Air America's ABC Blacklist: The Real Story (VERY WORTHWHILE READ)

[NYCGirl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/air-americas-abc-blackli_b_33123.html

First off, let's clarify why this is taking place: The crime isn't that Air America is partisan.

All or most of these firms advertise on politically conservative talk radio programs and/or stations. And the crime isn't even being "liberal." Some of these advertisers have moderate or liberal executives who donate to Democratic candidates and are far from rabid conservatives.

So what is the problem? While "liberal" Air America clearly favors big D Democrats, unlike virtually all other programming on commercial radio and television, it gives airtime to reports that are critical of corporations and the powerful politicians they keep in Washington.

This is the heart of the problem: Air America commits a crime called journalism. Almost none of the so-called conservative radio shows or networks do any semblance of actual reporting. They merely pontificate -- repeating talking points that seem to be emailed straight from Karl Rove's laptop.



And check out this website cited in the full article:

http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

[shance]

1. What's more ridiculous, Air America is not "liberal" radio per se

It was more like defense radio, that would counter the outlandish lies and corrupt policies happening in Washington.

It was not about any visionary "liberal" policies, whatever liberal policies are for that matter ( liberal is a term like conservatism used to divide people imo).

Anything truthful is being called "liberal" these days, in an effort to distract from the validity of what is being said.

[NYCGirl]

2. It's a good thing, IMO, that "liberal" has become a synonym for

truthful. Hopefully, the stigma that's been put on the term is on its way out!

[NYCGirl]

3. KICK.

[NYCGirl]

4. KICK.

[Suziq]

5. Well, It's Their Loss

I guess these corporations do not consider progressives consumers????? :shrug:

[Strelnikov_]

6. Which Is Why Purely Commercial Progressive/Liberal Radio Is Not Viable

I don’t understand why people expect power to fund those speaking truth to it.

There is a ready market of over 40% of the populace in even the reddest of areas that are not currently served by political talk radio. What every business model requires, a ready-made market.

So much for the free market.

Instead of trying to ‘fight the last war’, that is, model progressive talk radio after Reich-Wing radio, a different (and not really innovative), approach is needed.

This approach is . . . . use the NPR model.

In larger, left leaning cities, commercial Progressive radio will be viable due to the critical mass of advertisers. In smaller, or redder, markets, where most of the advertisers are prejudiced, funding would come from the ‘Corporation For Progressive Radio’ to offset losses.

As Liberals/Progressives, we would need to donate $100/200 a year to the corporation (I used to donate this much to NPR). If 1/6 of Kerry voters donated $100/yr., $1 B a year could be raised.

My belief is that until those in the Red areas (Phoenix, Missoula, Atlanta, etc. etc.) are provided access to an alternative to Reich-Wing propaganda radio, Progressive politicians will make limited inroads. Some discount the effect of Reich-Wing propaganda radio on the political shift, and dumbing down, of the electorate, particularly the ‘working class’. I do not. Radio is low cost (for the consumer), convenient, and pervasive among the ‘working class’.

One other change is that the on-air ‘personalities’ would need to accept that they are part of a movement, and park their ego, and need for $1 M/yr paychecks, at the door.

My experience with all cities, and particularly ‘Red’ cities (St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Des Moines, Albuquerque), is that the older/university neighborhoods are ‘Blue’, surrounded by ‘Red’ suburbs which are the enclaves of the middle and ‘working’ classes. That is, the part of the electorate that has been consistently voting against their best interest. Therefore, the primary strategy would be to ‘serve’ these areas. The ‘Blue’ would provide a critical mass of funds, with the CPR providing funds to keep the enterprise ‘just in the black’.

A secondary strategy would be a salient into smaller markets with larger universities (Columbia, MO, Springfield,. MO, Iowa City/Cedar Rapids, IA, Fort Collins, CO) and therefore a younger demographic. The dynamic in these smaller cities would be similar to the larger cities, with the relatively large progressive base proving the revenue to operate nearly self-sufficient.

A third, and probably most important, strategy, will be an air-drops into (typically ‘Red’) smaller cities that are rural regional centers (Quincy, IL, Topeka, KS, Waterloo, IA, Quad Cities, IA). These operations would probably require the most funds from the CPR.

Parallel to all of the above, ownership of stations should be the priority, or the sorry situation in Missoula, Phoenix and the Quad Cities will simply continue. With an adequately funded CPR, when a station comes up for sale, they would be ready. On-line funding drives could even be effected to raise funds to outbid the Christo/Corporatist oligarchy.

[NYCGirl]

7. I already have a yearly premium membership to AAR. It's worth it! NT

[Strelnikov_]

9. Same Here. And Would Gladly Donate More . . If . .

it were a non-profit model and I was sure no one was being paid more than $200/k year.

Hell, I'd probably donate more anyway.

I just think that working for a cause should not be a ticket to riches. Take what you need, leave the rest.

[redacted]

10. Good Point!

[KittyWampus]

8. very well put. When Democrats do what their "mission" entails, it means

enforcing corporate regulations and standards to protect citizens AND the corporations themselves.