Friday, September 01, 2006

Lib Bloggers Cry as AAR Bites the Dust as Expected

BrentBozo
Posted 31 August 2006 12:37
On Malloy's website, his wife says they were told that this was an "economic decision"

Must mean they're going to run re-runs late at night, as I imagine (in my own imaginings) that Malloy would not demand as much money as Randi Rhodes or Franken.

Malloy is about 65 yrs. old. and not wealthy.
Quite possibly he needs this job enough that he would be negotiable on salary.

Werbe is good, but I can't imagine it would cost much less to have him than Malloy.

Too bad. Malloy is a better host than either Randi or Franken.

I'm thinking I might just have to stick to KBOO with decisions like this coming down from the "suits".
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

BrentBozo
Posted 31 August 2006 13:05
Or, on second thought, I guess what "economic decision" really means was that Malloy's show was not attracting enough advertising revenue.

Malloy has often said he's not a socialist. He should be forgiven for that, as should Thom Hartmann. But maybe the in-your-face style of Malloy was too much for the sponnsors?

Ah, capitalism. The market has given us scores of insane, fascist talk hosts and one AM liberal network which has to let its best talent go because the merchants are scared.
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

Julian II Posted 31 August 2006 13:16
I only got to hear Malloy once, when he was filling in for Randi. I thought he was very good, but definitely very "in your face." I could see where the suits might want to get rid of him. Too bad.
Posts: 16 | Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: 25 August 2006

Buckaroo Posted 31 August 2006 14:04
quote:
Originally posted by Julian II:
I only got to hear Malloy once, when he was filling in for Randi. I thought he was very good, but definitely very "in your face." I could see where the suits might want to get rid of him. Too bad.
This is very unfortunate. Mike is awesome and "in your face" is where we need to be. I'd much rather listen to Mike than Al Franken, who is becoming very mediocre.
Posts: 42 | Location: NE Portland | Registered: 04 October 2005

red
Posted 01 September 2006 09:03
What I find interesting is that progressive media seems to be operating by the same shibboleths as corporate-rightwing media.

Such matters as how/why shows come & go; what advertisers have to say about it; what advertising is permitted on progressive stations (should tobacco, pharmceutical, oil or other destructive-product advertising be accepted?); should the decisions of stations be driven exclusively by markets and advertising (why not a mix of solicited listener support donations and advertising, for example?) and a hundred other items that have largely been borrowed wholesale from the formulas of purely capitalist, rightwing media.

Shouldn't there be far more visibility about how progressive station boards operate, what their books look like and why certain decisions are made? Shouldn't the listeners be given far more information than they are about what goes on in the back-rooms of our stations so that we may influence these decisions. Or are we satisfied with the models that find secrecy and deniability are good-for-business.

Sure, AAR and others initially started from a rather risky and uncertain position, one that faltered and which the right swore would never get off the ground. But, now I wonder if we shouldn't be asking what are appropriate ethics and practices for stations wearing the mantle of 'progressive' and should these not be made more consonant with the values of progressives?

Getting rid of Malloy seemed to be done for reasons and in a manner typical of how capitalist decisions are made and the agendas of capitalism are promoted. I am neither socialist nor capitalist (as if those were either/or choices); but, I would ask if it might be time to give the shibboleths about the operation and presumed 'necessary' practices of our stations a much closer examination than we have before.

I know that if I were a big-time corporation determined to manipulate media in my favor I would certainly include the tactic of advertising on progressive stations and getting them to depend on my big money to the point that I could call their tunes. When we say things like "Well, Malloy wasn't bringing in the ratings and advertising dollars," consider what else we are really saying about how we permit our media to operate and who we permit to decide what we will or will not get to listen to.

I know that I have already begun to find the formulas for progressive-talk radio a bit tiresome and threadbare - formulaic - regardless of the host. Malloy, at least, was a little out of the mold (who else would read Poe's 'Tell-Tale Heart' on the air?). Its history folks, but its our history. How do we want to write it in the future - like it was written for the Malloy? Something to think about.

best to all,

Red

**********

Do not insert yourself into the slot
of machines that do not return change.
Posts: 24 | Location: California | Registered: 21 October 2005

BrentBozo
Posted 01 September 2006 11:20
Yes, Red.

Are "progressives" any different from the people they criticize if they want things to be run the same way as the people they criticize?
Posts: 458 | Location: beautiful downtown Portland | Registered: 01 July 2005

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home