Air America

[PrincessFiona]

OK...I can't help but post this...the new liberal media radio station is online at:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/

If you don't have access to the radio station, you can hear it via streaming audio online.

I'm looking forward to listening to the parody "The O'Franken Factor"


kris

[Rapunzel]

Personally, I find it refreshing that a radio station is admitting its political bias up front. As long as it doesn't pretend to be a news organization it sounds like a very good idea! I might actually listen to it from time to time I think - after all, one of the main rules of battle is "know thy enemy".

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Sorry - double posted.

[DCJenn]

Love it! Have been listening all day yesterday and today.

Ahhhh, finally someone other than the talking heads on Fox...

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

I've been listening too...I think that what bothers me the most is the attacking by Al Franken....I'm not a fan of the negative hate-mongering approach...which is why I also can't listen to Rush...though I do manage to listen to O'Reilly with the justifcation, Rapunzel "know thy enemy".

It's nice to be able to hear real cricisms and to finally be on the offensive...and the defensive...I mean...democrats have been wimps for way too long.

Long live airamerica.

kris

[Rapunzel]

Actually, if you guys read the book "Bias" (the one I recently posted about in the Book Review section) you would know that the media has had a significant liberal bias for decades and there is cold, hard evidence to prove it (the book, btw, is written by an avowed and proven "liberal"). Granted the "media" referred to is generally the televised and print "news" programs. Fox is refreshing in that it has programs with a conservative bias as well as programs with a liberal bias and some programs with commentators of two opposing biases (ie one liberal and one conservative).

The book is actually very, very good and worth being read (it's a quick read as well- it took me a few hours to cruise through it).

What appears to be unique about the "AirAmerica" station is that it openly admits a liberal bias. That is what I find refreshing - the honesty that those who run and participate in that station are coloring everything with their personal opinions on society and government.

While AirAmerica may be the first entire station on the airwaves to publicly admit its liberal bias it is by no means the first radio station to have a blatantly liberal bias. After all, NPR has been around for years....

Jennifer

While AirAmerica may be the first entire station on the airwaves to publicly admit its liberal bias it is by no means the first radio station to have a blatantly liberal bias. After all, NPR has been around for years....

Ah yes....I think my dad likes to call it National Socialist Radio or something like that. Actually, I think he calls it something that goes with the NPR intials....but I can't remember. Keeping the bias in mind, I do enjoy their programs. Especially This American Life (but that's not really a news program).

[Rapunzel]

Jon likes the "Prairie Home Companion" (or at least, he used to - I think it went off the air awhile back).

Jennifer

It's still on here -- I think they are doing repeats right now. I'm not sure when the new season starts. I like it too. The funny thing is that as a kid I HATED it when my parents listened to it.

Looks like the new season starts today:
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/season/

[DCJenn]

Well, if you read Franken's book, which is incredibly well researched, he discusses the fact that the "liberal media" is a product of spin. There is NO liberal media. In fact, publications and media organizations as they become more and more a part of a large media conglomerate- a la Murdoch's enterprises, the bias has been much more conservative in nature. Large companies do not want their underlings to report bad things about hem, after all!

What this country really needs are actual independent TV, radio or newspapers- or at least tones that admit their bias up front.

and of course, in my town, we have the Washington Times, a paper owned by the Moonies- now that has a seriously bizarre slant sometimes... not to mention the fact that UPI is also owned by the moonies, and apparently here in DC yesterday, Rev. Moon pronounced himself the Messiah.

Jenn

[Rapunzel]

Well, if you read Franken's book, which is incredibly well researched, he discusses the fact that the "liberal media" is a product of spin. There is NO liberal media. In fact, publications and media organizations as they become more and more a part of a large media conglomerate- a la Murdoch's enterprises, the bias has been much more conservative in nature. Large companies do not want their underlings to report bad things about hem, after all!

I'm quite sure Al Franken does not think there is a liberal slant to much of what is put forth as "fact" in today's average media outlet. One of the best arguments in Goldberg's book is that those within the media who identify with "liberal" causes and politicians see themselves as "normal" and the vast sea of Americans who are "conservative" are either misguided, "nut-jobs" or delusional. His theory is that it is NOT a "liberal conspiracy", rather it is normal human nature taking its course.

Here is a snippet of chapter 8 (pages 128-130):

"On December 6, 1998, on a Meet the Press segment about Bill Clinton and his relationship with the Washington news corps, one of the capital's media stars, the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, felt she needed to state what to her was the obvious.
The Washington press corps, she insisted, was not some "monolith". "We all work for different organizations," she said, "we all think differently."
Not really, Sally.
Two years earlier, in 1996, the Freedom Forum and the Roper Center released the results of a now famous survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents. The results make you wonder what in the world Sally Quinn was talking about.
The Freedom Forum is an independent foundation that examines issues that involve the media. The Roper Center is an opinion research firm, also with a solid reputation. "No way that the data are the fruit of right-wing press bashers," as journalist Ben Wattenberg put it.
What these two groups found was that Washington journalists are far more liberal and far more Democratic than the typical American voter:

* 89 percent of the journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, compared with just 43 percent of the nonjournalist voters.

* 7 percent of the journalists voted for George Bush; 37 percent of the voters did.

* 2 percent of the news people voted for Ross Perot while 19 percent of the electorate did.

Eighty-nine percent voted for Bill Clinton. This is incredible when you think about it. There's hardly a candidate in the entire United States of America who carries his or her district with 89 percent of the vote. This is way beyond mere landslide numbers. The only politicians who get numbers like that are called Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein. The same journalists that Sally Quinn tells us do not constitute a "monolith" certainly vote like one.
What party do journalists identify with?

* 50 percent said they were Democrats.

* 4 percent said they were Republicans.

When they were asked, "How do you characterize your political orientation?" 61 percent said "liberal" or "moderate to liberal." Only 9 percent said they were "conservative" or "moderate to conservative."
In the world of media elites, Democrats outnumber Republicans by twelve to one and liberals outnumber conservatives by seven to one.

After the survey came out, the Washington Post media writer, Howard Kurtz, said on Fox News Sunday, "Clearly anybody looking at those numbers, if they're even close to accurate, would conclude that there is a diversity problem in the news business, and it's not just the kind of diversity we usually talk about, which is not getting enough minorities in the news business, but political diversity, as well. Anybody who doesn't see that is just in denial."
James Glassman put it this way in the Washington Post: "The people who report the stories are liberal Democrats. This is the shameful open secret of American journalism. That the press itself...chooses to gloss over it is conclusive evidence of how pernicious the bias is."
Tom Rosentiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says, "Bias is the elephant in the living room. We're in denial about it and don't want to admit it's there. We think it's less of a problem than the public does, and we just don't want to get into it."
Even Newsweek's Evan Thomas (the one who thought Ronald Reagan had "kind of an intuitive idiot genius") has said, "There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic; they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and teh so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias."

[Rapunzel]

I might add that Bernard Goldberg identifies himself as a liberal Democrat. He states in his book that he is pro-choice, pro-affirmitive-action, etc, etc, etc. His arguments are for a purity in journalism and that any bias present in what is "the news" is wrong. His arguments are for integrity in journalism - a worthy argument!

Jennifer