Talk:Air America (radio network)

message: Given that AA has changed hands and that this loan was apparently done by the parent company anyway, it seems odd that this bit of  history still has its own section (and a mis-named page elsewhere at Wikipedia). This is like noting the Walter Reed scandal on the Chrysler page because it was part of the parent company's doings... or, more aptly, the Daimler bribery scandals which were part of the FORMER parent company's doings. I appreciate the cleanup done on this page but think there's still one section left to go.  Davert (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Piquant's "Gloria Wise" loan listed as an Air America topic?

message: Both KXXT in Phoenix  and WLIB in NY were bought out and converted to Christian Broadcasting.  Is this part of a conspiracy to shut down Air America?
:No. KXXT was independently owned, and the owner sold the station to a Christian broadcast group. WLIB ownership did not change hands. They almost leased time on the station to Randy Michaels (who owns part of the Ed Schultz Show) but that didn't work out. WLIB saw a hole for gospel music and went for it. I'm guessing they wanted to do a format that served the black community, and that certainly does. Otherwise, there is no conspiracy. And many AAR affiliates are owned by big companies like Clear Channel, Entercom, CBS, Saga, etc., and they aren't going anywhere unless the owners want to sell. It's not a concious effort by religious groups. They'll buy whatever they can get their hands on, and don't necessarily seek out particular formats to displace. --Fightingirish 07:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Right Wing Conspiracy to Buyout Air America stations and convert to Christian Broadcasting?

message: I added the new schedule, which was released to affiliates and the media. This is cited by, among others, Radio and Records, which is an industry news source. Also added a current event tag. --Fightingirish 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AAR announces new schedule, effective September 18

message: OK, I just edited some text in one section (rumors of demise), I didn't touch any formatting type symbols as far as I could tell, and now the TOC seems to have vanished.  I hate to seem like such a wikinewbiepedian, but did I accidentally mess something up?  Drop me a note at my talk page (and/or edit here) if I did screw up and it wasn't some sort of wiki fluke.  Thanks, and sorry for interrupting the discussion with my potential cluelessness. human 03:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiot Watch: Me... 

message: Please stop writing that the rating or demise of Air America "bears something out." It is a POV comment. It is unfactual. It is an opinion. I am tired of seeing it here again and again. It is a usless comment as well. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. Just let it go. thank you, Noit 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bears this out... 

message: It seems as though 90% of the comments on this page are bigoted right-wing anti-AA inflammation rather than real discussion. I don't think I've seen any other wikipages where most of the posters HATE the object being discussed. This is a problem because objectivity goes right out the window. Comments like "we all know that liberals have trouble understanding capitalism anyway" are obnoxious claptrap and you pretty much ruled yourself out as anything resembling an objective editor with it. Davert 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If someone really hates something, they just shouldn't bother to click the Edit button, either in the article or on the talk page. It's just good policy (and creates less junk for me to sift through). When really hardcore POV stuff comes up, it doesn't fool anyone, it's just more crap to scroll through. .V. 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? No one on the Bush page hates him? No one on the Limbaugh page hates him? Or the Hillary page? Or the Hannity page? Or the Gore, Kerry, Rice, Gates, Paolini, Cruise, Moore, Coulter, Franken, and Republican/Democrat pages? You mean no one who posts on those discussion pages posts incoherent "I HATZORS!" drivel? Wow. News to me. Maybe we could just take care of trying to make the page encyclopedic instead of saying "Air America is the Best!" "No, They Suxxors!" "No, you suxxors!" "You'r Mouther!" etc etc etc. Mmm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by the way, I am one of those bigoted right-wing etc. people. My point was that to complain that everyone who writes "BAD STUFF!" on this page is evil, and that NO ONE on other pages exhibits this behavior ("I don't think I've seen any other wikipages where most of the posters HATE the object being discussed.") is incorrect. Facts are facts, no matter whose political group disseminates them. 66.243.210.102 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  The Gloria Wise situation was only notable to right wingers. They tried desperately to make something of it, but the way you can tell its a right wing crap story is that if you Google it, you get few reliable sources, it's all Michelle Malkin, Radio Equalizer, and other far-right propagandists. The Gloria Wise scandal does not really need it's own section on this page, and it definitely doesn't warrant it's own article on wikipedia. Im going to merge this section into "difficulties", and propose the seperate Gloria Wise article for deletion. nut-meg 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems here

message: Clearly this article has a lot of partisan heat, especially concerning whether or not Air America is successful or not.  The reason this is, is because the right believes the media is leftist while the left believes it is neutral.  The argument goes that right wing radio was successful, because it had no voice in normal media channels and consequently a left wing radio station would not work because it currently has plenty of voice.  Therefore Air America's success or failure is looked upon as a test as to whether normal media channels are leftist.
Explaining this is not POV; it does however make clear why this article is the way it is.  Giving sourced quotes that explain why the left and right consider this article important is not a leftist position nor is it a rightist position it is simply a desire to explain the seemingly odd focus of this article. Aepryus 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litmus Test 

message: Currently, there are three blogs listed under 'Critics'. Of the three, Radio Equalizer rarely mentions Air America anymore, Boreamerica has few readers and only posts once every week or two, and the third one looks to be relatively new and has only three posts on it. I'm all for including critics, but can't we find better critics? Hell, I criticize Air America occasionally on my blog, and I get more readers than two of the ones linked here. Yet I don't feel a link to it belongs on this article. I'm all for removing these three blog links, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason not to. --Fightingirish 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should stay, unless we can find suitable replacements.  But I would say you could trim it down to 2.  I also think the fan sites should be trimmed way down.  --Bill.matthews 02:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Air America critics

message: :Image:AAR1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i added justification...hopefully that'll hold 'em. --emerson7 | Talk 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AAR1.jpg

message: I deleted the following paragraph from the "History" section because it was pure opinion (and wrong opinion IMO, but that's not relevant ;) ) and goes against everything Wikipedia is about. People should not be arguing their political opinions in a damned entry!!! Anyway, here's what I deleted:
But most of what the conservative media identified as liberal biased has been indistinguishable from conservative biased corporate owned media's journalists and commentators simply attempting to be objective and even handed, as was the pledge corporate media had to originally make to acquire a license to broadcast and to be trusted by the public. Liberals have pointed out that if reporting that a US war in countries like Vietnam or Iraq is going badly for the United States (because it is factual even if the 3 corporate owned networks support the war) is viewed as "liberal bias", then accusations of liberal bias in the national media can be seen as a conservative strategy to encourage censorship in media that is in truth already conservative by default because it is owned by multi-billion dollar corporations. In other words, so-called "liberal bias" media is simply conservative biased media that is trying hard to avoid being little more than a dogmatic right wing propaganda machine and instead tries to actually maintain some amount of balanced journalistic and objective media reporting integrity. (A strategy similar to neoconservatives claiming the United States is a socialist country in order to put pressure on voters and the US government to eliminate token social programs that help the poor and working people.)
These conflicting assessments have created an unusual amount of interest in the health of Air America.
''
AlexMc 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article looks like a scarred victim of the edit wars. I think at this point people are afraid to touch it. I'm gonna get bold and start rewriting some stuff here, because quite frankly, it looks like hell. It's turned into a veiled political flame war. Time to get this thing looking presentable.--Fightingirish 03:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunno how this survived on this page for any period of time

message: Okay, I finally decided to get bold and clean up this complete overlong mess of an article. I removed the wishy-washy political stuff, some redundancy, lots and lots of weasel words and opinion, outdated content and the network's schedule (which was basically on there twice). Don't worry - I left all the controversial stuff you guys love to fight over (Morning Sedition, Gloria Wise, bankruptcy) in there. It's notable stuff. In short, I hacked it down from 38K down to a slimmer 31K. Still not enough, though. I think more stuff can be taken out or moved to another page. I wouldn't mind moving the stuff about AAR being dropped by individual affiliates to the 'list of AAR affiliates' page. In this article, it's all scattered and messy, though it is sourced, so I don't want to totally obliterate it. There's still work to be done here.--Fightingirish 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Gloria Wise stuff should be removed since that was done by the OWNER of Air America - which is NO LONGER the owner. It's like holding putting the DaimlerChrysler bribery scandals onto Chrysler LLC's page. Davert 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about all of Air America, not just the Air America owned by Piquant.  So I think it's relevant. Diderot's dreams 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Should have a list of regular guests and celebrity hosts. Easymem (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, it shouldn't. That would qualify as trivia and wouldn't add anything significant to the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a rewrite, kids!

message: I think that the liberal/progressive links should be changed to link to modern definitions of the terms.  "Liberalism" links to Liberalism_in_the_United_States while it should probably more appropriately link to Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States.  Similarly, "Progressive" links to Progressivism while Progressivism_in_the_United_States might be more appropriate (although I think a Modern Progressivism in the United States article would be more appropriate.  AAR concerns itself with modern liberal and progressive concepts, and the suggested changes would be more helpful to an interested reader.  Biccat (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal/Progressive links

message: Air America is not, and has no intention of being, a liberal station. From their own statements ""We want to talk to everyone and help everyone make the right choice." The advertising statements of "No Commie speak here", and "America's Progressive Talk" has essentially alienated the two largest groups of America's "political Left", the Socialist Party and the Communist Party while focusing on the "progressive" (centrist) democratic audience. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hands up everyone who really thinks America's left wing is largely communists and Socialist Party members. What, no hands? Davert (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Read up on Modern liberalism in the United States and Liberalism in the United States.  There is included a list of issues which typify liberalism.  Air America hosts (and former hosts) tend to hold these views.  While the AAR corporation may not necessarily hold these views itself, it sponsors and broadcasts those who hold these views, and therefore it is not inappropriate to call it a liberal network.  My point being that sometimes self-characterization is inappropriate for a factual article. Biccat (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Air America is left wing radio.  There is no doubt about that. But there is nothing wrong about being liberal. Easymem (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Left wing... or what we used to call "middle of the road" back a few decades? That said, someone just changed the progressive link to liberal without talking about it here. We should come to a decision and THEN make the changes.Davert (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a big change to make without consensus.  "Liberal" is a somewhat negative term while "Progressive" is a positive term in the America today.  The choice of term goes to what you think of the network, hence the disagreement.  To change the lead sentence without talking about it is wrong.  Prob just a driveby by a one time editor.  Anyway, how about "liberal or progressive talk programming" as a compromise solution?Diderot's dreams (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms are only labels for content. Liberal started to sound bad in the ears of many Americans not because they didn't like the word anymore, but precisely because of what it stands for. Progressive is just another term for liberal, the two are completely interchangeable - and it's already being used in the same pejorative way as liberal. People can be fooled, but only for so long - eventually they will catch up and smell the cake. Alexey Topol (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

text: "Leftwing" certainly is not a neutral term.  "Liberal or prgressive" is better, liberal is somewhat negative and progressive is somewhat positive. Used together or alternatingly is neutral.  That is how the article was worded until recently-- I've returned it to that state.  Diderot's dreams (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not liberal 

message: Anyone has any inside information on the current financial status of Air America Radio? There should be a section on this part, and should be updated quarterly.Easymem (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *If such information were available, it has already been added to the article. You cannot hide from a checkuser request by posting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense on talk pages. Stop it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current financial status? 

message: The last ratings posted were from 2006. It's about time for an update. I'm curious to see how their ratings are without Randi Rhodes.
*There are no ratings - therefore no ratings report. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs ratings update 

message: Why are people acting like this is an important media outlet? The reality is that 99.5% of people are not intersted in Air America, never have been, never will be. It's a joke. It's a failure. That needs to be added to the article. 72.39.10.243 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I think the fact that they had to file for Chap 7 pretty much confirms what you said. Unfortunately, that isn't factually based and it is very POV, so we can't include it. WIKIPEEDIO 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Air America is a joke

message: Shouldn't the list of companies who refused to purchase Ads on Air America be mentioned?  98.71.143.254 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Refusal to purchase ads

message: Regardless of the content of the programming, I'm trying to figure out if anyone prior to the creation of AAR has ever attempted to create a national network whole-cloth like this. In the past, networks were formed as groups of stations were slowly pieced together, but I wonder if any ownership company has ever made so many purchases at once to plant an entire network. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Network

message: The last entry of this page consists of a link that is clearly biased ("Bore America") and features bombastic claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.58.243 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluous link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air America (radio network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522075329/http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061013/air_america_radio_bankruptcy.html?.v=20 to http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061013/air_america_radio_bankruptcy.html?.v=20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air America (radio network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://talkers.com/online/?p=71
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://talkers.com/online/?p=71
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208070436/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/entertainment_music_blog/2007/06/steve_earle_lau.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_music_blog/2007/06/steve_earle_lau.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air America (radio network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927082801/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/mrbidefault.pdf to http://michellemalkin.com/archives/mrbidefault.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411212545/http://www.radioink.com:80/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=141727&pt=todaysnews to http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=141727&pt=todaysnews
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Air America (radio network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829182618/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070306-1031-airamericaradio.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070306-1031-airamericaradio.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_music_blog/2007/06/steve_earle_lau.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013062airamerica1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/%24rol.exe/headline_id%3Dn16292
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/air-america-to-cease-broadcasting-immediately/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720182733/http://www.themic921.com/pages/statement.html to http://www.themic921.com/pages/statement.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Air America (radio network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206121937/http://www.airamerica.com/press/gloriawise to http://www.airamerica.com/press/gloriawise
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201154/http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=137203&pt=todaysnews to http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=137203&pt=todaysnews
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207182733/http://msg1svc.net/servlet/Pv?c=703d636e746169726368656b26733d31363235266d3d393526743d4826723d4e2664613d30 to http://msg1svc.net/servlet/Pv?c=703d636e746169726368656b26733d31363235266d3d393526743d4826723d4e2664613d30
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324132107/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/printable_audio_talkradio.htm to http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/printable_audio_talkradio.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified