Talk:Air America Radio/Archive 2

message: Of course profitability matters to a corporation.  But if someone at AAR claimed profitability didn't matter to them that should be added here also with a credible source.  I just don't think it's ever been said.  --Kirby Morgan 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section consists of nothing more than opposing sets of trash talk on both sides. Malkin has no idea what the finances of AAR are and it is pretty clear that money can be found to fund it even if it looses $15 mil a year or more. The Franken salary reported in the article is clearly an unsourced guess. I would have thought he could get rather more, he clearly has a stock deal, how much that is worth nobody knows. Almost certainly either zero or a very large figure. Its the same with Stern.--Gorgonzilla 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The material doesn't seem to add anything to the article. JChap 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Profitability

message: What's the point of listing AAR's sponsors? Are we going to add every company that advertises on Hannity and Limbaugh to their pages as well? Just curious. NewRisingSun 13:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Sponsors 

message: I ran across this article after not seeing it in some months, and the comprimise between authors with different perspective has been highly commendable, and highly effective! The result is shaping up to be something of which Wikipedia can be very proud. Who knows, maybe there's a featured article in the furture here here. – ClockworkSoul 15:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice job 

message: I'm curious about the statement that all programs are rooted in the basic principals of ethical jounralism. The shows have an obvious bias (mentioned in the intro of the article) which contradicts the principles of "objectivity" and "impartiality."  The hosts don't seem to intend to be objective but rather to provide an interpreation to the news and current events of the day.  Any sense of why the statement is included in the section?  Cultofpj 20:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this is encyclopedic anyway, even if qualified as Chairlunchdinner suggests.  Are we saying that AAR hosts don't deliberately lie about established facts?  or that they don't take payments from government entities to promote certain positions?  I don't think such negatives are worth inclusion.  We might as well be mentioning that they don't murder cats.  Instead of this vague reference to "ethical journalism", I suggest we delete the sentence and substitute, at the end of the paragraph: "Although Air America Radio has a definite point of view, the hosts distinguish news sources from opinion."  Would that be accurate?  (I don't get AAR very well so I haven't heard much of it.JamesMLane 08:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hear any and all the AAR shows on the web or from the archives (see the external links section of the article for sources). Also, after actually hearing the shows, you might be better in a position to know that the point made is valid as stated. For more information see - journalism standards and ethics, the term is not vague at all... I don't see how or why you are proposing a change without having listened to at least some shows, perhaps read some transcripts or the article mentioned in this comment. Calicocat 10:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were to do as you suggest, I would probably agree with the opinion that AAR is ethical journalism.  So what?  It would still be an opinion.  I'm trying to figure out what encyclopedic content is being conveyed by this sentence.  Alternatively, we could go with the opinion if it's attributed to someone notable.  As it is, it just strikes me as saying, "We at Wikipedia have reviewed the assertions in AAR's broadcasts and found them to be correct and well supported" -- which would obviously be improper.  On the other hand, we shouldn't unjustly impugn AAR, and I'm concerned that Chairlunchdinner's suggested language would do that.  To say that AAR complies with many of the basic principles of ethical journalism could be read as an insinuation that in some respects the network is unethical. JamesMLane 10:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an opinion, it's objective fact. The sources are in the archives and transcripts. In time some selected quotes can be included to demonstrate this point, for now, a reader of this article would have to go further into the subject with actual consultation of the above named sources, links to which are provided herein.  The statment as it stands is factually accurate but could be expanded to include more information. I'm not concerned with some insinuation, I just don't see that. Calicocat 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how adherence to ethics could ever be called "an objective fact", because opinions about ethics differ.  Furthermore, even aside from the absence of a source for the statement now, I don't see what kind of source could possibly be cited to establish this point.  If some journalism school conducted an inquiry to learn more about AAR's new kind of journalism, and issued a report saying it wasn't objective but was ethical, we could mention that report and attribute the conclusion to the source.  On the other hand, if you're referring to sources provided by AAR for its assertions, that would make sense.  We could then convey some factual information about AAR's sourcing of its stories.  In its vague current form, it still seems to me to be not only opinion, but gratuitous, as if an article about a professional athlete were to say that he wasn't violently abusive toward women.  Is there some specific allegation of unethical conduct that should be mentioned? JamesMLane 17:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than ask questions, do some research. It's all in the archives of the shows. Listen to them and you'll hear it, then, you can include some of those quotes with dates and so on. Calicocat 15:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main question I'm asking is to try to understand what's meant by the queried sentence.  No amount of research in AAR archives will answer that question.  The most obvious meanings for the sentence would render it opinion, and unencyclopedic unless attributed.  If I examined every single show they've ever broadcast and did follow-up research on every cited source, and came to the opinion that each assertion made on air was properly substantiated, that would still be just my opinion, and I'm not a notable person whose opinion deserves to be reported.  I'm rewording the passage to report the objective facts that the hosts, along with giving their own opinions, state facts and give sources to back up the factual assertions they make.  I don't think we need to give specific examples unless there was a particular controversy where AAR was challenged on its facts, in which case we could mention the dispute and report on AAR's documenting of its sources in response. JamesMLane 16:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAR journalism ethics 

message: I've noticed that comedians Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder are not mentioned in a couple areas which surprised me. Particularly under the sections "Comedy on Air America" and "Listener participation." Was this intentional? Is there some reason? 
ZachsMind 22:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they should be mentioned and please feel free to include them and if you're there, please remove Laura Flanders, who is really not known for "comedy" but more for her strong public affairs program. I've been meaning to get to that myself. Thanks for pointing it out.  Best, Calicocat 06:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Thanks for responding. =) ZachsMind 06:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions? 

message: The following sentence from the article, dealing with the political content of Air America, caught my attention: 
However, Anarchist, communist, socialist political theories and thinking are discussed...
Could the person who wrote that sentence kindly back it up with some evidence? Like say a list of Air America guests who actually espouse anti-capitalist viewpoints. Because otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking to me. I listen to a lot of Air America and I can tell you I've never heard a guest on the station who fell to the left of the Democrat/Green position. Did I miss something? Are Noam Chomsky (an anarchist) and Tariq Ali ( a trotskyist) hosting shows on Air America now? Cause last time I checked, Franken, Garrofalo, ect.. were all big time supporters of the Democratic party. If I'm mistaken, and Air America regularly has communists on to discuss commodity fetishism and the nature of America's false consciousness, then I apologize.  - Anon
ZachsMind 06:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Air America on the political spectrum

message: I have twice reverted edits made by 12.46.121.66 regarding entitled Funding Controversy. It certainly doesn't belong in the "Programming" section, and more likely, it belongs on the Evan Montvel Cohen page. The NY Post article cited mentions Cohen only briefly and does not directly support the statement made by 12.46.121.66. There may be something to this story, but it feels like 12.46.121.66 is not coming from an NPOV perspective at all. --Veronique 21:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like someone seeking to shape the news to fit the article. I checked the source and I agree with your interpretation, Veronique. If anything, a story like this would go under the business plan section, or into a new section called business affairs, I'm not sure. I don't object to NPOV materials regarding AAR's financial outlook, problems, even scandals should they arise and be factually reported. This that you have removed is not that. Calicocat 23:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With mention in the Washington Times, the New York Post, Fox, the New York Sun, and CNN's Inside Politics covering this story and having more pointed to AAR as of this morning, do you still believe it only involves AAR "tangentially?" --Badlydrawnjeff 12:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if that quote from an unnamed AAR spokesman that appears in the Post and is repeated by Fox were corroborated by a press release from AAR or a separate account somewhere. It's the only piece of new news, as far as I can see. It would also be nice if the original story in the "Bronx News", "City News" or "Co-op City News" (whatever it is called) were available for perusal. Is it? --Veronique 16:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right here, and I thought it was linked in the article earlier, but apparently wasn't, so I'll add it there, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is to a blank page. --Veronique 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, that's weird, it worked when I linked it.  Try here. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That is very helpful. Any sign of any other source besides the Post on that quote from an unnamed AAR spokesman? --Veronique 23:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your desire to keep Spitzer out of it and talking about the gloria Wise board, but it's worth noting that the only reason he's focusing on that side is because he has no jurisdiction on the AAR side.  --Badlydrawnjeff 02:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no desire to "keep Spitzer out of it." He, or more precisely, his office, is clearly in it and that is mentioned in what I re-wrote. I don't understand what you mean about him not having jurisdiction. Piquant does business in New York State, so he should have jurisdiction. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that implicates Piquant in any wrongdoing. So far, it's only been Gloria Wise and Progress Media that seem to be involved in the alleged funds transfer and the deposed and discredited Evan Cohen looks like the obvious thread between those two organizations. --Veronique 02:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, you are attempting to "keep Spitzer out of it."  You are also attempting to cover-up for the folks at AAR.  AAR received the funds.  They are a part of the scandal.  Therefore, this article about AAR and the article about Franken and the article about Garafolo and all of the rest of AAR, who benefited from the illicit, illegal transfer of federal funds, that was set aside for the elderly and children to AAR, to get AAR on the air.  The hypocrisy of AAR is amazing.  You are attempting to keep Spitz out because you censored the AAR scandal in the Franken article and the Garafolo articles.  Franken and Garafolo are beneficiaries of the illegal, scammed funds.--Keetoowah 03:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I mentioned the Attorney General's office investigation in the text I re-wrote on this page. I am not keeping Spitzer out of it. His office is in it. I removed the text from the Franken and Garofalo pages because I think it is inappropriate to copy large chunks of text verbatim from this page to those pages. That's why we have links between pages, isn't it? Also, I am not at all trying to cover-up for AAR. But it's important to understand the difference between the original owners, Progress Media, and the current owners, Piquant LLC. The newspaper accounts indicate that Piquant did not receive those funds, nor, apparently, did they assume the liabilities incurred by Progress Media, according to their press release. The investigations have only just begun, so I think it is premature to leap to the kind of conclusions you seem to be making. I don't believe you are editing with a neutral viewpoint. --Veronique 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I don't think you are editing with a neutral viewpoint.  Your post sounds like you are Al Franken and AAR's attorney.  Franken got paid during the period when the network was owned by Progress Media and by Piquant.  So Franken took money Federal tax dollars from the elderly and from poor children.  And he is a millionaire.  It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to defend the fraudulent, illegal behavior of AAR, Garafolo and Franken.  -----Keetoowah 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you attempting to separate the current owners of AAR from the former owners of AAR.  That is wrong and it is biased editing.  It is clear that you are trying to find some kind of technicality to limit the damage to AAR.  Al Franken worked for both sets of owners.  How much of that $480,000 USD--that we know about--was funnelled to Franken and when did this happen?  What did Franken know and when did he know it??  Franken is a politician.  All Americans have a right to know how involved Franken is in this scandal.  Is Franken going to pay the money back?  Is AAR going to pay the money back?  You have removed my two edits to the Franken and Janeane Garofalo articles (how much of this money edeed up in the hands of Garofalo) with the lame argument that "you"  believe that is is "inappropriate" to copy large chunks of text verbatim.  What hogwash!!! What Wikipedia rulebook did you get that whopper out of??  When did you decide that it is "inappropriate" and when did you decide this?  And who put you in charge?  The text is appropriate to both topics (all three topics actually) and I'm going to put the text back in and the burden will be on you to provide a real reason not for its inclusion other than it is "inappropriate" in your mind.-----Keetoowah 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying very hard to edit with a neutral viewpoint. I don't believe you are because you have clearly already decided that AAR management, Franken and Garofalo are guilty theives based on early newspaper accounts only. The investigations have only just begun, so unless you have previously unaired inside information to share, I think it is grossly premature to make the kind of judgements you are making now. I'm not Franken's lawyer, or any kind of lawyer, but I have sold a business before.  When I did, I sold the assets, not the liabilities, which is a very common way of selling a business. If I had procured an illegal loan while I owned the business, the people that bought it would not have been found guilty of the crime, I would have. You see this as a "technicality" but it is the essence of the case.  Air America Radio is a set of assets which Progress Media sold or transferred to Piquant LLC. Assuming the transaction was an asset sale (it seems to be) it is not reasonable to hold the management of Piquant liable for the alleged criminal activities of Progress Media UNLESS there is more to this case we don't know about that would implicate them as well. But we simply don't know much yet. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to withhold judgement and just report verifiable facts right now. THAT is what NPOV is, I think. But ultimately, what is included in the wikipedia comes not from me, but from the collective consensus of all the maintainers, as you should know very well by now. --Veronique 19:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  First of all, it does not matter from a non-legal point of view whether it was PM or P-LLC that took the money illegally.  The point is that Franken, for example, worked there in both situations and he was paid by both owners of AAR.  So, we need to know if Franken was on the take or not.  Also, No, the difference of which owner stole the money is NOT the essence of the case.  In either case AAR stole the money. In your bias, you want to MAKE that the essence of the case because it protects and defends AAR, and by extension Franken, et al from negative fallout, but that is not the issue.  The issue is:  What did Franken know and when did he know it?  Also, the issue is:  When did the money come into the AAR bank account and when did Franken get paid?  These are the questions that you are trying, in your bias, attempting to avoid--to shield AAR, Franken, et al from negative publicity and damage.  And that is NOT the point of Wikipedia or having a neutral POV.  You obviously need work there.------Keetoowah 23:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear that Piquant recognizes the potential PR damage to the AAR brand by having their name dragged through the mud. That's surely why they have agreed to replace the funds that Gloria Wise transferred to Progress Media even though they are apparently not legally obliged to. All that is mentioned in my last edit of the Controversy section. So I don't know where you get this idea I am shielding AAR. I am honestly trying to strike a balance between those that want the matter dropped entirely and those who want to leap to conclusions based on early reports in a couple of newspapers. It's your choice to believe otherwise, but right now, I'm stepping back from this to let the wikipedia consensus decide. --Veronique 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding Controversy 

message: Statement from Air America Radio
Statement:
If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal and the HBO Documentary, Left of the Dial‚ the company that the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club officials gave money to, Progress Media, has been defunct since May 2004.  That company was run at the time by Evan Cohen who has not had any involvement in Air America Radio since May 2004.(emphasis added)
The current owners of Air America Radio have no obligation to Progress Media's business activities.(emphasis added)  We are very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people, which is why we agreed months ago to fully compensate the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club as a result of this transaction.
We at Air America Radio strongly believe in the mission of Boys and Girls Clubs to provide a safe and nurturing place for young people to learn and grow. As a result, we recently allowed the same club, Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, to use our name in a fundraising effort for a summer camp for children in their community.
The funding for Camp Air America was raised and collected entirely by the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, and Air America promoted the camp on air and urged support for it. A link on our web site sent those interested in contributing to the camp to the Gloria Wise web site. Regrettably, the camp did not survive the closure of the Gloria Wise organization. We have offered any individuals who contributed to the camp as a result of Air America's promotion the option of a refund paid for by Air America Radio and the Club offered the alternative option of having their donation redirected to Kip's Bay Boys and Girls Club. (emphasis added)
Original statment can be found here Calicocat 16:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAR statment re Gloria Wise 

message: Does anyone else find this article hard to read? I don't want to fight over content right now, just grammatical asthetics.  Some sections don't make a whole lot of sense. I will have another read and see if there is anything I can do. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is a bit long, too. It may be time to move some sections to separate articles. --Veronique 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's guess what does Veronique want to remove first?  The financial scandal information??  Let's see if Veronqique starts with the money spent by AAR that was intended for elderly and children and then the second thing to go is the judgement against AAR that has not been paid.  And finally the third thing to go from the article, by Veronique , is the vow by the so-called current owners of AAR to pay back the charity money but AAR hasn't paid back yet.-----Keetoowah 18:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was innocuous. The article is 45KB long now. The suggested maximum is 32KB. Please stop attacking me personally. --Veronique 18:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Veronique, Keetoowah has had some problems with civility at times (even towards people that agree with him). He just jumps down peoples throats before hearing their opinion. I think the problem on this article though stems not from the need to split articles, but from the repititious manner in which it is written. How many times do we need to mention that Al Franken did this or that, or that many shows take callers? Is this really that notable for radio shows and networks? Not really. Anyway, everyone needs to just take a chill pill. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In all honesty, we could probably kill the section with all the call letters, because I don't think those are necessary and could be served with an outside link.  --Badlydrawnjeff 19:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is its own list article now.  I placed a link in the main body. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent edit. Thanks. --Veronique 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: This user has tried to make variations on the same POV vandalism for well over the three-rv Wiki rule.  A look at the history of the page will show this.  Please ban this vandal.
I believe that Eleemosynary is using a sockpuppet to continually remove relevant, fully cited material from the header.-----Keetoowah 23:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Keetowah 

message: Why is there this article on sponsers? We can put the PSA stuff into the community relations section, but the other stuff does not seem unique, or for that matter encyclopedic. Does anyone have an objection to me changing that up? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one objected within a week, I am going to make some changes. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsers... 

message: I've started a template for Air America. It can be found at . --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: This Gloria Wise Loan Case section needs to be rewritten for readability. Also the size of this section is becoming out of proportion with the rest of the page. The date-by-date reporting from NY Post and NY Sun is too much. I believe we have to summarize or push it out to a separate page. 
I'm replacing the sentence "...Air America Radio has agreed by contract..." sourced to . There is no mention of any such contract to repay the loan at this source. If there is such a contract or agreement then the page needs a source to it. If it is the settlement agreement which is being portrayed as a contract to repay the loan, then that it not accurate. The settlement agreement lists the funds loaned by Gloria Wise to Progress Media as transferred liabilities. The settlement agreement does not include any terms of the loan or any details about repayment. I will be replacing it with an on-air statement from Franken vis a vis moral obligation versus legal. But I would like a primary source back to transcript. Anybody?
Presently, I'm removing the reference to Michelle Malkin's blog concerning the paragraph on the NY Post and NY Sun's reports for September 8. It is a secondary source which simply refers back to the two primary sources.
Also, there is no primary source for the DOI comments other than an unreferenced insert in Malkin's blog. I've checked the NY DOI web site and I couldn't find these comments. These comments should be removed until a reference to the primary source is found.
I removing the reference to the NY Sun compendium out to the external links because it does not support any particular text in the section. --Pmagnay 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated writer and the references to the DOI comments and the picture of Franken signature on the agreement are proprietary to her blog.  You are removing a primary source simply because you do not like what the primary source is saying.  The Malkin information will stay in.--Keetoowah 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I agree that the section is getting too long.  It could be shortened.  The stuff at the beginning could be cut down because much of that was Air America and Piquant early on pretending that there was no problem or if there was a problem then it was all Cohen's fault. It is more than clear that Piquant and Air America Radio's managment knew about this loan for months ahead of when they claimed that they knew about it  Also, Al Franken knew about this loan for months of ahead of his sanctimonous speech on the air that Cohen was a "crook" and that Franken just learned about the loan.  He did not expect that Malkin would get ahold of the signed document.  However, whatever changes that you make will not include a removable of the Malkin information because she is the primary source for that information and if you remove it then you are merely attempting to cover up the Franken signature.  It will be put back in.--Keetoowah 16:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough talk for someone who hides behind a number.  If a change is non-NPOV, then I'm going to change it. --Keetoowah 20:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't changed anything that I believe in any way whatsoever.  I still believe that if anyone tries to cover up for the AAR, which has happened in the past, then I'm going to right the wrong.  Also, I'm sure that Malken article is relavant, cited information that needs to be in the article and will go in the article.--Keetoowah 15:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gloria Wise Loan Case 

message: Keetowah continues to push his POV agenda. I will be putting my changes of 9/15 back. The justification for my changes are outlined in the section above. If we get into a cycle of reverts, then so be it. I will have no hesitation putting this page into dispute and asking for arbitration because I know his POV edits will not survive that process. --Pmagnay 14:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued POV Vandalism by Keetowah 

message: Here you go... your own article. The page is getting big again, and I think this would be something good as a daughter article. I'll start the move, but I'm not sure if I'll have time to finish today. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That it has its own article is great, but it really merits a brief mention in 'Difficulties' or 'Controversies'. I've written a paragraph that I believe is quite NPOV; I note that it was the parent companies of AAR that were involved (and further note Evan Cohen). I note AAR's characterization of it as disgraceful, and I quote Al Franken, not to entangle him with the issue, but because his views were widely reported at the time, and I also believe he did characterize and summarize the issue very nicely. (A 'crook' 'robbed Peter to pay Paul'). If you've issues with what I wrote, I would ask that you discuss them here either before or in conjunction with any edits of what I wrote. Thank you. Holmwood 22:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air America-Gloria Wise controversy]] 

message: I have removed the sentence added to the description section:  "The radio network is in financial trouble and under criminal investigation for accepting what may be illegal start-up loans from a non-profit charitable institution." The cited reference does not support the assertion that the radio network is in financial trouble. Also, the reference does not support the assertion that the network is under criminal investigation, only a party related to the investigation. Also, this type of detail does not belong in the heading description. There is more than sufficient coverage of the GW loan affair in the body of the article.--Pmagnay 19:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The radio network is in financial trouble ad has started asking its listeners for financial contributions. It is also under criminal investigation by NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for accepting possibly illegal start-up loans from a non-profit charitable institution.
I'm not sure this belongs in the intro. Is there somewhere else this should go? Under the controversy section? Oh well. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is already a mention further down in the article, so no real need for the second thing. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Unsupported Sentence 

message: I am calling for third party opinions on the Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy article. Please refer to section "Raising Dispute & Calling for Third Party Opinion concerning POV Images" on the Talk:Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy discussion page. --Pmagnay 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for Third Party Opinions on [[Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy]] page 

message: I cleaned up the section on network affiliates. I added the examples of ESPN Radio and NPR, many of who's affiliates do not air the entire schedule of programming. I don't see why Air America should be singled out for doing this. I left the WTAM example in there, but I am wondering if it should be left there or not. Finally, I moved the sentence about streaming to the end of the paragraph, for further clarity.  --Fightingirish
===NYC flagship affiliate===
Good work in updating the switch to WWRL at the end of the dial.
The second 'weaker' seemed redundant. Dogru144 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affiliates

message: Good work in updating the switch to WWRL at the end of the dial.
The second 'weaker' seemed redundant. Dogru144 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NYC flagship affiliate

message: I just came across this article via Special:Random, read it through, and find it very well done.  Congrats to everyone who's worked on it; keep up the good work! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  well done 

message: Do we mean also ovver the intternett?John wesley 14:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Service? 

message: Is there an info box template for national radio stations (AAR, NPR, etc), yet? I wasn't sure if the regular radio box fit for this article, use WLIB for the source, or nothing at all. --Toddbloom7 20:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This is according to a NY Post story.  How do we work this in? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More info here.  Where should it go? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically it should probably go under Affiliates, but there's nothing there now but a link to List of Air America Radio affiliates; I think a short paragraph giving the number of affiliates and briefly describing the flagship station is warranted. Really, the whole article should be reorganized, I think. --phh (t/c) 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WLIB to no longer have AAR on the station

message: Apparently Wikipedia auto-complains at 34KB.  Any thoughts on spliting the article?
Thetrick 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too big? 

message: I got a look at the most recent rev, including the ref to "Air America Premium".  Isn't listing the prices and precise service offerings skirting a bit close to being an Air America ad?
Mitchberg 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree—unless it's also an ad to report how much, say, a TiVo subscription costs. The approximate price point is an especially relevant piece of data for a subscription service in a unique or relatively unfamiliar field, as readers might otherwise have difficulty guessing it even to the correct order of magnitude (is it $10 a year? $100 a year? $1000?). The two-tier subscription structure is also worth a mention, if not as important as the overall price point—and if you're going to mention price at all you have to decide which tier to report the price of, or just give cursory treatment to both, the latter of which is what I've done. Same thing with the day pass: you have to either explain what it is and how it differs from the other options, or you have to omit mention of it entirely, and I don't think there's any justification for omitting it entirely. —phh 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premium:  It's an Ad

message: These two sections are composed of C-list trivia that don't seem very interesting, including things that are true of of any radio network, like the fact that hosts promote each other's shows. Alright to get rid of them? Korny O'Near 17:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Community relations" and "promotions" sections seem unnecessary 

message: I know that we're supposed to assume good faith here, but quite frankly some of the material on the site looks like it was written by the AAR promotional department.  I've deleted some of this and am planning on taking the old pruning sheers/de-POV-er to the "Business plan" section, which contains what could, at best, be called revisionist history.  It's what they might have told to potential investors, but it is mostly imaginary. --JChap 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional material

message: Is the name "Air America" a conscious dig at the CIA's secret Vietnam-era air force, or just a catchy name? Who came up with the name, and does it signify anything? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno... good question. I guess I just always thought it was a way to show pride in the country to dispell the myth that liberals don't like America. There are several radio networks that try to play on the patriotic name... see Radio America. Who knows? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: If I may editorialize, this article seems to be more tabloid material sourced from the New York Post than a comprehensive article. Here are my suggestions for cleanup.
* Improve & source citations.
* Combine & cleanup criticism.
* Show-specific issues should be kept to individual program articles when possible.
Cwolfsheep 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request 

message: I changed this, to eliminate lots of the 'weasel words' and to introduce some NPOV. I wouldn't consider WLIB in New York to be a ratings failure. Considering that English-language talk in New York seems to do well only on high-powered AM stations (50,000 watts) that reach the suburbs, WLIB isn't doing too bad. Keep in mind, demographics in the urban areas targeted by many AM stations do not lend themselves to being ideal for these kinds of formats. Same with WHAT in Philly - that signal is better suited for urban talk. That's why there are no country music stations in New York and L.A. The markets that were listed as failures are ones where signal issues are a concern. WWRC in Washington does not get outside the city well. In Boston, WKOX and WXKS have their own limitations (soon to be resolved). And if I'm not mistaken, the Atlanta affiliate was a rimshot for awhile, and started to show in the ratings when they moved into the city.--Fightingirish 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's almost apologetic in tone to attempt to make the ratings out to be a signal issue rather than a listener issue.  AAR has poor ratings nationwide, and there's nothing to indicate that the ratings are because of the strength of signal, nor have you provided any reliable evidence to account for it.  It's not our place to make value judgements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Signal issues are a factor. If a station can't reach much of its market, then people can't listen. "Poor" and "good" are subjective terms. Besides, a 1.0 rating in a market that has a hundred stations is much different than a 1.0 in a market with 20. And the results of ratings surveys can be spun and interpreted in many ways. Stations don't even use overall ratings for sales purposes. They use demographic breakdowns. For example, a sports station might do terrible overall, but do very well with males of a certain age range. Unfortunately, Arbitron doesn't release this information to the public. Perhaps there's a middle ground here in rewriting this. --Fightingirish 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 1.0 is still a 1.0 regardless.  If you can verifiably cite something that says that AAR's ratings are due to the weak signals the radio station broadcasts from, then I have no protest.  Until then, we're best simply putting what's out there - what their ratings are and what they are in comparison to similar formats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings