Bill O'reilly pays KABC $500,000 a year for his air time.

Sean Hannity is #15 in New York.

They too are being subsidized.

The Washington Times has lost over a billion dollars. Yet it
continues to publish. Is this the ''free market'' at work.

Let's not get all high and mighty here. Giant corporations fill the
airwaves with simple-minded extreme right-wing broadcasters in order
to keep their favorite whores in office.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:58:02 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote:


"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: (UJ)

In a genuinely competetive free market situation, this new liberal
network wouldn't last more than a few weeks. However, I suspect
that
it is being backed financially by some deep pocketed extremists who
have a socialist agenda that is more important to them than
financial
profits.

Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am over this nonsense. Rich
socialists
throwing away their money??

Maybe it is possible that wealthy capitlaists and Americans are
tired of the
hate being spread daily on the AM frequencies by the right. I'll try
to keep
from labeling them as Nazis, but that makes as much sense as calling
Democrats
socialists.



Yet further devaluation of the word "hate." I'm wondering at what
point this term became co-opted as a an all-purpose slur on those with
whom the left disagrees. Given the invectives hurled at Bush on a
daily basis from that side of the spectrum, it's particularly ironic.

The first poster's comments are not that far-fetched. Airamerica is
being bankrolled--the buying of stations and/or air time without
regard to market demand--by wealthy liberals--although I doubt they
qualify as socialists. I don't have a problem with that, but let's
not confuse this, at least not yet, with the marketplace at work. Of
course a lot of people would have trouble admitting that those dang
ol' rich conservatives aren't the only people in this country who use
their dollars to influence opinion.