"Tom Betz" wrote in message
...
Quoth "Corbin Ray" in
:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3231.shtml

Richard Mullenax is a hypocrytical liar.

I would point out to the peripatetic Mr. Mullenax that contrary to
his rabid
assertions, Air America didn't steal anything from anyone. Air
America has
contracted with Inner City Broadcasting, the owner of WLIB (run, by
the way,
by Pierre and Percy Sutton, African-Americans both) to lease WLIB.
Inner City
has been losing money on its full-time Carribean programming, and
now has an
opportunity to make a profitable deal, while at the same time
providing a
public service to the community of New York, with wide-ranging,
informative
and entertaining programming. Do black-owned radio stations not have
the
right to make a profit? Would Mr. Mullenax restrict what Inner City
may do
with its own property? Or is his problem with the deal more related
to the
nature of the public service being provided by Air America --
providing a
counter to the ubiquitous hail of right-wing hate radio?

I guess the simple question, shorn of all the rhetoric, is whether Air
America replaced programming by the Coalition of Artists and
Activists or not. Did they (i.e., is Air America now where this
programming was previously)?

I also find this rather confusing. You refer to wide-ranging,
informative and entertaining programming. But I thought we were
talking about Air America?

Quoth "T. Early" in
:

I guess the simple question, shorn of all the rhetoric, is whether Air
America replaced programming by the Coalition of Artists and
Activists or not.

No, the owners of the station replaced programming by CAA. With Air America.

By the way, CAA's programming still has a home on weekends.

--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.

"Tom Betz" wrote in message
...
Quoth "T. Early" in
:

I guess the simple question, shorn of all the rhetoric, is whether
Air
America replaced programming by the Coalition of Artists and
Activists or not.

No, the owners of the station replaced programming by CAA. With Air
America.

By the way, CAA's programming still has a home on weekends.



That's a reasonable distinction. So should I assume that Air America
representatives did not approach the owners with an offer, knowing
that acceptance of the offer would result in CAA programming being
replaced?

On 14 Apr 2004 14:42:59 GMT, "T. Early"
wrote:

That's a reasonable distinction. So should I assume that Air America
representatives did not approach the owners with an offer, knowing
that acceptance of the offer would result in CAA programming being
replaced?

Offers like this are made every day. Broadcasting is win-lose
business. If one show comes in another has to go out.

WLIB is a commercial entity. If it's losing money because no one is
listening and they can't sell time, something has to give. Supposing
BET had a radio network and made the same deal? CAA programming would
go, also.

You can't blame Air America for seeing an opportunity and making
something of it.

Rich

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...
On 14 Apr 2004 14:42:59 GMT, "T. Early"
wrote:

That's a reasonable distinction. So should I assume that Air
America
representatives did not approach the owners with an offer, knowing
that acceptance of the offer would result in CAA programming being
replaced?

Offers like this are made every day. Broadcasting is win-lose
business. If one show comes in another has to go out.

WLIB is a commercial entity. If it's losing money because no one is
listening and they can't sell time, something has to give. Supposing
BET had a radio network and made the same deal? CAA programming
would
go, also.

You can't blame Air America for seeing an opportunity and making
something of it.


I don't blame 'em, but this thread has gotten long enough where the
original context, which concerned an article linked to by the original
poster, has gotten lost. The author of the article (which was
admittedly over the top) found some irony in the fact that a network
catering to those who are usually obsessed with multiculturism and
speech outlets for the "disenfranchised" would themselves
"disenfranchise" this type of programming. Another poster (also
above) took issue with this characterization, and it seems to me that
who did what to whom -is- relevant in that context. I also think it's
a reasonable assumption that had WLIB's programming been replaced by,
say, Michael Medved or Mike Reagan, we'd be hearing a lot about the
loss of CAA's "voice" from those who support Air America.

"T. Early" wrote in message
...

I also find this rather confusing. You refer to wide-ranging,
informative and entertaining programming. But I thought we were
talking about Air America?

LOL!