The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

28 February 2006

Radio Industry Trade Publications, FOX News, Air America

RADIO'S COVER-UP GANG

How Broadcast Trade Publications Help Air America




Think getting a
fair shake from the mainstream media is difficult? Try getting broadcast and entertainment trades to fairly cover talk radio's scandals.

While they've never been particularly even-handed, with the rise of industry consolidation and radio mega-operators, some now dwell exclusively in the sewer.

Primarily dependent on ad revenues from shaky syndication firms, it's a dirty business.

Because it makes a greater attempt to balance coverage, we often reference All Access here at the Radio Equalizer.


Why does it matter what industry trades report? For these reasons:


--- A small but ever-shrinking number of industry professionals, primarily corporate suits, still believe their coverage to be accurate.


--- The Drudge factor:
while often featuring stories and links to broadcast trade sites, he remains notoriously anti-new media. Whether left or right, Drudge will generally not reference stories from blogs.

During the course of the Air America scandal, Drudge sat it out, likely because it meant recognizing blogs. Where are his links to Instapundit, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, Daily Kos or the Huffington Post?

Even CBS News has accepted blogging, but not Matt Drudge.


--- For information on personalities and controversies, lazy reporters with dusty, grimy rolodexes continue to call radio trades. Newspapers then publish the often terribly inaccurate results.


Because Air America is a significant advertiser (and as some of their editors and owners are card-carrying liberals), it routinely gets favorable trade coverage. Scandals, flaps and controversies are ignored, while critics are readily condemned.

And that's exactly what happened today.

Presenting one-sided accounts of Air America's week-delayed response were two publications that hadn't previously mentioned our George Soros/Democracy Alliance Air America bailout story.

Without explaining the context of the allegations, especially our $8 million network rescue report, Billboard and Radio Ink were both quick to publish pro-Air America pieces. Bias doesn't get any worse than this.

From Billboard:


Air America Radio president Gary Krantz is firing back at comments made by conservative talkie Bill O’Reilly that the liberal talk radio network is in dire straits.

O’Reilly made the disparaging remarks on his cable TV show Feb. 22, in a segment called “How Is Air America Surviving?” He said, “What you have here is a radio network that is failing financially. This far left outfit comes in and is saying it will pay the bills. The goal is to get across a propaganda point of view under the guise of competing in the marketplace. We're going to ask the FCC to look into Air America."

Krantz responded that usually such comments are ignored, but “in this case we feel we need to set the record straight. Mr. O'Reilly has been bad mouthing Air America and saying it is failing for two years. It was not true before and it is not true now.”

Air America's ratings “went up substantially” in the Fall 2005 book and its affiliate base has grown from 36 affiliates in January 2005 to 90 across the country, including internationally on the Voice of America, Krantz said.

“Financially, Air America is significantly stronger than ever,” he added. “As of today, our booked and pending business for 2006 represents 83% of the entire revenue generated in 2005. We are also up to date on all of our financial obligations. Most importantly, we have a dedicated board and investors who support our business.

"There is no substance whatsoever to Mr. O'Reilly's absurd claims of gloom and doom,” Krantz said.


Even worse, Radio Ink printed only Air America's letter, without any additional information.


In addition, we've today heard from people who noticed a huge error in the Krantz letter: his claim that Air America is heard internationally on the Voice Of America. It's simply not true, they correctly point out.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

Soros/Franken/Garofalo: Pete at IHillary for the Radio Equalizer, Boy: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer (by the way, Air America did eventually repay the money into an escrow account, but the Wise club is now defunct)

34 Comments:

  • You post about the same thing everyday. Air America... scandal... Gloria Wise... Soros... lacking funds... media bias... Air America... scandal... Gloria Wise... Soros... lacking funds... media bias...

    Doesn't it ever get tiring? It's pretty ironic, actually. You bitch about AAR yet without them you'd have nothing to post about.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 28 February, 2006 21:09  

  • FLASH: BRIAN STILL HASN'T CORRECTED HIS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING RUSH LIMBAUGH STORY

    Brian's Lies Watch - Day 8, Post 9

    It's been 9 posts and 8 days now since Brian lied in his story about the media attachment to Rush Limbaugh's latest/greatest Lie!

    New readers, old reader-liars - do you really want to line up and agree with a liar?

