The market is there. What’s not there are the marketers.
Contrary to what the free-market-is-perfect folks tell us, it is not enough for something to be successful to survive. Unless it is either wildly successful financially, or incredibly compelling and original (and Donahue was neither), it has to be successful within accepted paradigms. Donahue’s rating points might have kept a conservative on the air; they counted less in the less-accepted liberal format.
Here is Donahue’s take on why he was cancelled, from an interview with Sean Hannity (courtesy of media matters):
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004
The force of two liberals!!! :eek:
On the other hand, according to the NY Times article cited, the reason MSNBC gave for cancelling Donahue and not lower rated shows on the same network (e.g., Hardball), was that Donahue’s show “cost more to produce” since it “had a live audience”.
So there you have it. Choose your paradigm. 
One data point does not a trend make. Does anyone have AA’s ratings numbers for the other markets they’re in?
Actually, let’s remember that Limbaugh et al had ten years to build up their market. Perhaps it’d be more accurate to compare Air America’s first year with Rush’s first year…?
I’m disagreeing. It’s there, it just has to be different in a way that hasn’t been tried yet. I can name one man who’s been… on the opposite side of the line, even if he doesn’t have a coherent political philosophy. His audience is bigger than all of the above combined. And his name is Howard Stern.
Now, Howard’s been all over the political spectrum, over time, but since the Gulf War II, he’s been behaving as a liberal. Especially against the FCC. And that’s been good radio.
Maybe that’s the trick?
Well, Mr. Moto, I’m sorry. You’ve been bulldozed by the liberati of this board again. Although they’ll happily condemn Rove as guilty of high treason for saying, “I’ve heard that too,” they’ll wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and then some before condemning any member of their favored organizations for anything.
It does seem clear that Air America received an inappropriate sweetheart loan from the Boys and Girls Club due to a conflict of interest through shared leadership. A non-profit like the BAGC most certainly shouldn’t be giving out loans to speculative and risky ventures like Air America. A diversified portfolio of investment to increase the return on their savings is one thing, this was just obviously unethical behavior. If Air America has any cajones, they’ll do their best to repay the loan as fast as possible under the original terms of the loan. If they don’t, I have a sinking feeling that the BAGC will just end up in a long list of creditors plodding through bankruptcy hearings eventually. This should give everyone serious pause about the ethical backing of the leadership of Air America, but it won’t to the people that will defend it without reason to the ends of the earth because it matches their political affiliation.
Can you link to his ratings compared with those of conservative talk shows at the time? I’ve heard that he actually did OK, ratings-wise - not stellar, but as well as or better than stuff that was kept on.
Perhaps, but if polls show that ~40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, and ~18% consider themselves liberal, there would still appear to be an untapped market, y’know?
Are they still having to “resort to these sort of things to raise cash,” or was that just back then?
Just asking.
It looks to me like a bunch of people who don’t know beans about running a radio business decided to go into the radio business. The results are as expected.
I don’t think so. “Air America” had a publicity launch that was unprecedented for a political radio network. The cable networks were pretty much broadcasting “Air America’s” first show the day of the launch (I can still recall seeing Al Franken reading his opening remarks…I knew right then they were doomed. Reading is death in talk radio!), and they already had their network of stations in place. Comparisons with Limbaugh are not valid. Rush started with a show and worked his way to the top.
Nonsense, I am glad he resigned, to condone that behavior one would have to keep the unethical folk in their membership (I wonder who would behave like that ) And only if there is no payment of the loan that then I would see a problem with Air America.
Liberati? I never new Liberace had his own global domination cult. Live and learn.
As for the “ethical leadership of Air America,” he has already been removed from that position. Did you miss that part?
I a just gratified that Air America has attracted the ire of the right wing nut jobs. They must be doing something right, or the right wing wouldn’t target them with some flimsy smear campaign. Keep it up!
Did you miss the Newsmax memo? 
Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005 9:35 a.m. EST
When outfits like Newsmax and The Wall Street Journal say stuff like that regarding AA, I do take notice. Of course, overall AA is still struggling, but it seems that it is in a better position to turn a profit next year.
Move over Gumby! That’s one of the twistiest wordtwistings I’ve seen in a long time around here. You didn’t say, “Boys and Girls Club embezzles money!”–why would that be, hmmm?
I mean, perish the thought that you’re scoring cheap partisan points. I know you’d never stoop so low.
Daniel
Whoa, fella! Are you saying that ‘illegal loan’ = ‘embezzlement’? You got a definition to support that?
Findlaw says: “Embezzlement is defined in most states as theft/larceny of assets (money or property) by a person in a position of trust or responsibility over those assets.”
We’ve got the ‘position of trust or responsibility’ part; but do we have the ‘theft’ part? Is the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club claiming that their money’s stolen, rather than inappropriately loaned out? That’s a big difference.
The official who routed that money to Air America was one Charles Rosen. FEC documents show a recent $500 donation to Congressman Lantos, $250 to Congresman Crowley and $1000 to Senator Clinton.
So if you want to concentrate on the corrupt official on this side of the equation, be my guest.
He has since stepped down, BTW.
Why can’t you just face the fact that one liberal gave another one a not very legal favor? It won’t make the whole damn world come down, or even give me any satisfaction. It would just be honest.
Why thanks, I will: that is, after all, the side of the equation where there appears to be wrongdoing, and so that’s the side that an honest person focuses on when describing the wrongdoing.
Of course I’m willing to acknowledge that one liberal acted in a way that appears to have been illegal (and note that that’s worded more strongly than my condemnations of Karl Rove). I don’t believe you about the “not giving you any satisfaction” part, because your OP fairly reeks of satisfaction; but I’m perfectly willing to “face the fact” that something scuzzy appears to have happened here.
That’s not the question, though: there’s really nothing to debate as far as that’s concerned. The question is why you decided to use the word “embezzle,” which didn’t appear in either of your cites, and to mention the recipient of the loan (a famous leftwing organization) instead of mentioning the actual malefactors, in relation to the poorly-chosen verb.
Daniel
Incidentally, your pointing out that the malefactor has made donations to Democratic candidates is yet more partisan “gotcha!” politics.
Please stop: you’re hurting America.
Daniel
It seems to me that this is more akin to the Coingate scandal in Ohio than the Karl Rove felonious disclosure of classified information and degredation of our vital security interests.
I mean, really, if you’re going to tu quoque, at least pick the right quoque.
By the way, Mr. Moto, I missed your Great Debate about that embezzlement.
Care to actually deal with the argument?
Mr. Moto has what I’m willing to accept as a smoking gun - but the problem for you both here is that it’s not Air America’s gun; it belongs to the guy they got rid of some time ago, and it’s got his fingerprints on it.
Now that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
But the thing is, that’s really all you’ve got, and it rates no more than a shrug. Everything else we’ve ‘bulldozed’ is nothing more than a bad attempt to make something of nothing.
Here’s where it gets really hinky.
Air America’s parent company, Piquant LLC, just released a statement not denying the loan, but saying it isn’t their responsibility, since they assumed ownership of Air America in 2004. If there is any money owed to the club, therefore, it is owed under the old holding organization, Progress Media, that Evan Cohen helped start. That organization is defunct, and has left a lot of creditors holding their hats.
This is the statement: