The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

12 July 2006

Bill O'Reilly, FOX News Channel, Janeane Garofalo

WHERE'S JANEANE?

AAR Still Evasive On Garofalo's Future




Air America Radio's inability to come clean on Janeane Garofalo's shaky future with the liberal talk radio network was the topic for your Radio Equalizer's latest O'Reilly Factor visit.

With AAR's apparent admission to FOX News that she's not likely to continue with the "Majority Report" program, confirming our previous reporting here, O'Reilly and yours truly discussed some of her most infamous recent political antics.


Special thanks to Ian at Expose The Left for capturing the video of this segment, click his link to view it.


Meanwhile, at the Majority Report's privately- run website, there's no mention of Garofalo's departure. In addition, we're hearing that anyone attempting to post questions at the site's comments section about the future of Garofalo and the show are immediately banned, with the "offending" words removed.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to support the Radio Equalizer's efforts. Thanks for your vital assistance!

Where's Garofalo? Pete at IHillary for the Radio Equalizer

published by Brian Maloney at 12:11

39 Comments:

  • It's truly fantasyland in AAR-ville. We're an hour in to The Al Franken Sleepytime Show and the name "Robert Novak" has yet to be uttered.

    By Blogger BF, at 12 July, 2006 12:54  

  • You did an effective presentation on Fox though it seems to be something that should be on Inside Hollywood.

    One Suggestion. You ought to set up forwarding of your radioequalizer.com domain so that it kicks over to the blogspot domain.

    By Blogger none, at 12 July, 2006 13:28  

  • >>You ought to set up forwarding of your radioequalizer.com domain so that it kicks over to the blogspot domain.

    yeah when you go to radioequalizer.com you get some material from Nov of last year.

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 12 July, 2006 13:32  

  • Yes, the site will be moved to radioequalizer.com very soon, it would have already happened, but I've had so many things keeping me busy. First priority was redesigning the site, next is moving it.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 12 July, 2006 13:45  

  • Seeing is believing! Everybody should take the opportunity to watch the video especially anyone who is interested in polygraphy or just wishing to improve their poker game. The video shows Maloney giving a perfect example of excessive blinking which is a textbook "tell" for lying or some other deception. Don't listen, watch. Maloney is visibly lying during much of the time he appears on screen.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 July, 2006 21:22  

  • Are you sure the blinking standard is something you want to stand behind? I bet we can find a lot of people you agree with blinking on camera.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 12 July, 2006 21:46  

  • Are you sure the blinking standard is something you want to stand behind? I bet we can find a lot of people you agree with blinking on camera.

    You evidently have trouble with reading and comprehension... which is hardly surprising given you believe Maloney's BS.
    "Excessive" blinking - higher rates of blinks per minute, or "stressed" or exaggerated blinking is a textbook "tell" of lying or deception. Natural/unchanging blinking rates indicate otherwise. Psychologists and professional polygraph testers use this fact amongst other non-verbal cues (shifting of the eyes, touching the face, clearing the throat, etc) when conducting polygraph tests. Professional poker players use it too. The video clearly shows Maloney going through several bouts of excessive unnatural blinking which indicates he is lying.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 12 July, 2006 22:24  

  • Yes, B.M. is a liar, blinking eyes or not. He says "In addition, we're hearing that anyone attempting to post questions at the site's comments section about the future of Garofalo and the show are immediately banned, with the "offending" words removed."

    Go here and you will see lots of people asking questions:
    http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/004338.php#comments

    Nothing about banning or censorship. I think you have AAR mixed up with Sean Inanity's message board.

    By Blogger @whut, at 12 July, 2006 22:50  

  • Good for you Brian with your FOX coverage.

    My friends and yours over at the Pundit Review, WRKO, will be proud!!

    To get the scoop on what happened on Beacon Hill today concerning the Constitutional Convention and the Protection of Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts please visit my blog at www.knowthyfactsnotthyneighbors.blogspot.com or by clicking on my name SCIA.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger SCIA, at 12 July, 2006 23:35  

  • Hey Brian, if you have such great insider info at AAR why don't you know why she left?

    By Blogger waaah123, at 13 July, 2006 08:14  

  • Hey, guy, liberal liars do the "dodge and weave". Ever notice that? They get on these binges on TV and "bob and weave" their heads, shoulders, torso, etc. Kinda like a puppy dog shaking off water.

    I don't see that with conservatives, though.

    By Blogger tradersmith, at 13 July, 2006 09:36  

  • WHT said...
    Go here and you will see lots of people asking questions:
    http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/004338.php#comments

    Nothing about banning or censorship. I think you have AAR mixed up with Sean Inanity's message board.

    The first mention of her on that page comes over 7 hours after Maloney posted this article. Check the times. That doesn't prove he was or was not lying at the time he made the claim.

    By Blogger JohnReb, at 13 July, 2006 10:40  

  • you know what i love about o'reilly? he brings someone on his show to talk about AAR who 1. doesn't work their. 2. hates them. 3. couldn't offer any evidence either way.

    that's like getting a lactose intolerant person to come on and talk about how terrible the dairy industry is. of course it's bad if you're fucking biased!

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 13 July, 2006 11:10  

  • O'Reilly has made many on-air offers for AAR spokespersons to participate. But they refuse and continue to tremble under their desks, sucking their thumbs until the final day of reckoning, which certainly appears to be coming soon.

    I can't blame AAR for not wanting to appear on O'Reilly's internationally-seen show. After all, they don't have anything worth saying; other than their ratings are in the tank, their executives are getting sacked, there is no advertising revenue, they are subsidized by some rich wacko sugar daddies, and even their supporters like the NYT have nothing positive to say.
    .

    Garofalo: buh-BYE
    Franken: in the batter's box, next up?

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 13 July, 2006 12:03  

  • Brian , who really cares? IS this your contribution to the world, a scoop on Garafallo , possibly leaving A.A?? Who really cares??? There is probably some kind of hanging issue between her and the management and the future is probably unknown. I can not stand her on the radio, but you desperatly try to make news out of nothing. They are allowing questions on Air America's message board on the "minority report", so it obviously is not a big issue. You are obsessed with Air America, you are intent on having one side of view on the radio, therefore you attack Air America non-stop. Those who attack the right wing radio mutants, attack the content. In 2 years, all I have read is "insider" garbage about the company, not the content. Attack the content, show me, how the right wing is correct on everything and how the left is wrong. I do not care about Air America's funding, management etc etc. NOBODY CARES, your site is a waste, it has the feel of someone with a severe obsession with Air America and no grip on the issues of today. It is indeed sad. Someone with a natyional audience on the O'rilety show, should have garnered HUGE response to your blog, not 12 respnses. Do you get the clue? NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS!!!! I would rather watch test patterns on the T.V than watch an obsessed Irishman, babbling on about an upstart radio network, and obviously so would everyone else

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 13 July, 2006 12:26  

  • hey Benson,
    the reason that they won't go on O'Reilly's show is because he is an asshole. plenty of AAR personalities go on conservative shows. i've seen them on Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough. so you're point that they are "scared" has been debunked.

    what else ya got?

    possibly some evidence to back up your claim that they are about to fold?

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 13 July, 2006 13:05  

  • Just like there are terrorism experts and industry watchers, there is Brian the AAR I hope they go bankrupt watcher. Generally I prefer more impartial reporting but to work and report on Fox and to have loyal blog followings, extreme positions are required.

    By Blogger none, at 13 July, 2006 13:07  

  • No, not dead yet.


    But soon my little ones.....sooooon

    By Blogger Lokki, at 13 July, 2006 13:09  

  • Take the liberal test! Are you a liberal?

    1. Do you mis-spell easy words?

    >>doesn't work their.

    2. Do you swear because you're so mad you keep losing elections?

    >> of course it's bad if you're fucking biased!

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 13 July, 2006 13:33  

  • Evidence?

    Do you mean stuff like:
    * their ratings are in the tank
    * their executives are getting sacked
    * there is no advertising revenue
    * subsidized by some rich wacko sugar daddies
    * their supporters like the NYT have nothing positive to say

    RTFA next time.
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 13 July, 2006 13:59  

  • From Rightwingwhanker,
    "I would rather watch test patterns on the T.V."

    Please do!


    "...obviously so would everyone else."

    Obviously you are wrong again.
    Here are the latest viewer numbers:

    CABLE NEWS RACE - MON., JULY 10, 2006

    FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,264,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
    CNN LARRY KING 1,382,000
    FNC GRETA 1,340,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,252,000
    FNC HUME 1,197,000
    CNN COOPER 1,132,000
    CNN DOBBS 823,000
    CNN PAULA ZAHN 679,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 360,000
    CNNHN GRACE 354,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 349,000 (ouch!)
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 13 July, 2006 14:16  

  • I haven't seen a ratings chart in a about 12 months but the one significant change from what I remember is Anderson Cooper.

    By Blogger none, at 13 July, 2006 14:44  

  • hey raccoon, here's a little correction for your test:

    1. the word "misspell" does not have a hyphen, therefore, you spelled it incorrectly.

    2. "Their" is not misspelled, it was simply the wrong form of the word. my mistake

    3. I use curse words because they are just words - a series of letters that happen to make a particular sound. i don't take offense to them, because they are just that - words.

    By Blogger liberal outlaw, at 13 July, 2006 14:52  

  • "It is the fact that that most of the wealthy liberals will not support it financially that prevents AAR from doing many of the things that would make it very successful. I am not suggesting that AAR is going out of business. We are still shareholders of AAR and have our own disagreements with some management decisions but that is only natural in corporate America. The big problem has always been from the very start that rich liberals refuse to give it financial support and they make excuses for not making an investment in AAR that are disingenuous. The people who are funding AAR now are the same people who funded it originally including our venture fund."

    This is a quote from Sheldon Drobny in Huffington Post.

    Can you believe this guy?

    It can't be that that AAR is selling a product no one wants. It's that rich libs don't want to throw any more money into a sinkhole.

    By Blogger Brett, at 13 July, 2006 17:33  

  • "I would rather watch test patterns on the T.V."

    If I had my way, you'd be seeing test patterns--color bars mainly--OR EVEN THE AMERICAN FLAG--on ABCCBSNBCMSNBCCNNPBS. And to throw it in your face--I would say that with most of prime time entertainment TV these days.

    Why Old Glory, most liberals HATE AMERICA--showing the flag would be like throwing water on the wicked witch of the west from The Wizard of Oz--IT WOULD CAUSE WHAT LITTLE BRAIN MATERIAL THEY HAD INSIDE THEM TO MELT--NOT TO MENTION THEIR WHOLE BODIES!

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 13 July, 2006 17:41  

  • Average age of O'Reilly viewers = 71.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    By Blogger @whut, at 13 July, 2006 19:30  

  • "Average age of O'Reilly viewers = 71"


    No, you've got that wrong.
    71 is the average IQ of the liberal left.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 13 July, 2006 20:53  

  • 71 is the average IQ of the liberal left.

    No, you're drooling and confused again, old man. It's 17... the average IQ of the reptilian right.

    You're a pathetic laughing stock.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 13 July, 2006 21:41  

  • I left a comment at their site, and it's still there. Perhaps because I phrased it in a special way:

    It truly is a case of money and greed. [<---my segue]

    Speaking of which, isn't everyone else sick of what the "Radio Equalizer" (aka Brian Moron-y) and the idiot at BoreAmerica [<--- that's me] are saying about Janeane? They're sick.

    By Blogger LonewackoDotCom, at 13 July, 2006 23:42  

  • The picture of BM says Brian Maloney -Talk Radio Host - WRKO Boston. Yet when I go to the web site there is no mention of him. What gives? Is he the janitor most of the time and they give him some air time when someone gets the sniffles?

    By Blogger pbrauer, at 14 July, 2006 00:35  

  • Patriot world, YOU HATE AMERICA, you myopic, small minded waste of human life. I'm getting sick of you , you are a vile, ignorant piece of sh*t. I can debate you under a table, I destroy your Rovian talking points repeatedly on this message board. MY little internet radio show will be up and running in the next few weeks, I'm going to attack you and Maloney unrelentlessly. Be prepared to get a taste of your own medicine, you Anti-american Bush turd. I'm sick of you, you filthy little terrorist.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 14 July, 2006 09:30  

  • he's a designated fill in on 'RKO at this point. Who knows, could get own show if something opens up.

    mis-spell; OK, maybe misspelled, but I always thought it was an acceptable
    variant.

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 14 July, 2006 12:36  

  • >>Average age of O'Reilly viewers = 71.

    Well they must all have ratings books.
    His is one of the highest rated shows
    nationwide.

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 14 July, 2006 12:37  

  • RWW said to PatWorld: " I can debate you under a table, I destroy your Rovian talking points repeatedly on this message board."

    The only reason you think you can debate anyone under a table is you are much more willing to go to the invective than is your normal opponent. Or maybe you just think that your talking points are stronger than his. YMMV.

    Of course, when debating people who actually use identifiable facts with links (ratings threads, Cindy Sheehan, etc.), you magically disappear from the board. I wonder why that is.

    RWW: The link-free zone...

    By Blogger SierraSpartan, at 14 July, 2006 16:31  

  • While you guys discuss blinking and debate the average age/IQ of the viewers, I'm just gonna say it was a great apperance by Brian.

    Nice job, Brian!

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 15 July, 2006 13:23  

  • As to the blinking, it takes a long time to get used to the setup. All you're doing is staring at a blank wall in an otherwise dark room, with bright lights aimed at you.

    You can't see anyone, including yourself, there are no monitors. It takes a lot of practice to get the hang of that while on national television. Try it sometime and see how you do.

    If the best they can get me on is blinking, then I must be doing something right.

    By Blogger Brian Maloney, at 16 July, 2006 12:24  

  • Hilarious. It was nothing if not a stellar performance from someone who can't control the unconscious twitches of a pathological liar. The blinking, the shifting of the eyes, the hunching neck and shoulders. It's all there. Even the control room knew better to cut to file footage for extended periods to try and salvage the segment. And really... you must be one of the least telegenic, least coherent shills that have ever appeared with Falafel Man. Stick to radio. Oh that's right... you failed there also.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 16 July, 2006 21:16  

  • Headhunter said.."Natural/unchanging blinking rates indicate otherwise. Psychologists and professional polygraph testers use this fact amongst other non-verbal cues (shifting of the eyes, touching the face, clearing the throat, etc) when conducting polygraph tests."

    And your point? Polygraph tests don't mean squat.

    Here is a skeptic link explaining why..
    http://skepdic.com/polygrap.html

    And another... "National Academy of Sciences report says polygraph testing too flawed for security screening - News and Comment"
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_27/ai_95501841

    Got to love pretentious liberals like Headhunter who can't back up their claims. And ironically, I bet he is the type of person who constantly complains about conservatives believing in pseudoscience.

    By Blogger headlesshunter, at 02 August, 2006 06:04  

  • To Raccoonradio and Liberal Outlaw:

    Regarding "mis-spelled" versus "misspelled":

    Here is a reference to check:

    www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp

    Scroll down to the second (!) Rule 1, which is under "Hyphens with prefixes".

    As it states, the trend is to drop hyphens now. I remember seeing several of their examples as hyphenated in print (such as non-compliance and co-payment).

    By Blogger Chromium, at 16 May, 2008 12:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger