-=jd=- wrote:
On Tue 06 Apr 2004 02:34:51a, Peter Maus
wrote in message news:fcscc.44302$He5.853242@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:


{snippage}

Franken was interviewed on NPR this past weekend concerning Air
America, and was surprisingly open about the fact that he's not even
sure he likes Radio enough to consider it a full time venue. His
contract only runs one year. These are admissions that are
generally not hte sort of thing that a radio station wants to hear
of it's flag hosts. Radio, if it's to garner loyalty, and long term
impact, want's commitment and public commitment at that for it's
talent. Something that no one at Air America Radio has done.



It would not surprise me if whoever is producing the format picked the
current hosts thinking thay would "jump-start" it - get it going long
enough to ease longer-term talent into place.



It's not like that hasn't been tried before. But with generallly
poor results. Radio, like most anything in the entertainment field,
finds success in consistency. In major markets it often takes a
talent two years just to establish. Bait and Switch, usually doesn't
work. Radio stations are publicly expected to hit the ground with
their fields in place, so that the establishment can begin. Easing
in the REAL talent after an initial bang, usuall means that the new
talent remains unestablished for that much longer. In today's
broadcast environment, that's a stupendous waste of resources.

Still, based on what I've heard so far, waste of resource
doesn't seem to bother these people.


From what's being reported, these big names aren't yet having much of a
WOW! effect. I would have expected an "All-Star Blitz" in the first few
weeks, just to grab some positive attention and snag as many listeners as
possible. Heck, Limbaugh can compete with what they have so far just using
guest hosts.


Bear in mind how long it took Limbaugh to become established. And
his story in notable for his rapid growth. Still, it was far from
overnight. And the same can be said of his guest hosts.

So far, with the exception of Randi Rhodes, there's not a lot of
established radio talent in that stable. Time is something, if
they're going to have the impact they wish, that they do not have in
abundance. And as scattered as Franken, so far, has been, that WOW
effect may have already been missed.



Still, the new format is brand-new - it's barely got it's feet wet. I'd
give it a year or so before anyone starts doing a post-mortem. It may yet
take off like a rocket.


And that's the point. What they're attempting may, in fact
succeed. It will not be taking off like a rocket. Nothing with a
strictly political motive ever does. What the point of much of this
thread has been about is the seemingly lack of focus, or lack of
long term viability for the network.

Long term viability doesn't appear what this network is about.
And success in broadcasting is found in focussing on the listeners,
not the broadcasters. Franken has already abrogated that position
with the very name of his program.

By calling the program the "O'Franken" factor, he's clearly
calling out Bill O'Reilly. Nothing wrong with that. And it's a
pretty brassy way of doing it. But in doing so, Franken has
surrendered a crucial indentity issue for his program. Rush,
Hannity, even O'Reilly have all staked their identity in their name
and personality without compromise. Even Art Bell created a clear
and distinct identity for Coast To Coast. But by coopting
O'Reilly's "Factor" Franken has surrendered a key element of his
show's identity, stating in the very title, that he's there to be a
PITA to O'Reilly, and that alone should endear him to listeners.

As clever as that is, it's also an enormous waste of opportunity.
Radio listeners wish to identify with their favorite personalities.
They wish to establish relationships with them. One way, to be sure,
but relationships none the less. Franken has tipped his hand, that
rather than keeping both eyes and his microphone on his audience, a
key factor, so to speak, in building loyalty and establishing
credibility among his listeners, he's instead keeping his eyes on
O'Reilly. And by his patter, his attention is diverted to Rush as
well.

Precisely not the way to build a base. Poking fun at the big guys
is one thing. But making them a part of your identity, is quite
another.

What Franken has done is the equivalent of Letterman calling his
show 'The Late Show Starring David Lenoman.' He's surrendered a
portion of is identity to Leno. Which is a tacit acknowledgement
that Leno is bigger than he, and he accepts that without ambition.
Franken has acknowleged that O'Reilly is bigger than he is and has
accepted it. That's no way to build an audience. And audiences have
a way of getting very tired of tuning in to hear Franken, and
hearing talk about Rush or O'Reilly.

Again, this is not to autopsy this new network. It's barely a
week old, for heaven's sake. But they've made some questionable
choices in strategy. Choices that radiate the soul of an also-ran.


p




-=jd=-

Quoth Peter Maus in
:

Franken, Janeane Garofolo specifically, and with the exception of
Randi Rhodes, radio is NOT the medium of choice of these performers.

You're conveniently ignoring Mark Riley (Morning Sedition) and Katherine
Lanpher (O'Franken Factor): both consummate, experienced radio professionals
who are teamed with the big name talent to guide them. Riley has been doing
a particularly good job of this; I think Lanpher is still a bit in awe of
Franken, but she's exerting more control as time passes. And Janeane
Garofalo is proving to be a truly gifted radio personality; I suspect that
she'll stay on the radio long after Franken has moved on, and adding
experience to her natural gifts will be a great success on the radio, either
at Air America or elsewhere.

--
"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.

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...


Wow! Nice solid discussion, with postings by and large from people who
sound like they have some knowledge of the radio business. I believe
I'll have a better knowledge of the factors involved as I listen to some
of this new talk.

Of course, I'll have to do that on the web.

When you're not listening to shortwave radio, of course!


AM stations nown here in the
Benighted South broadcast "All Right Wing--All The Time". Does anyone
here want to take the time to tell me what happened to the old "fairness
doctrine", which used to keep this kind of junk silent?

A couple of things happend. First, the fairness doctrine was used as an
anti-free speech political club. Second, the expansion of broadcast media
nullified the arguement that scarcity made it necessary for the government
to regulate who gets access.

For a rundown of some of media censorship issues:

http://www.mttlr.org/volfour/Hazlett_art.html


Also, would someone run down the history of right wing talk radio for
me? Further, is this stuff so widespread in part because radio stations
are owned by businessmen and businessmen are predominantly conservative?

Leonard


Well, people listen, no matter who owns the stations. Maybe there's a
difference in the employment factor between people who listen to daytime
radio vs. people who watch daytime TV.

Frank Dresser

In article ,
Larry Ozarow wrote:

Telamon, you sound like Claude Rains in Casablanca,
you are "Shocked, shocked!" that a bunch of liberal
Democrats are spending a lot of money in media, and part
of their motivation might be
to support a Democrat in an election. As people have pointed
out in this newsgroup, various of the rightwing commentators
have support that comes from "foundations," I've pointed
out that often political magazines - which almost always strongly
support one side or the other, are at least partly bankrolled by
individuals. As for not planning to make any money for two or three
years, this isn't a sign of evil intent, as Peter Maus pointed out in
his response, this is about normally what they should expect.

And calm down a little. If this plot is such a clear and present
danger, but Al Franken will honestly answer about it if you call
him - THEN CALL HIM, and expose the whole charade for what it is.
He's a pretty lame conspirator in that case, anyway.

You call him I don't have to since I already know "what he thinks."

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12815

Here you go out of the mouth of O'Franken

"I'd be happy if the election of a Democrat ended the show, said the
networks biggest star Al Franken, who reportedly has signed only a
one-year contract to do a weekday three hour show opposite Limbaugh. I'm
doing this because I want to use my energies to get Bush unelected."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...399506_5/?hub=
Entertainment

"We are flaming swords of justice," Franken told a cheering crowd at a
party to launch the network Tuesday night. "Bush is going down, he is
going down, he is going down. And we're going to help him."

"I don't think of it as a business, but I know it has to make money to
be sustaining," Franken said in an interview, perching his feet up on
the desk after a rehearsal session for the show. "A lot of it is
mission."

Here is Mark Walsh CEO

Mark Walsh, a former America Online executive and adviser to the
Democratic National Committee, said liberal politics would be a "teaser
.... a loss leader in the window" for the radio network, which is also
being broadcast in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.

So liberal politics is just a "teaser" to sell Democratic party politics.

Here is some more interesting reading

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives...t-talk-or-just
-politics-2004-03-31.html

You should be getting the picture by now.


Look, there has been talk about doing this for a couple of years. Any
even-numbered year they would have done it in is a congressional
election year, and you could get all up in arms in that case about
the same issue.

Telamon, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - people
on the left have every right to throw their money around to influence
elections, just as people on the right have been doing. Their secret
plan that you are so worked up about, if it is indeed merely a plot
to influence the election, and not a business venture, is to elect
a government that spends a little more on education and health care
and a little less on military, respects environmental treaties, and
throws our military weight a little less. I don't think a Kerry
administration is going to suspend civil liberties and install secret
tribunals and socialize the means of production - is that what you
really think is in the offing?

And by the way, you refer to the "older, established" means of raising
money having been eliminated. Were they fair? Didn't groups on one side
or another abuse campaign financing laws of all kinds? And also if the
law has suddenly become so Draconian how come Bush is spending a couple
of hundred million in his un-opposed PRIMARY campaign alone, before even
gearing up for the general election? The total capitalization of Air
America is dwarfed by what Bush is going to spend this spring alone.


Telamon wrote:


The following Public service message uses non standard capitalization
for the reading comprehension impaired.

I don't use profanity very often but WAKE THE HELL UP !

They are not planning to make any money for 2 to 3 YEARS !

This effort is designed to influence the coming ELECTION THIS FALL.

WHY ?

BECAUSE of last years campaign finance reform. It's an end run around
the rules to abuse the electorate by Lawyer's doing their thing.

Let me put this another way for the thick heads out there. People who
are not willing to have intentions known are using the startup of this
network to influence the election since the older and established
methods of doing so were eliminated last year.

It's not about FREE SPEECH.

It's not about MAKING MONEY.

It's just a POLITICAL MANEUVER.

If you don't believe me then just call AL Franken on his show. He's
honest enough to tell you why its happening now. Go ahead and CALL HIM
or write to

http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/p...balDefault.htm


--
Telamon
Ventura, California

-=jd=- wrote:



I think you nailed it -




Well.........'Tis the season.

His point is he doesn't like the other side coming up with an idea that
might help Kerry to get elected.

David wrote:

What's your point?

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 05:42:04 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

The following Public service message uses non standard capitalization
for the reading comprehension impaired.

I don't use profanity very often but WAKE THE HELL UP !

They are not planning to make any money for 2 to 3 YEARS !

This effort is designed to influence the coming ELECTION THIS FALL.

WHY ?

BECAUSE of last years campaign finance reform. It's an end run around
the rules to abuse the electorate by Lawyer's doing their thing.

Let me put this another way for the thick heads out there. People who
are not willing to have intentions known are using the startup of this
network to influence the election since the older and established
methods of doing so were eliminated last year.

It's not about FREE SPEECH.

It's not about MAKING MONEY.

It's just a POLITICAL MANEUVER.

If you don't believe me then just call AL Franken on his show. He's
honest enough to tell you why its happening now. Go ahead and CALL HIM
or write to

http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/p...balDefault.htm


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Telamon,

This exchange between us started because you accused
the network of being backed by communists. Now the
reason you are all worked up is that it is backed by
something much more evil and menacing .... Democrats!!

Guess what, I'm not afraid of Democrats! I like Democrats.
I vote for Democrats, and I will this up-coming election day
You wrote all that insulting apocalyptic stuff about people
having their heads in the sand, and ignoring the truth,
and called me a jerk because of this?

I pointed out in my last post that
the amount of money being spent on Air America is
small compared to what Bush is spending before he even
gets nominated. Also you don't think Rupert Murdoch
is electioneering for Bush? Just because Fox is profitable
on the side doesn't make its subsidy of Republican politics
any better than AA's of Democratic politics.

