmistakable trend towards this new format. ... In the coming year this format will grow ever larger, as more stations recognize the huge number of Americans longing for this format.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
They’re spoiled Lefty celebrities who have used their financial weight to create an outlet for their hatred of other people’s opinions, not to express genuine opinions of their own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Your "secret service" cant be very good if everyone knows who its investigating.
There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.
It will take your "secret service" quite a while to investigate them all but good luck with that anyway.
(Disclaimer: I nor any members of my family in any way intend harm towards the present or future Presidents of the United States of America).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal, and Joss Whedon himself is indeed a liberal, Kerry supporter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Now all of a sudden a station comes out that spins things to the left and people like you make it seem so evil, well at least they didn’t lie to the American people to create their propaganda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Look at republican book companies, investigate how the got started, then come back and tell me if you can truly say the station is any worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscience:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhoIsRiver:
I should really point out the crew of Serenity could probably be considered Liberal...

---

BULLSHIT. No way in the 'verse would either Mal or Zoe support the fascism that is gun control or the stalinism that is taxation.

Libertarian yes, liberal hell no!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This is a serious question, so please don't take it as a jab. How does a government support itself without taxation? Where does all the money to operate a government come from?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Actually...

I can't speak for the Greeks, but the Romans had some pretty conventional armies, issued standardized equipment by the government, provided rations, weapons, transportation, etc...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure that holds to a no-tax militia. Because any aristocrats would have collected taxes within their fiefdoms and used the proceeds to equip the troops.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The only type of government where taxes would be unnecessary is a type where the government owns all production... in which case the citizens are essentially slaves, paid nothing, given government staples, and told what to do. I think that's socialism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
How does Socialism work?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Um, that is the dictionary.com definition which seems to be a dated definition. If you would look at the wikipedia modern definition, you'd see that.

That is something that you need to come to terms with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Listen to me you arrogrant peice of shit. Socialism isn't something that can be nailed down in one sentence. It is a broad term that encompases a range.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is many ways that a government can administer the means of production. The way you are using this term (you stated that AT was right), states that the government would own all production.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So then, the government owns all the facilities in a country that is Socialist?!?!? This is pure crap.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It comes down to a game of bate & switch. The right simply changes the definition to suit its needs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It seemed to me to boil down to three possibilities:

1) Your army units provide their own stuff, which means it will usually be substandard and/or mismatched.

2) You collect money from the citizenry (taxes) and hire solders/buy planes/tanks/ships/etc.

3) You (the government) owns the means of production (which I think we've agreed is socialism?) and so you produce the standard gear your army is to use.

Is that about right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

I’m not sure what you mean by mismatched. The Romans (not sure about the Greeks) had standards of military appearance, the red cloak for instance. The bigger problem was that there was a mismatch perhaps in the quality of equipment. Wealthier families could afforded to equip their sons much better then less wealthy families. This created a gradient of soldiers: light infantry were composed of the sons of the poorer patrician families while the heavier infantry were composed of the sons of wealthier families. And this played a great deal into early Roman military strategy. Unlike today where military units are named with respect to their practice, (i.e Marines, Rangers ect), Greco-Roman military units were named based on the type of equipment they carried. The Greek Hoplite for instance was called so because the shield they carried was called a Hoplon. Basicaly, this means that soldiers whose families could afford to equipe them with Hoplons (and other armour) became Hoplites in a Greek military.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Hello,

That's about exactly what I mean. A military M-16 with all the bells and whistles might cost you ten grand. Military Body Armor. Boots. Jeeps. Tanks. This stuff is expensive.

So if we had a militia armed with whatever American families could afford... we'd have a pretty sad militia. The guy on your left might be carrying his Dad's 1911 pistol, the guy in front of you might have an AR-15, and the guy to your right might have a Ruger Mini-14. You might all pile into a fifth fellow's Jeep Grand Cherokee and ride into battle.

It doesn't seem like a viable way to operate a modern military. And don't even think about buying a naval warship. Even Bill Gates would feel the pain in his wallet at that one.

It's the cumulative tax base of an entire US Population that allows us to do things like buy an Aircraft carrier... and all the planes on it.

Perhaps if we were a small country with nothing that anybody wanted, a tax-free militia might make more sense. In such a case, it wouldn't be important to be riding into battle in anything more substantial than a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Quote:

---

No, it’s not ‘pure crap.’ According to the dictionary, a government that owns all the facilities in a country is probably socialist.

---

Quote:

---

One truth in the universe is that Lefties will always try to portray Socialism as flawless and incorruptible, despite the large number of totalitarian socialist states. Socialism works as you said, the government owns the means of production. That’s socialism by definition.

---

Quote:

---

This entire article is BS. All it is doing is putting fuel in the flames of an already polarized situation. So, how is this helping at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

well it really depends on what point your trying to make when you bring up socialism!!! I think when many people bring up socialism they think of the soviet Union!!! they think communism..but thats not what socialism is!!

socialism can exist apart from communism and totalitarism..

perfect example is Sweden, and other Norweign countries who have deomcrate socities and a very high standard of living with their social programs

so just because a country engages in socialism doesn't mean its bad and those countries are perfect examples

anyone knows no system is perfect not socialism and certainly not Capitolism, Capitolism can just as easily morph into facist, tolitarism as can socialism. no system is uncorruptable or without flaws the key is to have a balance!!

again I use the Norwiegn countries an example of how they balance both socialism capitolism and a democratic society nicely!!!

---

Hello, Pirate.

I agree that the key to success is a balance. But it's important to note that Socialism is not balance. Socialism is not Norway's strong social programs floating in a democratic country with capitalist tendencies. Socialism is absolute. The government owns everything, and distributes according to need. (Or, what they perceive the need to be.)

The problem is, as I see it, that if the government owns all production, and the government decides how resources are disbursed, then the government has an awful lot of power. All of it, in fact.

I had a conversation once with a priest regarding socialism. It may seem that church is an odd place to have a political discussion, but politics are strongly alluded to in the bible.

The priest told me that the fallability of human beings is what doomed Communism, and indeed the Socialist concept. In order to have a fully successful Socialist country, you would need it to be enforced by a powerful leader. But, as all humans are corrupt, that leader would invariably abuse his power and distribute resources inequitably. The only hope for Socialism was to have it governed by a magical, incorruptable leader, with perfect Wisdom and Insight.

He explained to me that this perfect leader was God, and that the country would be God's Paradise.

It was an interesting interpretation of things.

I guess if Socialism is the ideal society, it needs ideal people in it... or at the very least, an ideal ruler.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:

There are aproximately 60 million people in the U.K.
Aproximately 59 million of them would like to kill G.W. Bush.

---