The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

07 March 2006

Air America, New York City, WLIB, George Soros, Randy Michaels


While Supporters Use Vitriol, Company Issues Odd Statement

Finally issuing a response to our Friday story exclusively revealing a major crisis at their liberal talk radio network, Air America, with its choice of words, attempted to be clever.

Unfortunately, in failing to deny the apparent impending loss of flagship New York City radio station WLIB-AM, all was revealed.

Because Air America consistently refuses to speak with us, the Radio Equalizer has been forced to wait while other media outlets seek post-publication comment. Here, with other trade publications ignoring our coverage, All Access reported this late Monday:

Report: Air America WLIB/NY Lease Endangered; "No Plans Of Leaving NY," Says Network

What's up with AIR AMERICA RADIO's lease of INNER CITY's WLIB-A/NEW YORK? A report by blogger/talk host BRIAN MALONEY at his RADIO EQUALIZER site says that the network may lose its lease on its flagship as early as the end of MARCH, with MALONEY saying that a consortium led by RANDY MICHAELS and ALTA COMMUNICATIONS is tipped as the likely successor to AIR AMERICA in leasing the facility. MICHAELS' P1 owns ED SCHULTZ' show and ALTA has invested in INNER CITY in the past. MALONEY cites an "internal source" reporting that INNER CITY exercised a termination clause on FEBRUARY 17.

In response to MALONEY's report, AIR AMERICA RADIO spokeswoman JAIME HOOD told ALL ACCESS that “it is business as usual at AIR AMERICA RADIO, we will not, nor have we ever discussed, our confidential negotiations with third party companies, investors, or others in a public forum. We have no plans of leaving the NEW YORK CITY airwaves and plan to be on in NEW YORK for many years to come.”

It took until late Monday to cook this up? There's no mention of WLIB in their rebuttal, just "New York". Of course the company has no plans to leave New York City, that was never at issue.

If WLIB remains in place as Air America's ongoing flagship station, there'd be no reason not to reaffirm it here.

And what does "business as usual" mean? That fresh money is on the way from inner-city children's charities?

And take another look at this:

...we will not, nor have we ever discussed, our confidential negotiations with third party companies, investors, or others in a public forum.

What's that doing in the statement? If nothing's going on, would "confidential negotiations" be underway?

In addition, were this report incorrect, Randy Michaels, Alta Communications and Inner City Broadcasting certainly could also have disputed it. We've so far heard nothing.

While it would be nice to see Air America Radio ever proactively come clean on anything, it obviously isn't going to happen here.

Other than hope for an 11th-hour miracle that salvages WLIB, it's not clear what the company believes will save it now. Once the outlet is gone, Air America's New York options are few and far between.

Question from readers:
why didn't the new George Soros/ Democracy Alliance money prevent this from occurring?

For one thing, the $8 million bailout hasn't yet arrived. Also, we don't know for sure why WLIB owner Inner City Broadcasting appears to be pulling the plug.

Meanwhile, in a fresh reminder of just how unhinged the "progressive" movement is these days, radio message boards are filled with vitriolic personal attacks against yours truly and this site.

Apparently, Air America's failure is something they take very personally.

Hate to break the news, but after seven months of coverage, our Air America Radio reporting remains accurate. As you've made very clear, the truth hurts.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order! Because this investigative work is taking an increasing amount of our time, it's needed more than ever.

What, Me Fall? and Looking For Money images: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer


  • Have you checked out the latest Seattle numbers? They're worth a look.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 01:19  

  • Brian’s Lies Watch – Day 12 Post 14
    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 (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 07 March, 2006 01:44  

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

    2. Nice job, Brian! Thanks for keeping an eye on this story!

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 07 March, 2006 08:51  

  • The "latest Seattle numbers" rather miss the point. AAR has always had a handful of stations that perform well in their local markets. What AAR doesn't have is enough revenue to support the cost of their operations and worse, no real plan to remedy the situation at this point, other than coasting by on the generosity of their "white knight."

    Perhaps some perspective on AAR's situation in Phoenix might better illustrate AAR's essential business problems. From Doug MacEachern, one of the editors of the Arizona Republic, in the March 7, 2006 edition:

    "Phoenix has 25 AM radio stations. All, including the ratings-starved bottom-dwellers, took a pass on becoming the new host to liberal talk-radio network Air America. Oh, AA insisted that the Phoenix market was one of its rare profit centers. But who is kidding whom? If liberal talk made moolah, somebody would buy it."

    Now, I may be unique, but I think liberal talk *can* make money - just not the way AAR is structured to do it. Regardless, it's a fun case study in business management....

    By Blogger Ironman, at 07 March, 2006 08:59  

  • ok, back to the story at hand.

    brian, you are treading a thin legal line here. you are saying that there is a problem with AAR and that they are losing WLIB. you have no evidence to back it up, and others are citing you as if you actually did.

    its called "false light", and it is an easy case to prove. and since we all know you've been out of work for quite a long time, you might want to avoid a lawsuit.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 09:49  

  • I see on Michelle Malkin that the NY Post and the NY Sun have followed up on Brian's story--

    (P.S. the New York Times has not- I guess they are waiting to do the story cheering on their new NYC station.)

    I'm trying to decide which AAR response to Brian's recent reporting was worse--Gary's letter claiming they are on an international station which they are not on--or Jamie's business as usual response.

    AAR needs to hire a PR firm I think--Oh, well on second thought,maybe they don't, they can save the $$. They have most of the media saying whatever AAR wants them to say anyway.

    By Blogger FYIFYI, at 07 March, 2006 09:55  

  • By hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 09:49

    --- LOL!!!

    By Blogger FYIFYI, at 07 March, 2006 10:00  

  • Dick, have you checked out the latest Denver numbers? San Diego? Miami? Cincinatti? Chicago? DC? Philly?

    They're worth a look too.

    By Blogger BF, at 07 March, 2006 10:06  

  • Brian,

    This is my post over at Iowa Voice:

    You may want to look around because we've become the subject of a hit piece published in the NY Times today. Seems the Times has an ethics problem.

    By Blogger PCD, at 07 March, 2006 10:54  

  • fyifyi -
    please tell me that you didn't really just say "LOL". are you a ten year old girl?

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 12:17  

  • but, i digress from my point. i love how you couldn't argue the false light point. for further evidence, why don't you go have a look at this article -

    it pretty much sums up what i'm getting at.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 12:19  

  • DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on this website as does "hardcore conservative genious".

    Having said that, a quick glance at some websites shows that the "False Light" damage suits are for individuals who feel that they have been portrayed in a false light by the media.

    I cannot believe that any Judge or Jury would agree that Mr. Maloney's tiny website (which no one reads anyway, according to Messrs Tuck, TJ, hardcore conservative genious, et al) could possibly damage a Media GIANT like the Air America network which controls 90, er 89, er 87, (soon to be 86?) stations across America.

    This would truely be a case of a David falling Goliath.
    However, I doubt seriously if one media outlet can bring a suit against another for false light.

    Any real attorneys out there? Bueller?

    By Blogger Lokki, at 07 March, 2006 13:46  

  • Did I really say no one reads this site?

    I may have, in a moment of hyperbole, but I honestly don't recall that...

    By Blogger TJ, at 07 March, 2006 13:56  

  • "Hate to break the news, but after seven months of coverage, our Air America Radio reporting remains accurate"

    That's a very interesting qualification...

    Does this mean, Brian, you acknowledge your recent Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly stories were not accurate?

    That would be a stunning moment of honesty on your part.

    By Blogger TJ, at 07 March, 2006 13:58  

  • lokki,
    you really are a simple person. first of all, i've never claimed that no one reads this blog, that would be a little hypocritical, and i'm not a republican, so that's not my style.

    secondly, an organization or company can indeed bring a false light suit against an individual or another company. why don't you ask the AARP. they brought a suit against a company that published flyers and passed them out saying that the AARP supported homosexuality.

    as for the lawyers, i'm fairly certain that there are 2 renowned lawyers that actually host a show on AAR. i checked out one of the lawyers, Papantonio, on his firms website, and he doesn't look like someone that maloney could defeat. why don't you look into it a little more.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 14:04  

  • Hardcore,

    The one undeniable defense in a libel/slander suit is, well, that you were telling the truth.

    If they actually did try to sue Maloney for speaking badly about them, they'd need to make public these "confidential business dealings."

    By Blogger Fatmouse, at 07 March, 2006 15:08  

  • Read somewhere that the black talk network put out by Radio One
    (Al Sharpton, Michael Eric Dyson)
    might wind up on WLIB. Info on them:

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 07 March, 2006 15:15  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 07 March, 2006 15:16  

  • Here's what Mike Malloy just said about Maloney and the other dweebs predicting Air America's demise:

    "One of these days, we're going to track down this little rat bastard, and give him a medal."

    Heh, quite different from Loofa Falafel, threatening to sick security goons on someone. Mike hits it right. The more people like Maloney gain any blowback to larger media, the more people want to hear Air America.

    Be sure to download the Randi Rhodes show tonight, which Mike is hosting today. This should give you something dumb to write about. Hey, maybe you can spin it into a bogus threat like you did with Media Matters. Here's a lead.

    Air America host, Mike Malloy, Threatens To Stick A Pin In Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney

    Today, Air America host, Mike Malloy said:

    "One day we'll track down this rat bastard, and give him a medal."

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 15:24  

  • BTW, Brian, you're lead is misleading.





    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 15:33  

  • Bryan, do you make up these responses? They are hilarious, BTW.

    Notice how the genius spells "genious"? He must have gone to the same grade school as Babra Streisand.

    By Blogger tradersmith, at 07 March, 2006 16:01  

  • tradersmith, you're new, so you had no reason to know...

    genious' spelling is deliberate - it's a joke.

    By Blogger TJ, at 07 March, 2006 16:31  

  • genious' spelling is deliberate - it's a joke

    Sure it is. Rest assured we are all laughing. And laughing quite hard at both of you.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 07 March, 2006 16:51  

  • Considering how people don't answer Brisn's calls or take him seriously, perhaps he should rename the blog "Radio Sqeakilizer"

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 16:54  

  • Libel suit are notoriously difficult to successfully prosecute. You have to prove that the person lied, knew they were lying and did it anyway and that you were damaged by the false statement.

    And a 100% shield against the suit is the truth. So assuming Brian did not just make this up out of thin air, I would say he has little to worry about.

    Just judging by his past history he certainly has been right a lot on the subject hasn't he? Perhaps that is why Al Fraken is keeping his lying liar's mouth shut this time, he has looked like a fool one too many times already.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 07 March, 2006 16:57  

  • i love how you can't refute what i say, so you go after my intentional incorrect spelling. its a play on words. by spelling genius incorrectly, it implies that i am not really a genius, and the hardcore conservative part adds an extra element of fun. btw, if i had accidentally spelled it wrong, don't you think i would change it? i'm surprised that you were even able to tell that it wasn't spelled right. maybe our public school system is getting better.

    as for the false light issue, it isn't about slander/libel. did you even read the article i posted a link for?

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 16:59  

  • "In Japan , it ' s easy to find genious. The psrson paid no attention by anybody is genious."

    It is also said the genious person is one who knows how to spell genius.

    And tj, you guys are definitely hilarious.

    Hey, if I get a kick out of Bushisms like stratergery or misunderestimate, then I can live with the genious.

    By Blogger tradersmith, at 07 March, 2006 17:24  

  • well then, if you think spelling is funny, you'll get a kick out of this -

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 07 March, 2006 17:36  

  • Once again hardcore's moniker trips up a couple of wingnut morons. But there's not much else to expect from imbeciles who take anything Maloney says seriously. No matter how often it happens, it never fails to amuse watching dolts like these squirm after realizing that a simple joke has sailed miles above their empty heads.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 07 March, 2006 18:10  

  • Phil, you are outrageous!! Great comment!! But does it mean anything?

    Yeah, I agree; it doesn't.

    By Blogger tradersmith, at 07 March, 2006 18:16  

  • Hardcore,

    PROTIP: To put someone in a false light, one has to say something false about them.

    If AAR wants to sue maloney they're welcome to do so, but they better have more to back it up than "he's a wingnut that hates us!"

    By Blogger Fatmouse, at 07 March, 2006 18:28  

  • "If AAR wants to sue maloney they're welcome to do so"

    Sue him? Mike Malloy wants to give him a medal. Did anyone catch how he described him? Brian something or other, who's a failed talk show host.

    By Blogger Dick Tuck, at 07 March, 2006 19:33  

  • So you too too bright liberals have it all over on us. Maloney wrong on everything ( no proof of course ) and we are too stupid to see it. Got it.

    Next Maloney is going to get sued for damging AAR reputation ( giggle snort) OK.

    Then it does not matter cuz no one reads Maloney, and no thought that this undercuts your argument re a suit. It also calls into question the superior intellect stuff too but hey stay with it, if you think its working for you.

    And if his comments are not read, of low intellectual value and only intersting to morons, why are you two or three liberals here jumping on each and every posts with multiple comments trying so desperately to deny what seems pretty obvious. Me thinks thou doest protest a bit too much.

    Stupid liberals.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 07 March, 2006 21:20  

  • Hey, here's a radical idea: Why don't we ditch the usual trite liberal banter about Bush lied, Maloney lied, Maloney lied about Bush lying, Maloney lied about Air America, etc., etc.

    Not because it matters what anybody says about Bush or Maloney, but because there's a rather important paragraph here that makes most of this ongoing chatter seem irrelevant. I'm referring to this one in the New York Post:

    The network has a two-year lease with WLIB (AM 1190) that is reportedly set to expire April 1 - and at least one reliable report says it is "extremely likely" the deal will not be renewed.

    Did you catch that -- April 1. So we'll soon find out whether the Post knows what it's talking about ... not to mention Maloney if he buys into the April 1 deadline.

    In the meantime, unless you're a reporter with your own sources, why waste keystrokes speculating on what might or might not be true about WLIB? If you think the conservatives are full of it on this one, just wait till April 1.

    If, on April Fool's Day, WLIB is still, well, W-LIB -- and didn't get some massive cash infusion from, say, George Soros -- then the lefties in here can break out the champagne and have their laugh at Maloney and the Post's expense. Or however liberals celebrate such things.

    On the other hand, if Maloney and the Post are right, and Air America's flagship station is indeed circling the drain, just think how silly you'll look for issuing big-talk threats like "you are treading a thin legal line here."

    That's not likely in the first place ... but even less so if it's, umm, true.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 08 March, 2006 00:22  

  • I got an even more radical idea: how about Maloney presenting some evidence to support his claims? Maloney is not a journalist or any type of reporter; he's a former talk show wingnut who is currently unemployed. He has zero credibility.

    As it stands, this story is pure conjecture. The absence of a denial does not provide any substantiation to any particular assertion; this is just a transparent attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Maloney is the one making the assertions so he shoulders the burden of proving them.

    Come on falafel boy... here's your opportunity to put the argument to rest once and for all.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 08 March, 2006 00:53  

  • Uh Phil did you see the e-mail above from Kathy Malloy? Radical enough for you? Sensing a bit of shame yet? And what hole do you crawl in on April Fools day?

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 08 March, 2006 14:58  

  • Why should Air America "come clean" about anything?

    They are a company, not a public entity.

    Just a friendly reminder.

    P.S: When will Brian Maloney come clean about his involvement in smuggling nuclear weapons? Why doesn't he issue a statment?

    By Blogger Scott, at 08 March, 2006 15:00  

  • Hmmm...Mr. Maloney has STILL not issued a statement denying that he has smuggled nuclear weapons. This is rather worrying.

    I'm not trying to cast "false light" here, just asking questions. Why won't Mr. Maloney answer them? How curious.

    By Blogger Scott, at 08 March, 2006 15:10  

  • UH Scott that knock on the door is reality waiting just outside, not just another sound inside your head screaming to break out.

    Kathy Malloy confirmed the obvious in an e-mail. Just look around above you will see it.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 08 March, 2006 15:47  

  • Olestra Democrats. totally fact free and unbothered by it.

    By Blogger Seriouslyunserious, at 08 March, 2006 15:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger