Air America Bankrupt!
 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15249280/?GT1=8618

A month ago they were denying rumors of bankruptcy:rolleyes:

I guess libs don't like being told what to think.

Either that or nobody cares what they think.

I think it is essentially the same problem many franchises have. Too much early expansion. Conservative talk radio may be omnipresent but it got there through organic growth. Air America was an attempt to come into the market place fully realized and that takes a lot of money without much initial return. Plus, Al Franken has the most annoying voice on radio (ignoring Narcy David on KCBS).

Don't tell me that I don't like being told what to think.
:D

I think it is due to market saturation.....TV, internet, and print media are not exactly the domain of conservatives. Air American wasn't competing with conservative talk radio they were competing with a massive non-conservative media.

As long as I can still listen to Stephanie Miller on my way to work....

heh - before I read the whole thread I thought this was about another bankrupt airline

Me too. And I was wondering why everyone kept expressing "not surprise" and how it was possible that I hadn't heard of this airline.

Plus we know it's not safe to masturbate while driving.

Lest we think think it is indicative of Liberalism in America, let's just take a quick glance at the polls, or take a peek at the current cover of the right leaning magazine, Time: Yes, that big old tired elephant is walking into the sunset. Morning in America? Not for the Right, anyway. Air America will be around for awhile yet. But the Neo-Con movement is dead in the water. Can I get a witness?

Do you really think the dems will make themselves popular on a platform of tax hikes, cutting military spending (cut and run) and impeachment proceedings-

heh- I'd love to see them try to sell that one.

They're bankrupt-that says something.

Perspective is an interesting thing....Time is a right leaning magazine? That cracks me up.

Yeah, I never flew them. ;)

Time is an extremely pro-business magazine, with liberal politcal leanings. So which is it?

In any event, despite gaffes here and there, some big, some small, the overall, over-the-decades repuation for certain press entities allows them to be considered legitimate and mainstream ... no matter what Leo may think of them personally.

So like it or not, Leo, Time Magazine is mainstream media. And The Lancet is about as prestigious a journal as you can find. On the conservative side, we accept The Wall Street Journal as mainstream. But we do not have to accept Fox News. It does not have that reputation attained over the decades.


And so I will continue to quote Time and The New York Times and The Lancet and, yes, The Wall Street Journal as authoritative journalism. I have plenty of far-more-left-leaning press sources that I do not trot out here. But disputing - on face, with no evidence - reports in Time or the NY Times or other mainstream, reputed journals of record bespeaks only a pathetic bankruptcy of real argument.

Many people on the left do not accept the WSJ as legitimate because of the conservative position of its editorial page.

The Lancet is certainly an authority and respectable publication. But that does not mean that everything it prints has the golden glow of received truth. The 2004 version of the report (published in The Lancet as well) certainly did not and had significant issues.

I read the whole article earlier today and feel better about some issues. One issue I have is that in the caveats section the authors seem to ignore, dismiss, or overlook some significant motivations for lying or exaggeration by interviewees and the report also says that 92% of the reported deaths had death certificates in support but then doesn't explain why these official documents are not part of the government agency death counts.

I did learn more about where their number for the pre-war mortality rate came from. It is from the same survey results but would be subject to some of the same reporting biases (that is, exaggeration of post-war fatalities would likely go hand-in-hand with minimization of pre-war fatalities) and the authors do not address why their resulting pre-war mortality rate (5.5/1000/year) is so much lower than the results of similar quantifications done before the actual war (generally 6.5 or higher).

It is also confusing in that it simultaneously mentions that the biggest cause of violent death recently is car bombs but then offhandedly mentioned that coalition forces are reported to shoot indiscriminately on crowds.

One thing that gets overlooked in the Right's rush to denounce is that the report lays most of the blame on the insurgency and terrorism. The authors obviously feel that this is the fault of the coalition as well but the Right does not and I would think much political hay could be made (at least in Iraq) by emphasizing just how much damage the insurgency has done to Iraqi civilians.

I still have problems with what I read (where are the 600,000 bodies, or more since the authors feel their results are conservative, that they think have died that doe not show up in any official counts. That is a lot of bodies). But they are somewhat muted from this morning and do address several issues I had with the first survey.

Whoops, got confused by the Lancet reference and put that here instead of the random political thoughts thread.

Hey ISM - can you point out to me where I've ever quoted Fox News? Honestly, I don't think I ever have.

And all I did, ISM, was to laugh at Time being described as a right leaning magazine. Why not point out to Tref by name as well that it does not lean right?

Try something original, dear. Those arguments are old and trite.

Michael Savage has the most annoying radio voice, hands down. He also mangles the English language to an appalling degree and is a freaking psycho, but the voice thing trumps all the other negatives.

I never listened to Air America. I form my own opinions with regards to my political ideology. I do listen to Hate Radio on occasion, sometimes for the entertainment value and also to discover what new and sleazy things they might be up to. I'm also reasonably sure Sean Hannity's inflated head is going to reach the breaking point and he's going to explode on-air. Don't want to miss that event!

I agree about Michael Savage. But I'm so appalled by what he is saying that I don't have time to be turned off by his voice.

Whereas with Franken I don't have a problem with what he is saying so have plenty of time for his voice to grate on every last nerve.

Well, with or without a witness, I stand by the eloquence of my previous statements (that is, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase the great, Blackford Oakes, during his run for the NY mayorship)

Time was co-started by the great fascist and short order cook, Henry Luce. And Henry, boy, he was a Republican of some reknown -- what! His scent still marks the pages of Time. Its true, I tells ya! For I myself have smelt the glossy pages of the magazine. I have pressed my nose to the paper. I have breathed in the pain. Just as an animal brought to slaughter is thought to secrete its final moment of agony into the meat (and through the meat into our souls), so did Luce leave his tortured secretions into the inner workings of Time Magazine. The neo-cons call it the liberal media because the conservatives feed off deception. What is black is white and what is white is all right with the U.S. Senator from Virginia. Deception! ... Good gracious, man, why else would Fox news list Foley as a (D) on the bottom news scroll? And why would anybody support a news organisation that would do so? I ask this not as a Democrat but as a human being, Ladies and Gentleman of the jury.

Amen. Can I get a witness?

Hallelujah Amen!
:D

Liberals feed off deception....Good gracious, man, why else would CBS and Dan Rather run with a story based on forged documents?

Because they were stupid? I hardly consider that deception- it's was sheer stupidity.

I second that witness, Tref!:snap:

Not to mention that CBS publically apologized and terminated 4 employees as a result. Don't recall hearing anyone from Fox losing their job over their little mistake. Hell, they were probably given a pat on the back.

I think there is a pretty big difference in scale between a D or an R by a name and putting out forged documents as fact.

Ok, he was definitely are prominent Republican (though more in the Nixonian socially liberal school) but where does the "great fascist" part come from? Are we talking about one of the Synarchist conspiracy theories here (or perhaps simply because he was a member of Skull and Bones at Yale)? Or just using fascist and Republican as synonyms?

This is why I personally won't go near Life, House & Home, or Sport Illustrated, three other magazines he founded. The fascist stench of the NFL reporting is just too strong.

I'm afraid I'll have to withhold my amen until I learn if there is something fascist about Luce of which I am unaware.

Maybe Fox was punishing Foley by calling him a Democrat;)

Everytime I see the title of this thread, I think of the Mel Gibson & Robert Downey Jr. movie...

It's tagline was "The Few. The Proud. The Totally Insane"

And CNN just accidentally put big red "X"s over Bush while he was speaking. Happened a couple of times, I think.

I guess I would suppose that since a former speaker of the House was indeed a democrat named Foley, perhaps it could have been a simple mistake? No...much better to have conspiracy theories, like Rove being the mastermind behind the Plame "outing" as a payback for not being doing what they wanted.

Yawn.

The AP made pretty much the exact same mistake as Fox but because they are the AP I guess everyone expects mistakes;)

You guys aren't seriuosly attempting to feign moral outrage over this, are you? I say feign, because otherwise this might actually have to be filed in the 'Stupidest Things (Ever)To Argue About' history book.

And nice try on the diversionary tactic, but really- can't you guys come up with anything new?


Let's just get it over with, okay?


Yeah, the Republicans have been naughty, but....Clinton got a BJ and lied about it!!!!!!
;):p

Yes, please go to sleep and forget ... forget ... forget that the first thing Armitage did, the very next day after he leaked the first Plamege, was to report his transgretion to the FBI and the Justice Department. Libby, of the V.P.'s office, who performed Leak No. 2 a few days later, lied about it and covered up and has been indicted. Rove can't be proven to have lied about it ... but his memory went all faulty, prompting serial grand jury appearances. Faulty memory, alas, is not provable as lying ... but you take your guess, scaeagles, as to what politicians' faulty memories mean - - and I'll take mine.

Meanwhile, yawn and sleep and forge your own faulty memories.

I'm not trying to argue specifics of anything. I'm merely trying to point out that perspective of media bias is just that - perspective - and that media outlets all over the place make errors and booboos, which I can point to as obvious left bias in certain cases, and you can point to as obvious right bias in certain cases.

WB is right. Big freakin' deal. Mistakes happen. Bias happens. It is a fact of life. I can point to it, you can point to it, it doesn't mean there is a flippin' conspiracy.

I have never claimed that my feeling of left bias in the media is some grand conspiracy. Only that since well over 80% of those in the mainstream media say they vote democrat, that it just comes out because it is not possible to separate ones self from that bias completely.

The only claim that I could find to the 80% figure online was from Fox's John Gibson.

The Pew Research Center, however, came to a very different conclusion, citing the political leanings of journalists at 34% liberal, 54% moderate, and 7% conservative. That seems more reasonable to me and also seems to indicate that the conservatives have moved so far to the right in some respects that moderates appear to be liberals to them.

I agree completely. I consider myself a moderate, but I have been called a liberal many times simply because I don't agree with most of the policies of the Bush Administration.

Yes, that is the result of self-identification surveys, which is still quite a bit more "liberal" than the general population in self-identification surveys.

But just like everybody thinks they are in the middle class, most post people think they are moderate politically regardless of their actual views (I had a coworker who insisted that he was moderate but felt that Gavin Newsome is too conservative). When those who self-identify as moderate, or middle-of-the-road are asked specific policy questions they are much more likely to come down on the "liberal" side of it (significantly more likely than the general population to support homosexual marriage, availablity of abortion without restriction, and gun control, for example) than the general population.

This is from the academic, non-partisan onece-every-decade "The American Journalist" report. Self identification in the 2002 report was 40% left or a little left, 33% "middle of the road," and 25% right or a little right. That number is up slightly on the middle and right compared to 1992.

In the general population at large the same self reporting was 17%, 42%, 41%.

So even if the 80% number is wrong, reporters as a cohort are much more liberal than the population at large and this perception is exacerbated by the fact that national reporters (8 major newspapers, the broadcast and cable news channels) are in turn more likely than the average for all journalists to self identify as "left or a little bit left." Self-identified conservative journalists are much more likely to be found in local journalism than national journalism.

By party affiliation, 36% were registered Democrats and 18% were registered Republicans. In the general population it is 32%/31%.


The key thing for me in talking about media bias is that most people put the political middle whereever they themselves are standing. In studies both a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans complain that the media is biased and they complain in opposite directions.

I can think of a lot of examples over the last 10-15 years of not being able to recall things when giving testimony to congress.

There is a concerted effort on both the right and the left to redefine what is the center. Each group wants their core beliefs to be considered as centrist in an effort to get votes. The definition of right, center, and left will always be under such a flux and lose their meaning as both sides of center constantly try to move it. This is why I have no desire to be considered a centrist. Who the hell knows what that is from day to day?

Unlike the previous innocent decade involving Iran/contra.

How far back should we go with the finger pointing? Apparantly, not so far as to mention the man in your avatar. Now, there was someone with a memory! ;)

Or...

We could focus on what is going on in the present time.

I can agree with that to an extent. However, it is not possible to exist in a vacuum of the present when the present is affected by decisions of the past.

But speaking of the present, wasn't this thread about Air America having financial problems leading to bankruptcy? I believe it was none other than Tref who changed to subject at hand to the "conservative" Time (still just cracks me up to say that, but again, it's all perspective) riding off into the sunset and that it was conservatives who are dead in the water.

All threads in this forum are destined to become the Random Political Thoughts thread ... and one of these days, when I'm not so lazy, I will simply merge all Daily Grind threads into one.

Then I shall have to add my on topic comment that the program/station/network might have done better if they didn't sound like they were just another airline.

Westerns the way to fly
come join us in the sky
we'll show you why
Western is the only way to fly:)

I miss the good ol' days of hot stewardesses singing:

"We Really Move our Tails for You"

What are we talking about again?

Now hang on just a minute! You're the one who hated the concept of the random political thoughts thread in the first place and killed the first one. Make up your mind!:p

I bow to the inevitable.

So this means you're supporting a Republican Congress and Senate? :)

No, I can say that now because ... and I dared never hope it ... it's inevitable at this point that the Replubicans are going to lose control of both houses of Congress in few mere weeks.

:cheers:

Never Diebold your chickens before they hatch, iSm.

yeah- I mean come on! How can the dems take over anything when according to some the repubs STEAL all the elections (cause of course it never occurs to the left that they can actually lose) ;)

You can not deny that both of the last 2 presidential elections were won by razor thin margins, and that there were some voting irregularities both times. Oh… and Debolt is a major donator to the Republican party. Nothing can be proven… But you can’t fault people for wondering.

Wondering- sure

Harping on about it for years afterwards- yes- I can fault them

Harping on about it despite evidence that nothing was "stolen"- yeah, I can fault them for this too

I admire curiousity- I get sick of obsessive griping about something that had no bearing in reality.

No one in the history of the United States has ever recieved as many votes as did Bush in 04'.

I can't deny that the last 2 Presidential elections were close but even so, the winner of those two elections recieved a higher percentage of the popular vote than did the winner of the 2 previous Presidential elections.

Dibold contributes to both political parties(although, it is true they favor the Republicans in those donations)

The reason people wonder about the outcome of the last election(Presidential) is due to Democrat operatives steering people who just voted towards exit pollsters, thus skewing the exit poll numbers in a hope to effect a "it's all over, dont bother to vote" attitude among some of the Western States.....they actually had Kerry up by 16% in Florida(a state he actually lost by a large margin) They did this in Ohio and a few other States as well........

Thank you SJ-:)

I never claimed there weren't irregularities on both sides. I was just responding to Nephy's assertion that no one has grounds to question the last 2 presidential elections. I’m not claiming that the elections were stolen, only that there are reasons some might question.

I didn't say that JW.