Air America and Clear Channel

I recently discovered there is an Air America Radio station in the Miami area: WINZ 940 AM. But at the bottom of the home page of the station’s website, it says, “Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.” Did I read that right? Air America is a progressive political network. Clear Channel is notorious for its right-wing politics, and forcing its programming to conform to the same and censoring all dissenting views. Why would it carry Air America? Is there perhaps more than one corporation named “Clear Channel”?

(I’d put this in GQ, but it’s such a political question it would be bound to end up in GD eventually.)

Air America in Denver/Boulder is a Clear Channel station as well.

Whatever makes money.

That’s exactly what I came in to say…Regardles of the politics, Clear Channel is still a business. Any opportunity to make a few sheckles even if it is progressive programming, will make the descision for itself. Here in Denver the Air America affiliate is owned by the same company that owns KOA and KHOW, which just happens to be Clear Channel.

You put too much stock into political views. If Rupert Murdoch thought he could make more money by turning Fox News into a left-wing channel he’d do it overnight, politics be damned.

I very much doubt that! Murdoch, I’m sure, would gadly operate Fox (as a right-wing outlet) at a loss, even if it meant subsidizing it out of the profits of his other companies.

Murdoch is an opportunist, just like any other businessman.

Case in point: He’s hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Just goes to show Hillary’s a DINO. In any case, a lot of Pubs will be supporting her in '08 – they want to see her nominated, but by no means elected.

And, it goes a long way twoard explaining why Air America sucks…

I hate Clear Channel’s radio programming. I literally have more songs in my CD player than they have on their playlists. If they can’t get rock music programming right, why shouldn’t they do talk radio even worse?

Come on, Airman Doors. Don’t rob **BG **of his fantasy that the Democrats only lose because of dirty tricks played by “the right”. :slight_smile: It’s all one big corporate conspiracy. You can read all about it on the internet!

Or you can read about it here. Or here. (The latter is not quite as well footnoted but much more entertaining.)

Did you happen to see the lists of books under the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section of his Amazon links? Here, I’ll post them for you:

First link:

What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election by Congressman John Conyers
Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney’s New World Order by Mark Crispin Miller
American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Phillips
Armed Madhouse: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats, Bush Sinks, The Scheme to Steal '08,No Child’s Behind Left, and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of th by Greg Palast
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count by Steve Freeman

Second link:

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast
F.U.B.A.R.: America’s Right-Wing Nightmare by Sam Seder
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean

Wow! I’ll bet both books offer a clear-eyed and utterly convincing look inside the machinations of the Republican Party! Can I rebut your books with Ann Coulter’s now?

Give me a break.

The first one does. And it is laughable to compare Ann Coulter with Mark Crispin Miller, or even with Greg Palast.

Clear Channel’s goal is not simply making money for the stockholders. They’d also like to control as much of the broadcasting biz as possible. The old rules limited how many stations any one company could own (overall, and in each market.) The rules have been loosened, and CC is happy about that. It makes sense to kiss up to the party that regulates your acquisitions, and CC is doing that. Letting Air America Radio into some markets is a matter of hedging its bets. The Dems might control the system eventually. Besides, liberals listen to the radio, too, and they buy the sponsor’s products. There’s money to be made.

No, what’s laughable is that these books are commonly read by the same people that wank to the equivalent of Democratic propaganda. How much credibility do you seriously expect people to lend to your cited books when they are merely titles in the never-ending flood of Democrats good/ Republicans bad nonsense? These books are the few diamonds in amongst the rest of the crapola?

I’ll tell you what. Buy me copies, mail them to me, and I’ll see for myself. Otherwise, in the presence of such esteemed company as Chomsky I’m afraid that I’m not really willing to take your word for it, any more than I believed that O’Neill prick when he went after Kerry in 2004.

Could he buy you a library card instead?
Daniel

:dubious: “In the presence”? Consider where you got that from. Just because the same people who might read these books also might read Chomsky (something I keep promising myself I’ll get around to one of these days) does not mean Miller or Palast lack credibility, nor that they themselves are Chomsky fans. Chomsky is a theoretical linguist best known for writings outside his field of expertise. Palast is a veteran government investigator (that is, formerly employed to do investigations for governments) and investigative journalist whose reports for the BBC have won awards. Miller is a professor of media studies at NYU. They do both have some idea of what they’re talking about.

Frankly, attaking the credibility of something based on “readers also read” on amazon is pretty much the laziest comeback/excuse ever. At least googling could have returned some information on the book’s content.

I agree. Does this mean that every thing that I have ever read is crap just because I bought and read one piece of crap left or right propaganda sometime in the past? What kind of argument is this? How about dismissing the book on previous work by the author, or better yet by the actual content of the book?

Don’t you get it? If an author says something negative about Bush and/or Republicans, that automatically makes them the left-wing version of Ann Coulter. Fair and balanced!

Thankfully, I don’t believe there are any other “versions” of Ann Coulter. One is quite enough. :slight_smile:

Still, saying “here is a book” is hardly proof of anything.