    Check for yourself (those of you who DON'T wish to ignore the truth) - the post at issue: "Flash: Rush Errs" on this site.

    Don't trust this man, or his "reporting"

    By Blogger TJ, at 01 March, 2006 02:06  

  • Brian Maloney recently received a $50 "emergency bailout" check from Norm Coleman. The GOP Senator from Minnesota claimed that the bailout is in no way connected with the possibility of Al Franken running against him in 2008 nor is it in violation of FEC rules. Instead Coleman claimed that he just felt he "had to do something for a mentally challenged individual who remains chronically unemployed".

    Attempts by Maloney to secure emergency funding from Richard Mellon Scaife have been rebuffed. Scaife prefers to direct his money to worldnetdaily.com and Alan Skorski.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 01 March, 2006 08:11  

  • To TJ and anyone else new to this forum: There was no "lie" by Brian. TJ has been debunked several times over already.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 01 March, 2006 09:05  

  • I think Drudge recognizes the symbiotic relationship between his site, the internet and the MSM.

    And, if he started doing blogs, it would increase his liability about inaccurate information.

    There are good blogs and there are bad. It would quadruple his workload.

    My thoughts for what they are worth. I don't see how he keeps up with everything the way it is.

    By Blogger tradersmith, at 01 March, 2006 10:32  

  • IHillary and DLunde--your graphics are great!!!

    good report on the lack of reporting Brian--amazing that no one even picked up on the fact that the international broadcast isn't even real...

    Has anyone bothered calling Grantz for the "truth" about that yet?

    By Blogger FYIFYI, at 01 March, 2006 11:38  

  • Brian,

    Air America Phoenix is now off the air. The sale was finalized February 1, but management was given another month to try to locate a new station. Letter from the manager here. A blogger claims that Christy's going to LA for some big bucks; apparently while seeking financing and a new station, he was also job-hunting.

    Keep up the good work!

    By Blogger Pat, at 01 March, 2006 11:40  

  • oh, how i love it! Air America is such a threat to ALL of you conservatives that you can't think of anything else to talk about. if it wasn't a big deal, if it was not a threat, you wouldn't waste your time. BUT IT IS!!! you're probably all pissing yourself right now because you know that that $8 million will give them more affiliates, more listeners, and more influence. and you can't refute the fact that it is a threat. you talk about it WAY too much to argue that you don't think it is.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 01 March, 2006 12:49  

  • Brian’s Lies Watch – Day 8 Post 9

    The anatomy of a lie:

    1) Rush Limbaugh, on his Feb 14 radio show, in talking about the Ohio Hackett/Brown Democratic Primary, said:
    a. “And don’t forget, Sherrord Brown is black” – this was not a lie, but a mistake
    b. He then said, “There’s a racial component here, too”
    2) Rush was then informed by listeners via e-mails that Brown was not black, and was, in fact, white. Paul Hackett was white, as well
    3) Therefore, there was no “racial element” to the story at all
    4) Rush “corrected” his mistake that Brown was black, but DID NOT retract or apologize for the “racial element” remark

    He made up the “racial element” angle, obviously. This was Rush’s lie. His next lie:

    1) He said “I’m not gonna apologize, ‘cause I don’t think it’s an insult to be black”
    2) Of course, this is a lie, too, because he should be apologizing for making up the “racial component” of the story

    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/rush-limbaugh-cincinnati-sherrod-brown.html (the link on Brian’s page is about to disappear forever)

    Brian Maloney then reported on the story on Feb 20. He related the story as if the only element was the “error” Rush Limbaugh Made about Brown’s race.

    Of course, the real story was the “racial component” that Rush made up and then refused to retract.

    Hence, Brian lied as well.

    The elements of the story as I’ve stated above are incontrovertible fact.

    But don’t believe me, and don’t believe anyone else - Research for yourselves.

    By Blogger TJ, at 01 March, 2006 13:32  

  • Falafel Bill's desperate resort to lying moron bloggers like Baloney and Malkin is sinking him. More sharp declines for O'Reilly and FNC.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 01 March, 2006 13:39  

  • HEY MR. KITE!

    Doesn't it ever get tiring? It's pretty ironic, actually. You bitch about {Brian Maloney} yet without {him} you'd have nothing to post about.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 01 March, 2006 14:23  

  • Air America's success story in 89 markets

    http://missoulian.com/articles/2006/03/01/news/local/news06.txt

    But, hey, it's a no-place market, so so what?

    It's not like McGruff the Crime Dog is the biggest advertiser in a big market like Dallas or anything.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 01 March, 2006 15:00  

  • Rush “corrected” his mistake that Brown was black, but DID NOT retract or apologize for the “racial element” remark

    --

    If Rush thought the Brown was black and based upon that offered an opinion that Hackett's withdrawal had something to do with that, then how was it that Rush was "making up" the racial element stuff. When he was informed that he was wrong about Brown's ethinicity he corrected his error. Obviously if he was wrong about his race that automatically nullifies the premise that there is a racial component. The only thing Rush is guilty of here is assuming a person is black based on their name. The point is that if Brown and Hackett are both white then it goes without saying that there is no racial element. I mean did Rush continue to say there was a racial element even after he was told Brown was white? I think if anyone uses their brain they can infer a retraction of the latter premise based on the retraction of the very fact on which the premise was based.

    By Blogger BCB, at 01 March, 2006 16:50  

  • BCB...

    How can you (or anyone else for that matter) not see that whether or not Rush was mistaken about Brown's race, he was MAKING UP THE "racial component" issue.

    He said "racial component" because he believed Brown was black, not because it was true.

    See, it goes like this:

    Rush believes Brown is black, and sees an opportunity to play the race card.

    He COMPLETELY MAKES UP "there's a racial component, here".

    He MADE UP the racial component based upon his belief that Brown was black.

    Then, he found out the Brown was white.

    THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE MADE UP THE "RACIAL COMPONENT".

    In fact, it completely proves it.

    He made up a story based upon his belief of a person's race. When that person's race didn't support his story, he didn't retract the story.

    How many ways do I have to put it for you?

    By Blogger TJ, at 01 March, 2006 17:45  

  • Poor old Falafel Boy, the February Neilsons are in

    Loofa Falafel is down 21% and Olberman is up 55%. Looks like that petition needs to be rewritten.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 01 March, 2006 18:48  

  • BCB: "Obviously if he was wrong about his race that automatically nullifies the premise that there is a racial component."

    Exactly right, BCB! This leads to the fact that there was no "lie" by Brian.

    Also, what TJ is conveniently failing to remind people of is that the title of the AP story was (emphasis mine), "Limbaugh makes error about Brown's race" (Google news). The fact that the AP felt that this was even worthy of a story was the story!

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 01 March, 2006 19:39  

  • BCB: "Obviously if he was wrong about his race that automatically nullifies the premise that there is a racial component."

    Exactly right, BCB! WHICH PROVES HE MADE IT UP!

    Which PROVES HE LIED.

    By Blogger TJ, at 01 March, 2006 19:47  

  • Dick Tuck: "Loofa Falafel is down 21% and Olbermann is up 55%. Looks like that petition needs to be rewritten."

    Ugh. DT cherrypicks a demo rather than all viewers.

    In total viewers, O'Reilly is down only 7%. Olbermann up 38%. That sounds like a big deal, right? WRONG. When the numbers are as tiny as Olbermann's, any change will mean a larger percentage change!

    The bottom line is that O'Reilly is crushing Olbermann like a grape.

    Viewers, Feb '06, averages:

    O'REILLY: 2,235,000 viewers
    Olbermann: 400,000

    Feb 06 ratings That's over 5 to 1, folks!

    -----

    See also:

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    TUES NITE 2/28/06
    HOUSEHOLDS

    FNC O'REILLY 1,636,000
    CNN ZAHN 457,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 413,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 333,000
    MSNBC COSBY 293,000

    Drudge, 3/1/06 at 4:50 pm PST. That's also nearly 5 to 1, O'Reilly over Olbermann.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 01 March, 2006 19:54  

  • For you guys defending Rush and Baloney, answer my this...

    Why did he say there was a "racial component?" Did he think that because Sherrod Brown was black, there had to be a "racial component?" Does he assume that whenever a black cnadidate is involved in a race, there is a "racial component?" That seems pretty irresponsible and borderline racist. So why then did he say it? It certainly wasn't true. That couldn't have been the reason.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 01 March, 2006 20:29  

  • I understand Limbaugh got Brown's ethnicity wrong, but why did he mention it in the first place? Why is it that when he thought Brown was black there was "racial element?" Would he have said the same thing had he known Brown is white? I don't think so. He was making up the story from whole cloth, sounds racist to me.

    BTW, I'll bet that when Rush heard Mr. Brown's unusual first name - Sherrod, he probably thought he was black.

    By Blogger pbrauer, at 01 March, 2006 22:23  

  • Wow, after being gone from here a week, I can't believe you libs are still beating that dead-horse Rush Limbaugh issue, which wasn't even a real controversy to begin with.

    As far as defending Rush ... that's not even necessary. It's up to you Limbaugh haters to come up with something substantial enough to be worthy of refuting -- and this ain't it, sports fans.

    Admit it: All this amounts to is a bunch of frustrated lefties who know full well that they can't beat America's No. 1 radio talk show host head to head in the marketplace of ideas, so their last, desperate hope is to find some sort of "gotcha." ("Hey, I know: If we could brand him a racist and make it stick ... THEN people would stop listening to him and start listening to Randi Rhodes!")

    Here's a hint: If even the mainstream media are bored with the story, it's time for you let it go, too. For your own sake, move on with your lives already.

    That is, unless you want to continue looking like a baseball manager who stands at home plate and keep screaming about an umpire's call -- even though the game is over, the lights are out ... and the fans, players and umpires went home two hours ago.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 02 March, 2006 09:36  

  • Funny how you didn't answer my question.

    But on the subect of letting go, do you think Baloney should let go of the long dead Gloria Wise story?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 02 March, 2006 11:14  

  • Kite nailed you on that. how the fuck can you say that "libs" should let something go, when you guys can't stop beating the dead horse of the AAR "scandal". if the mainstream media is bored with it, why don't you just move on with your life.

    snared by the words of our mouth, right 4thEstate?

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 02 March, 2006 11:46  

  • Rush believes Brown is black, and sees an opportunity to play the race card.

    He COMPLETELY MAKES UP "there's a racial component, here".

    He MADE UP the racial component based upon his belief that Brown was black.

    --

    So if Brown was black and Rush offered a speculation that there was a racial compontent in play, would you still be demanding an apology?

    This is what all talk show hosts do, they take events, facts, etc and offer speculations and opinions about those things. When it was revealed that Cheney did not meet with the Texas sheriff until the next morning, lots of people speculated that he must have been drunk. When the sheriff released his report it was revealed that it was not Cheney or his people that postponed the meeting until the next morning but the sherriff himself. So in light these new facts should we expect every liberal in the media to apologize for alleging Cheney must have been drunk. No, because it was an interpretation of the events at hand and when the facts supporting that speculation are torn away it renders the speculation null and void.

    By Blogger BCB, at 02 March, 2006 12:06  

  • When that person's race didn't support his story, he didn't retract the story.

    --

    Because there is nothing left to retract. If his supporting facts were wrong then whatever opinions, ideas, etc that come from the error are automatically dismissed.

    By Blogger BCB, at 02 March, 2006 12:10  

  • Brian,

    The big story here is the funding George Soros' Open Society Initiative receives from the Department of State--something like $30 million since 1998, according to a 2005 Fox News report (David Lee Miller on Neil Cavuto's show, 5/9/05).

    Since money is fungible, does this mean that the American taxpayer, in a roundabout way, is contributing to Air America?

    By Blogger Derek, at 02 March, 2006 13:23  

  • So if Brown was black and Rush offered a speculation that there was a racial compontent in play, would you still be demanding an apology?

    Yes, now you're getting it. Like I said earlier, its very irresponsible and borderline racist to assume a "racial component" just because a black candidate in involved. America doesn't need any more race problems. You guys wonder why you're accused of being racist. That's why. People like Rush Limbaugh make ridiculous and unfounded racial claims.

    Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Rush merely erred when he said Sherrod Brown was black (and really, not even Rush is stupid enough to intentionally lie about a person's skin color) and really thought Sherrod Brown was black. Why did he then assume there was a "racial component" to the race? Just because Sherrod Brown was black? That's very close to racism, my friends.

    Also, note the stereotyping in thinking that someone named Sherrod was black.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 02 March, 2006 13:24  

  • the above give-and-take perfectly demonstrates what I'm trying to point out to new readers who are NOT lock-step partisans.

    Maloney and his "fans" posting to this site will disseminate, ignore the truth, and stick to their guns, no matter the lack of bullets.

    Please, if you're not a lock-step partisan, check up on everything Maloney says carefully before you believe it.

    Neither he, nor his fans, are to be trusted - and this thread and others like it prove it.

    By Blogger TJ, at 02 March, 2006 14:18  

  • So, because Rush said there was a "racial component" to this means he should apoligize?

    Fine. I'll accept that.

    Just as soon as every other major news organization who intimated that the federal response indicated the racism of Bush and/or Republicans when, as it turns out more whites died (.pdf).

    As soon as they start printing corrections, I'll jump right on Limbaugh's case...

    By Blogger BF, at 02 March, 2006 16:28  

  • By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda?

    Pass it on.....

    By Blogger B.Samuel Davis, at 03 March, 2006 10:47  

  • Yes, now you're getting it. Like I said earlier, its very irresponsible and borderline racist to assume a "racial component" just because a black candidate in involved. America doesn't need any more race problems. You guys wonder why you're accused of being racist. That's why. People like Rush Limbaugh make ridiculous and unfounded racial claims

    --

    So then would you be all for people like Kanye West, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Hilary Clinton apologizing for assuming a racial component on the various issues they have spoken on?

    By Blogger BCB, at 03 March, 2006 15:29  

  • Mr. Kite said ...

    Funny how you didn't answer my question.

    But on the subect of letting go, do you think Baloney should let go of the long dead Gloria Wise story?

    By Mr. Kite, at 02 March, 2006 11:14

    hardcore conservative genious said ...

    Kite nailed you on that. how the fuck can you say that "libs" should let something go, when you guys can't stop beating the dead horse of the AAR "scandal". if the mainstream media is bored with it, why don't you just move on with your life.

    snared by the words of our mouth, right 4thEstate?

    By hardcore conservative genious, at 02 March, 2006 11:46


    Gosh, not only a response from the Kitester, but a "me too" from Hardcore as well. What ever will I do with all this attention?

    Ok, gather 'round, fans. Here are my responses, in order.

    1. Mr. Kite: I didn't respond to your question because, quite frankly, I don't find it especially interesting or relevant. How the heck would I know why Rush misspoke? That would require knowing what was in his mind to begin with, and I don't happen to be an officer in the Thought Police.

    I mean, feel free to kick it around for another week or two if you find such speculative matters fascinating, but I left my crystal ball in my other pants.

    2. I think conservatives should let go of the Gloria Wise scandal when it plays itself out completely. But it's been under-reported up to now in the mainstream media, as opposed to the overplayed Limbaugh boo-boo story, so the answer to that question may still be no.

    And in fact, the possible loss of Air America flagship WLIB could make Gloria Wise VERY relevant. As in, if WLIB drops Air America, the next responsible reporter who does a retrospective story about the network will want to trace the early signs of trouble in 'LIB Land. And that would include -- ta-da! -- Gloria Wise.

    3. To hardcore: You're missing a hugely obvious point -- the mainstream media are overwhelmingly liberal. So the fact that the MSM happen to ignore a story that's of interest to conservatives doesn't mean a whole lot ... because it's par for the course. (If you don't grasp that, ask yourself where the Swift Boat story bubbled up from. Ah, that's right -- the new media.)

    On the other hand, since you and your lefty buds who post here are also liberal, the first sign that you're beating a dead horse is when the MSM -- which usually carries the water for the Left -- abandons a story you're still chirping on about.

    THAT, you see, is the difference. Any further questions?

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 03 March, 2006 17:37  

  • Wow, just listen to the sounds of crickets chirping. Magical, isn't it?

    Gosh, the same thing that happened with the last thread I posted on. Funny how I'm still waiting on a response from Mr. "Funny how you didn't answer my question" Kite, who claimed he wanted numbers pertaining to Air America.

    Well, I got your numbers right here:
    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-america-gary-krantz-bill-oreilly.html#comments

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 06 March, 2006 22:33  

  • Hmmm, looks like the URL was cut off.

    Let's try again, so Mr. Kite and everyone else can find those numbers easily.

    http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/02/
    air-america-gary-krantz-bill-oreilly.html#comments

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 06 March, 2006 22:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger