Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Thinning the Air America
November 4, 2006 9:59 AM   Subscribe

Blacklisted! The bankruptcy of the liberal Air America Radio Network is old news. What's new is a leaked ABC memo to affiliates (.pdf original) listing 90 corporations and major advertisers that stipulated that their ads not be aired during the broadcast of Air America content. Is there any hope that radio or television news in the United States can report stories that do not uniformly support the goals and viewpoints of the S&P 500? There are of course, alternative models. Is it time for a PBS Newschanel?
posted by washburn (58 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
wow. hooray for the free market, right?
I blame Soros, of course.
posted by Busithoth at 10:13 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Woah, is there supposed to be content behind your last link?! I hope so, because that idea excites me.
posted by 2or3whiskeysodas at 10:14 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


It's good that these corporations are outed. This way people can "vote" against them with their dollars.
posted by clevershark at 10:18 AM on November 4, 2006


Stop whingeing, and turn the guns on the raving wingnuts who advertise on Limbaugh's show. Start a boycott campaign against the truly unhinged.

What? The tactic works - clearly - or at least, the corporations believe it does.

So - that's the next step, after you help GOTV in your precinct Tuesday, right?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:18 AM on November 4, 2006


Or, what clevershark said. And they say dolphins are smart!
posted by dash_slot- at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2006


I have no problem with companies choosing where they want to advertise.
posted by smackfu at 10:23 AM on November 4, 2006


Also, non-political isn't the same as Republican.
posted by smackfu at 10:24 AM on November 4, 2006


Nor is it the same as Democrat.

[Count this foreign radio guy among the people who think Air America's going under because it just plain sucks. Oh, and whoever thought you win elections by shouting platitudes exclusively at people who already agree with you? That guy's an idiot.]
posted by genghis at 10:28 AM on November 4, 2006


smackfu writes "I have no problem with companies choosing where they want to advertise."

I've no problem on considering *all* of a company's business practices when deciding whether I want to do business with them or not...
posted by clevershark at 10:33 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


dash_slot- writes "Stop whingeing, and turn the guns on the raving wingnuts who advertise on Limbaugh's show."

That's a good idea, actually. Here's a list, towards the bottom of the page, with updates on companies that stopped advertising on the show further up.

Am I the only one who thinks it hugely funny that Pfizer (maker of Viagra) advertises on Limbaugh?
posted by clevershark at 10:36 AM on November 4, 2006


Stop whingeing, and turn the guns on the raving wingnuts who advertise on Limbaugh's show.

I was with you until i found out that I'd have to give up my Red Lobster.

*sigh*
posted by Hicksu at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2006


How many advertisers request their products not be pitched during Rush Limbaugh or other conservative commenters?

Unless there is some disproportionate blacklisting this is a non-story. A lot of advertisers don't advertise on overly political programming.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


It's a shame that a lot of people seemingly associate Air America with the ever-obnoxious Randi Rhodes--there are several really great hosts who aren't loud and obnoxious but actually have interesting things to say. Thom Hartmann (who I guess doesn't really count as his show is merely syndicated) and Sam Seder are two good examples.
posted by nonmerci at 10:40 AM on November 4, 2006


So liberals are reminded to boycott those stores and products in kind. Can't see how this is good for business.
posted by Brian B. at 10:41 AM on November 4, 2006


Righties need that kind of talk radio; the rest of us don't. Having what you need to hear repeated over and over again in order to stave off cognitive dissonance is only necessary if you need constant reinforcement to go on believing the stupid shit you desperately want to believe in defiance of demonstrable facts and the evidence of your senses. People who aren't fucked in the head and keen to stay that way will do fine with ordinary reporting.

Modeling anti-right radio after right-wing radio was a stupid idea. And if I were selling a product I don't think I'd want it advertised during the Randi Rhodes show either.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:41 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]


I blame Soros, of course.

Me too, he's not even American and he's a member of the hateful, deranged Left:


"We don't know where George Soros's money comes from. We don't know where it comes from, from the left, and you don't know where it comes in the right. You know, Soros's money, some of that is coming from overseas. It could be drug money. We don't know where it comes from".

-- Dennis Hastert



"a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust"

-- Tony Blankley, Washington Times



"punk, lying, coward, Satanist, backstabbing freak... It's people like you who brought about the Holocaust, Soros. I stand by those words."