You said in an earlier post that you don't have a problem with
free speech. Live it.

Oz

= = = Larry Ozarow wrote in message
= = = ...

- - - - - S N I P - - - - -

As people have pointed out in this newsgroup, various of the
rightwing commentators have support that comes from "foundations,"

- - - - - S N I P - - - - -

LO,

When it comes to Broadcast Media Programming and on-the-air
'Sponsorship" {Funding} that is 'directly' and 'indirectly'
from [FOUNDATIONS]. The Big three a

PBS = Public Broadcasting System = 349 'public' TV Stations
PBS= http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/

NPR = National Prublic Radio = 750 'public' Radio Stations
NPR= http://www.npr.org/about/

PRI = Public Radio Inernational = 746 'affiliate' stations
(available internationally through World Radio Network)
PRI= http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/inside/index.html

WRN = World Radio Network = 'Globally Minded' ABC1 Adult Audience
WRN= http://www.wrn.org/about/index.html
[ABC1 = The ABC1 Consumer Market Assessment 20-40 Year Olds...
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...report_id=3865

ADD - A host of state and reaginol networks and consortiums:
Oregon Public Broadcastiing (OPB)
Minnesota Public Radio (MPR)

PLUS -Some PBS "Super Stations" like: WGBN, WETA, WNET, WTTW,
WPBA, WPBT, KERA, KRMA, KCET, KQED, KCTS and more.

The 'quiet' Liberal-Left-Leaning "Foundation Supported" Radio and
TV Media is out there and it is very very strong and growing.


jtf ~ RHF

..

..

Telamon wrote in message ...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=12815


"The reason: Air America Radio was designed and built to advance
the Democratic Party, not necessarily liberalism."

"And if it proves unprofitable, preparations are already in place
for this network's lucrative dismemberment shortly after the
November election.?"

http://www.airamericaradio.com/www/p...balDefault.htm

jtf ~ RHF

..

We disagree about whether these networks really
display a "liberal" bias. I listen to both Morning
Edition and All Things Considered on a regular basis
and I don't think they are biased. True I might be
brainwashed, or biased myself, but that could be true
of anyone, even you.
And even if NPR and PRI and PBS were liberal mouthpieces,
and supported heavily by foundations, (which is not strictly
true - the news programs which I assume is what you are
talking about are overwhelmingly supported by subscriptions
from member stations) this would not negate the fact that
it's done on both sides, which is all I was saying.

RHF wrote:
= = = Larry Ozarow wrote in message
= = = ...

- - - - - S N I P - - - - -


As people have pointed out in this newsgroup, various of the
rightwing commentators have support that comes from "foundations,"


- - - - - S N I P - - - - -

LO,

When it comes to Broadcast Media Programming and on-the-air
'Sponsorship" {Funding} that is 'directly' and 'indirectly'
from [FOUNDATIONS]. The Big three a

PBS = Public Broadcasting System = 349 'public' TV Stations
PBS= http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/

NPR = National Prublic Radio = 750 'public' Radio Stations
NPR= http://www.npr.org/about/

PRI = Public Radio Inernational = 746 'affiliate' stations
(available internationally through World Radio Network)
PRI= http://www.pri.org/PublicSite/inside/index.html

WRN = World Radio Network = 'Globally Minded' ABC1 Adult Audience
WRN= http://www.wrn.org/about/index.html
[ABC1 = The ABC1 Consumer Market Assessment 20-40 Year Olds...
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...report_id=3865

ADD - A host of state and reaginol networks and consortiums:
Oregon Public Broadcastiing (OPB)
Minnesota Public Radio (MPR)

PLUS -Some PBS "Super Stations" like: WGBN, WETA, WNET, WTTW,
WPBA, WPBT, KERA, KRMA, KCET, KQED, KCTS and more.

The 'quiet' Liberal-Left-Leaning "Foundation Supported" Radio and
TV Media is out there and it is very very strong and growing.


jtf ~ RHF

.

.