Originally Posted By alexbook Okay, so I found that Air America is on KTLK-AM 1150 in Los Angeles, and tried listening to a few minutes of it. My initial reaction is that there are so many commercials that I don't think I could listen to it on a regular basis. In that respect, it sounded the same as any other annoying AM radio station.
Originally Posted By alexbook I've been trying to find some actual Arbitron numbers. I haven't found anything for national networks, but here's some info on the L.A. market from <a href="http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm" target="_blank">http://www.arbitron.com/home/c ontent.stm</a>. I don't know if they prove anybody's point, but at least they're from an unbiased source (I think). Top AM stations in the first quarter of 2006, and percent of total listeners: KFI 4.0% (Clear Channel: conservative talk) KABC 2.3% (Disney: conservative talk) KNX 1.6% (Viacom: news) KFWB 1.3% (Viacom: news/sports) KHJ 1.0% (Liberman: Spanish music) KRLA 1.0% (Salem: conservative talk) KTLK 1.0% (Clear Channel: liberal talk) KTNQ 0.8% (Univision: Spanish talk/sports) KLAC 0.7% (Clear Channel: sports) KKGO 0.6% (NBC: standards) KLTX 0.6% (Radiovisa: Spanish religious) KSPN 0.5% (Disney: sports) KWKW 0.4% (Spanish sports)
Originally Posted By jonvn So, in LA, it's about middle of the pack. It doesn't have the same punch as KFI and KABC, which are long established talk radio stations, but it does have the same value as KRLA, a conservative talk station, and not much less than KFWB, an all news station. Not great, but not really terrible, either, it looks like.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I simply stated that because the writer has a bias, and a political agenda, it is not necessarily an accurate reporting of the facts.> "It is not necessarily accurate" is a little different than "It is junk". <You need to supply information from a source that is not biased or is written by someone with an agenda.> No, he doesn't. If you don't want to believe the information, that's your right, but you don't have the authority to demand that he supply you with an alternate source. You can find your own information or you can decline to take part in the conversation, but you don't get to define the terms of the discussion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not great, but not really terrible, either, it looks like.> That's one way of looking at it. Another is to note that liberal talk is getting about 1% of the market, while 3 conservative talk stations are splitting over 7%, in a fairly liberal market. Sure, Air America is getting okay ratings in the markets it's in, but it's not in many markets, and it's not gaining.
Originally Posted By jonvn ""It is not necessarily accurate" is a little different than "It is junk"." It is not necessarily accurate makes it junk, as far as reasonable discussion goes. "No, he doesn't." Uh, yeah, he does. He was the one who put up this nonsense in the first place as to the woes of AA. If he wants to create a discussion regarding this, and that is my assumption since he started a discussion on the topic, he needs to supply some information regarding the situation that is unbiased. If, on the other hand, he simply wants to discuss that particular article, then we have. And we've discussed it as a biased article written by someone with a political agenda. "you don't have the authority " I have as much authority as anyone here who participates in a discussion as to what is and is not valid material regarding what is placed here for purposes of that discussion. The authority YOU don't have is in telling me what authority I do or do not have. It is not up to you to tell me what I can or can not do with regard to how a discussion goes. "You can find your own information" I was not the one making the suggestion, via the quoting of an article, that the radio network was suffering. I stated the information was suspect, and wanted a non-biased source of information. That was not supplied. It turns out that it wasn't supplied because, for at least Los Angeles, the situation is not quite so dire as the original article said it was. Or it appears that way, at least. "or you can decline to take part in the conversation, but you don't get to define the terms of the discussion" I can do whatever I darned well please, provided it is within the confines of the rules of this board. What's the matter, don't like having your opinion discussed by someone who can actually rebut your statements? You need me to not talk so you can run ragged here with no opposition? Are you afraid of something? If not, then don't try and tell me to not participate in discussions, because until I am told otherwise by the people who run this joint, I am following the rules, and you have NO AUTHORITY to tell me what to say or do. Thank you.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That's one way of looking at it. Another is to note that liberal talk is getting about 1% of the market, while 3 conservative talk stations are splitting over 7%, in a fairly liberal market. Sure, Air America is getting okay ratings in the markets it's in, but it's not in many markets, and it's not gaining." I have no idea whether it is gaining or not. I have seen no evidence one way or the other. It might be that it found its niche and that's where it will go. I also do not see any information as to whether "conservative" radio is gaining or not. I do know that KFI and KABC have for several decades been well-established talk radio stations, and have much wider coverage and are more powerful than KTLK is. You may interpret these numbers however you want, but that's what it looks like to me, and why I wanted unbiased numbers in the first place, to see what is actually happening.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is not up to you to tell me what I can or can not do with regard to how a discussion goes.> If you have the right to tell him he has to do something, I have the right to tell you you're wrong. <I can do whatever I darned well please, provided it is within the confines of the rules of this board.> As can I. <What's the matter, don't like having your opinion discussed by someone who can actually rebut your statements?> I look forward to someone who can rebut my statements with facts and logic. It would be a refreshing change. But so far, all you've done is be dismissive. That I see plenty on these boards. <If not, then don't try and tell me to not participate in discussions, because until I am told otherwise by the people who run this joint, I am following the rules, and you have NO AUTHORITY to tell me what to say or do.> When you're done constructing your strawman, you can review what I wrote and notice I never told you to do anything, let alone not to take part in this discussion.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If you have the right to tell him he has to do something, I have the right to tell you you're wrong." You didn't tell me that I "was wrong." What you said was that I should either not participate in the discussion or supply my own information. You can tell me I'm wrong, but that is simply not what you did, and so you have not told the truth. This makes all three of you on that side of this little debate who can't quite keep his facts straight. "I look forward to someone who can rebut my statements with facts and logic. It would be a refreshing change. But so far, all you've done is be dismissive. That I see plenty on these boards." I don't care what you see or don't see on these boards. If you want to discuss something, then discuss it. I couldn't care less what your opinion is of me or other posters. Simply respond with facts, or be considered to have none. "When you're done constructing your strawman" There is no strawman here. I am responding directly to what you said. You seem, in the course of a few minutes, to not quite recall what that was. Let me refresh your memory. In your last little posting you stated: "I never told you to do anything, let alone not to take part in this discussion." And in the previous one you stated: "You can find your own information or you can decline to take part in the conversation, but you don't get to define the terms of the discussion." So which is it? You telling me what I can or can't do or not? Get it straight. In any case, all you're simply saying is "Wah!!! He won't let us play!!!" Tough. If calling for unbiased information places such a horrible burden on you and those who believe like you do, then perhaps you should consider that your positions are not particularly well informed or valid.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sorry, Jon. I'm not going play this game. When you want to respond with facts, rather than insults, I'll be happy to discuss them.
Originally Posted By jonvn I find this ironic. I asked for facts, from the person who made the original post/accusations. Then after about 30 posts worth of "you're this or that" followed up by "you shouldn't post here," now I have somehow said I'm being insulting? The fact is there are no games, and no insults. Simply responses to your posts. That is the fact. And if you want more facts, someone ELSE was able to actually put some up. Funny how that was not impossible. When you actually have something to add to the conversation, I welcome your input. Up to now, you've said I have "no authority," talked about other posters here, and so on. Talk about the subject matter. Because otherwise, you have no standing upon which to speak.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Welcome to LaughingPlace's 'World Events' -- where the fun never sets!
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, what I see is this. There are some people here who want to ram their ideas down the throats of others, and when you call them on it, they get quite ugly. In this thread, I think I made a very simple and reasonable request. And the response was just short of hysteric. One person going so far as to tell me to not post or whatever it was he was trying to say. And in the end, I was told that I had "no authority," as if any authority exists here, to request verification of something that someone has said. As if we're supposed to just take the word of some anonymous person here...just because. It's ludicrous. It's been one long obfuscation of the original post. I was interested in seeing data about Air America, but instead was told a lot of basically insulting personal attacks. A very sad display from the "conservatives" here.
Originally Posted By Admin A few did try to discuss this topic but the majority of these posts are off topic. Let's see how many more topics you all can get closed.