-- Michael Savage
posted by matteo at 10:44 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


2or3whiskeysodas asks: Woah, is there supposed to be content behind your last link?!

Replying, I'm torn between: "My question exactly!" and "Well . . . isn't there?"

[on preview, Pfizer as an advertiser on Limbaugh is hilarious. It's also interesting how some of the same companies that won't advertise on Air America (I notice Red Lobster and Eharmony) buy time from Limbaugh. As smackfu points out, "non-political isn't the same as Republican"].
posted by washburn at 10:44 AM on November 4, 2006


Good point George, I agree. When I hear liberals whine about adopting religion to compete, I see the same problem. They need to adopt the firm position of religious freedom to compete with fundamentalists, who would not agree.
posted by Brian B. at 10:45 AM on November 4, 2006


If really want that "alternative model" then you're going to have to enact a 'poll tax' on every television and screen capable of receiving content that has been licenced and produced by a federal agency.

Criminalising the non-payment of a $250 annual fee for every household in the US that contains one or more televisual receivers would be political suicide for anyone that tried to enforce it. Can you really imagine the uproar if government vans tricked out with sueveillance apparatus were driving around neighbourhoods triangulating people's TVs and recording what channels they were watching? And then serving search warrants to enter the houses of suspected non-payers to search for receiving equipment? Because that is what television licence enforcement requires.

And just imagine the arguments that would ensure over how to spend that huge income (around $23 billion, given 113,146,000 households and ~90% compliance and ~90% household TV penetration), and on what? The reason the BBC is endlessly being savaged by both left and right is because it honestly tries *extremely* hard to present as many viewpoints as possible because its income is derived from across a diverse population. In effect, this means many groups and people are always unhappy about how "their" money is being spent.
posted by meehawl at 10:48 AM on November 4, 2006


It would only be funnier if Pfizer also manufactured OxyContin, but they don't.
posted by clevershark at 10:50 AM on November 4, 2006


Thom Hartmann (who I guess doesn't really count as his show is merely syndicated) and Sam Seder are two good examples.

Sam Seder is loud and obnoxious, but also more entertaining, to a point.

Rachel Maddow is the bee's knees, though.
Rapid-fire newsy show. Her show has more news on it than nearly anything else I've listened to. And maddeningly composed, most of the time (not prone to hysterics...)
posted by Busithoth at 10:55 AM on November 4, 2006


well, that looks confusing with the italics, doesn't it?
posted by Busithoth at 10:56 AM on November 4, 2006


One more thing about my fpp's last link, to a "0 results" search about a PBS Newschannel. This final question about public broadcasting is meant to engage those who, like George_Spiggott and perhaps gengis above, question the idea that a "progressive alternative" radio should mirror conservative radio's methods, and compete in the same marketplace.

That's why I wonder whether a public broadcasting model--which would encourage responsible handling of facts--might be a better idea here, even though a PBS Newschannel would presumably include conservative programming. Ultimately it's more important to have a media the is more concerned with its responsibility to facts and fair arguments rather than to Red Lobster. I'm curious what other think of this.

[On preview: the UK TV tax mentioned by meehawl supports the entire BBC, which produces several channels of programming in many formats and genres. I don't think that adding a newschannel to PBS in the states would involve anything remotely approaching the cost of replicating or replacing the entire corporate media, on the model of the BBC]
posted by washburn at 11:13 AM on November 4, 2006


I was with you until i found out that I'd have to give up my Red Lobster.

I haven't ate there in a couple of years. I used to go there at least twice a month. Copeland's has better seafood anyway and it isn't any more expensive.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:21 AM on November 4, 2006


If really want that "alternative model" then you're going to have to enact a 'poll tax' on every television and screen capable of receiving content that has been licenced and produced by a federal agency.

In a way there is a 'poll tax' a comming - the move to HDTV. But if there is a 'poll tax' - how many people would just stop owning a TV? I know it would be another reason why I don't have one. And how would the propaganda get their messages to the citizens for just the low per month cost of electricity?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2006


I hope our corporate masters don't let their wholly owned news programs report on this, either. This kind of information might open the door to "thoughts" among the general populace about how they're brainwashed into being full-time consumption machines.
posted by JWright at 11:40 AM on November 4, 2006


People sometimes make the mistake of attributing to corporations a false image of political interest - an interest that purportedly contributes to political and social decisions based on political and social leanings.

However, this is patently untrue! When a company decides that it is not in their best interest to buy advertisement on, for instance, a radio program / station, they are simply looking to their bottom line.

I absolutely GUARANTEE that, given a positive market response from their ad placement, these companies would have consistently and increasingly made ad buys with Air America.

Air America was never matched with it's promise as a liberal counterpoint to conservative radio. It's hosts (for the most part) are / were pedantic and part of the self-aggrandising and pompous mental masturbatory crowd that eats food that you cant afford, drive cars that you dont own and do things that you will never be able to do.

The truth is that these radio hosts alienated it's own left leaning listening base a long time ago. If Air America had succeeded in grabbing a relatively captive audience, these companies would have increased their ad buys!

As a marketing professional, I would never recommend that a company that I am working with advertise on a network / station that has only a fringe listening audience - and in air americas case, they have a very niche crowd who's buying power is questionable - I have to imagine 60-70% of their paychecks go to filling up their refrigerators with the bare essentials from whole foods.

ok.. ok.. that was a jab. i know.
posted by Milliken at 11:57 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


REI boycotted Air America? *whimper* Where can I send my donations to the BBC again?
posted by QIbHom at 11:57 AM on November 4, 2006


pompous mental masturbatory crowd that eats food that you cant afford, drive cars that you dont own and do things that you will never be able to do.

Oh, yes, the old Kerry/windsurfing line again. As if the assholes ragging on him about it on television didn't have exclusive golf club memberships that their loyal fans couldn't afford in a hundred years. Windsurfing is one of the cheapest sports there is. Far, far cheaper than owning a boat, or golfing, cheaper than camping and fishing, even.

And what's this "eat food you can't afford" stuff? You know what they eat? And what I eat? You're quite a one for spouting the standard "anti-elitist" propaganda, aren't you?
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:09 PM on November 4, 2006


Eat the rich.
posted by imperium at 12:21 PM on November 4, 2006


I absolutely GUARANTEE that, given a positive market response from their ad placement, these companies would have consistently and increasingly made ad buys with Air America.

Hear, hear. How many of these companies are falling over themselves trying to run ads on the Colbert Report? I don't see a lack of McDonalds commercials on the Daily Show...

And look at that list ... when was the last time you heard a BMW Motorcycle radio ad anywhere?

REI Sporting Goods? Bitch, please. Yeah, they're real red-state Republicans over there at REI. You hear their ads all the freakin' time on Rush Limbaugh.
posted by frogan at 12:37 PM on November 4, 2006


Posted by a someone over at Daily Kos:

I sell radio. I have an agency order on my desk in front of me RIGHT NOW that says "DO NOT RUN IN RUSH LIMBAUGH." This same order went to hundreds of other stations, some of which program Limbaugh. National agencies and advertisers do this all the time, and not as part of any conspiracy.
This is common, and it works both ways. There are many advertisers out there who do not want their products or services on political programs.

posted by NoMich at 12:48 PM on November 4, 2006


frogan, I shoot republicans who call me bitch. Only my girlfriend and lefties are allowed to do that.

But, thank you for the information. Guess I'll go in, tear up my card and leave.
posted by QIbHom at 12:48 PM on November 4, 2006


washburn: Having lived the first 30-ish years of my life in the UK, I am of course all about the BBC. And yes, obviously I think the US could do with a similarly authoritative news source which unsucks.

That said, I've also seen Jim Lehrer trying to interview Rumsfeld on News Hour. If that chickenshit cap-doffing is what passes for 'real journalism' over there, you're all screwed, I'm afraid.
posted by genghis at 1:38 PM on November 4, 2006


as a liberal, I would like to think the thing that differentiates me from Limbaugh listeners is that I dont particularly want or need my own opinions parroted back to me.

The fact that "liberal talk radio" doesn't work says something good about liberals, I think.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:45 PM on November 4, 2006


as a liberal, I would like to think the thing that differentiates me from Limbaugh listeners is that I dont particularly want or need my own opinions parroted back to me.

The fact that "liberal talk radio" doesn't work says something good about liberals, I think


What about the people who watch/sit in the audience of "Real Time with Bill Maher"
posted by The Gooch at 2:26 PM on November 4, 2006


Regarding that list of advertisers to boycott...

In addition to Rush Limbaugh's show, SleepNumber advertises on PBS like crazy. (They practically own "A Prairie Home Companion.") Oreck is all over Air America. And Geico has that cute little lizard that I just want to take home and dress up in a tiny top hat and britches.

Just sayin'.
posted by turducken at 2:28 PM on November 4, 2006


BBC? Left-leaning bias, generally. And even they have of late admitted this
posted by Postroad at 2:35 PM on November 4, 2006


What about the people who watch/sit in the audience of "Real Time with Bill Maher"

I think all five of them should be decreed enemy combatants and whisked off for questioning.
posted by three blind mice at 2:44 PM on November 4, 2006


I was a fan of Air America for awhile, but I have to agree with the naysayers pointing out that liberals don't need to be treated like Limbaugh's Dittoheads. Being the choir for Randi Rhodes to preach at got real old real fast. I enjoyed the "debate" which was on Minority report. And I use "debate" with quotation hand gestures in the air because Janeane's idea of debating was shouting over her guests until the commercial break.

Wrote a song about it. Wanna hear it? Here it goes.

Jerry Springer's show was surprisingly refreshing. A lot less shouting than on his TV show, or on Janeane's radio show. Randi Rhodes was the weakest link I thought, but she seemed to have been the most popular in other circles. Whatever.

See that's the problem with liberal radio. None of us can agree on what's good and what's not. We all have our own opinions because we're all freethinkers, unlike the sodding right, who believe in free speech and free thought so long as you're a white anglo saxon protestant who has a hand in the cookie jar and eyeballs in everyone else's bedroom while they're all having sex.

On NPR recently a right leaning talking head said that conservatives watch FOX and liberals watch CNN. I don't have cable. So all I am is poor. The radio station in my area that used to carry Air America is now a piece of crap religious station. It breaks the heart.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:02 PM on November 4, 2006


Unless there is some disproportionate blacklisting this is a non-story. A lot of advertisers don't advertise on overly political programming.
posted by delmoi at 1:39 PM EST on November 4


That was my first thought as well. Anyone care to listen to a few days of Rush to see if these guys advertise there? I kind of guess that they don't. I am guessing they just want to avoid controversy of any kind.
posted by caddis at 3:17 PM on November 4, 2006


thanks for the post, and for your question.

Ultimately it's more important to have a media the is more concerned with its responsibility to facts and fair arguments rather than to Red Lobster. I'm curious what other think of this.

i have been thinking about this question a lot lately. i thought a lot after that man from some magazine asked this question.

it made me think about the public radio model (which i love too much) and how socialist its economics are. basically, you have people doing something for free. and they expect// know people will give them money if people do it really well. because then you have responsibility to the facts and not red lobster.

what i want is something which combines the economic model of public radio and some features on metafilter. metafilter can't go out and hire a reporter like a public radio station. but if something like it were to adopt a similar economic model to public radio, then it could afford to send out a reporter.

this imaginary site could survey an ask mefi-esque section, and find out what problems or questions people want answered. then it could send out an expert to go answer it. the site would have membership like metafilter does (usually smart, engaged people) and it could send journalists to these experts in the mefi community and they could answer the question.

blah blah blah. i've got a lot of thoughts on this, and would encourage anyone curious or interested or with better ideas to contact me. i think me email is in my profile....
posted by localhuman at 3:51 PM on November 4, 2006


caddis/delmoi-

The companies that have signed on to this "black list" (assuming it's authentic) have not done the equivalent of withdrawing ads from Rush Limbaugh's show---they've sought to remove their programing from an entire network. And while upthread I've already pointed out that at least two advertisers buy time on Limbaugh's show in particular while advertising on no Air America programing at all, I don't think that even if these companies all really were dropping ads of all programs with political content, that that would be much cause for comfort or reason to regard this as a "non-story."

I think the assumption that a refusal to ban advertising on "political" programs is itself apolitical is questionable. Such a decision simply means that advertisers favor the continuance of the status quo (an attitude that not coincidentally can be referred to as "conservatism"). Moreover, such policies promote a culture of thoughtless consupmtion and intellectual laziness. And while thoughtful and well-informed conservatism is of course very possible (if nowadays often invisible), I also think that the intellectual laziness encouraged by "entertainment" minus any serious political or ethical considerations often results in the acceptance of familiar habits and prejudices, and the pursuit of thoughtlessly consumerist goals of personal acquisition that are characteristic of the more anti-intellectual segments of contemporary conservatism.

Of course many conservatives may disagree with my belief that considered and thoughtful debate will tend to lead towards left conclusions. I hope that such conservatives will support proposals like this idea of a PBS Newschannel, which aim to foster a higher tone of debate, whether such debate ends up leading either to the left or right.

[on preview: I like your idea localhuman, and I think it offers a good idea of what magazines might be moving towards (reminds me of Salon in some ways). Yet the proposal you describe here does seem different in scale from the sort of project that might be accomplished on a national/public model like that of PBS.]
posted by washburn at 4:21 PM on November 4, 2006


Postroad BBC? Left-leaning bias, generally. And even they have of late admitted this.

No, they haven't. But thank you for showing your bias so clearly, Postroad. Once again.
posted by Skeptic at 4:38 PM on November 4, 2006


REI boycotted Air America?

REI replied to my email about the memo with this:

The memo posted on the Internet is not correct. REI has not refused to advertise during Air America's programming. REI has placed radio ads on stations carrying the Air America programming.

Our advertising agency has communicated with ABC Radio Network. The ABC contact has confirmed that REI was included on the list in error. We regret that this misinformation has been broadly shared and left our customers and potential customer with a misimpression of our advertising purchase criteria.

A bit more on RE: REI's response here.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:47 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Thanks ryanshepard for the info and for looking into this.
posted by washburn at 4:57 PM on November 4, 2006


Let’s get this straight--Air America is blacklisted by the corporate rulers because they are the last bastion of journalism.

They honestly label their product progressive, but quite clearly seek truth. Veracity is dangerous to pigs who grunt from a foundation of deception.

If you don’t like Randi Rhodes, your simply aren’t accustomed to honesty. She’s a straight-up Brooklyn gangster who can kick anybody’s wimpy ass up in here, so don’t mess with Wonder Woman.

A good test as to whether you’re a brainwashed idiot, in fact, would be if you think Randi is dishonest, and that Sean Hanity is a straight shooter.

You see, Air America is the direct opposite of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch’s spin monkeys twist actuality, spout propaganda, and cynically claim to be “fair and balanced.”

Bill O’Reilly puts neocon puke on Spin Cycle, and thinks we’re dumb enough to swallow. As we suckle our computers, Drug Addled Limbaugh endlessly coughs up poisonous phlegm.

Take a good look at that list of companies who show us their blacklist asses, and blacklist. Boycott these garbage merchants indeed. Not a dime to such filth unless they also advertise on Air America.

Do nothing as they cut Air America’s throat, and only Karl Rove will be left to speak against the pigs who come for Network Neutrality. What’s that oink sound I hear, here at Metafilter?
posted by BillyElmore at 6:44 PM on November 4, 2006


Thank, ryanshepard. Boycotting a liberal network didn't seem like a smart move for a co-op like REI.

You guys want to listen to real left radio, get a shortwave radio, and listen to the English programming that China puts out. Some of the history programs are particularly fascinating. I had no idea the Ming Dynasty foreshadowed Mao.
posted by QIbHom at 6:53 PM on November 4, 2006


I guess BillyElmore really likes Air America.

Personally, talk radio is the last thing I'm interested in, but hey, different strokes.
posted by smackfu at 7:45 PM on November 4, 2006


The companies that have signed on to this "black list" (assuming it's authentic) have not done the equivalent of withdrawing ads from Rush Limbaugh's show

Proof?
posted by caddis at 7:46 PM on November 4, 2006


All of this "Progressive Talking Point" content is still available if you have XM radio (channel 167). All you have to do is put up with the silly hair growth commercials. "Well I am 72 years old, and I can tell ya......"

Randi's rough, but tenacious. She's not winning anyone over, but talk about rallying the base. When a "major issue" breaks I like her non-compromising rant. Sometimes I'd rather not add to my blood pressure and it is better to crank the tunes instead.

Sam is just as abrasive, especially so after the 2004 election/robbery, but he has a mind like a steel trap on issues and debates like a pro. I like the way he strips away the BS from each and every opposing argument, thereby exposing the fact that BS is all there is.

The Young Turks are comical enough to make for a not-so-negative morning drive (ammo for use against the watercooler repubs).

Franken and Springer do nothing for me. IMHO Franken isn't as funny as he is in print and Springer lacks any respectable credibility.

Get XM and you will never use an AM/FM radio again.
posted by HyperBlue at 8:05 PM on November 4, 2006


I guess BillyElmore really likes Air America.

No, no, I'm just being fair and balanced, just saying what the "folks" are thinkin.
posted by BillyElmore at 9:12 PM on November 4, 2006


Randi Rhodes: Sometimes very informative. Sometimes, I totally love her attitude. But I quit listening because I got totally sick of her altitude. Just way too full of herself. Pity, I love her style.

All around, I have to say Thom Hartmann is a hard act to beat. He's a seriously intellectual liberal. His books are good, too.

However, forgive me, I like my dose of vitriol to come from Mike Malloy. Yea, sometimes he annoys me, although I've realized sometimes that's because I'm not much in tune with the daily culture of America today, having lived overseas for 8 years. This effects the irony meter. But Air America underhandedly fired Malloy, and Mike had to find a new gig. Now he's on a new venture called Nova M Radio.

Talk radio has an attraction for me in that I can enjoy it while being busy doing boring stuff. It helps keep the house clean! I find some satisfaction in hearing Malloy go into his fits of rage. He is in some ways a much more old-fashioned lefty, with brass balls. I find that refreshing, but then, I'm almost 50 myself.

It's hard for me to get much out of Air America except shows I can download, as the time difference (7 hours ahead of NYC). I haven't given all their hosts a chance.
posted by Goofyy at 9:17 PM on November 4, 2006


Hi guys! Have I mentioned I don't own a TV? Yup, it's true. Just thought I'd mention it as a counterpoint to BillyElmore's fierce enthusiasm. Rather than listening to the radio, I like to read newspapers and websites like Metafilter. And even though these text-based mediums don't have the ass-kicking gangster cred of Randi Rhodes, I think they make up for it in nuance and diversity of opinion. More here. (self-link? don't mind if I do!)
posted by ryanrs at 9:44 PM on November 4, 2006


Can anybody cross-check this list against companies that won't advertise during explicitly right-wing content?

The delta might be interesting. This list is not.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2006


Is there any hope that radio or television news in the United States can report stories that do not uniformly support the goals and viewpoints of the S&P 500?

As someone else has pointed out, one simple reason why most companies don't advertise on a show is because it has no audience. It's straight bang for the buck.

Secondly something that many on the Left don't realize: Corporate America isn't monolithic. There are plenty of coporations that love anti-corporate messages. It's the Rebel Sell. Who's Noam Chomsky's publisher? Metropolitan Books. Who owns Metropolitan Books? Henry Holt and Company, a large New York corporation. Who are they? They are a subsidiary of a privately-owned multinational publishing giant called Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH.

But the funniest thing about this story is this: can you imagine the rage of Air America's listeners if the programming *was* sponsored by McDonalds, Exxon and Wal-Mart?
posted by storybored at 6:08 PM on November 5, 2006


It seems you people are idiots. Silver's article in the Huffington Post got it right.

Advertisers blackout for Rush Limbaugh's *timeslot*.

Advertisers blacked out whole affiliates for Air America.

RTFA!
posted by jeffburdges at 5:37 AM on November 6, 2006


jeffburdges: It seems you people are idiots. Silver's article in the Huffington Post got it right. Advertisers blackout for Rush Limbaugh's timeslot. Advertisers blacked out whole affiliates for Air America.

The linked memo says that Hewlett-Packard does "not wish to air on any Air America affiliates," but that the other listed advertisers requested that "none of their commercials air within Air America programming." I'm no expert in radio-programming terminology, but that sounds like an affiliate blackout for HP and a timeslot blackout for everyone else.

The Silver piece does open with the assertion that "90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming," but I don't see how that's supported by the memo.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:20 AM on November 6, 2006


« Older US Presidential Speeches Tag Cloud...  |  Finally, you can test the 'blo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments