Liberal talk radio must find new Chicago station

[Cocoa]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040420airamerica,1,2383704,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed

<snip>

April 20, 2004, 3:13 PM CDT

It was on, then it was off, then it was on again, and now it will be off again.

Air America Radio, the recently launched liberal talk-radio network that became embroiled last week in a financial dispute with the owner of its Chicago and Los Angeles stations, will broadcast over WNTD-950 AM in Chicago for the last time on April 30, the network said today.

The network also said it will remain off the air for the time being in Los Angeles, where it was yanked off its station there, KBLA-1580, last week by owner Multicultural News Radio.

more...

[movonne]

1. What is going on????

[demdave]

4. A recipe for failure. A political plan with no business plan.

It's all well and good to have a political agenda when operating a business IF you have a good business plan or plenty of your own money behind you. The real world doesn't care what you think of Bush, they care about getting paid and paying the bills. Rush and Fox produce an audience that then draws the advertisers. The cartoon channel does the same thing. If you have the listeners, the advertisers will follow. Until then you have to stay afloat and pay the bills. I don't believe all the excuses given by AirAmerica. If the money was coming in the stations would accept it and they would be on the air. Simple as that.

I thought the original idea was to purchase the stations and then broadcast on them. What happen to that plan?

[Shakespeare]

7. Do you know that they didn't have a business plan?

Quite an assumption. Having spent a little time in the radio business, I know that the red tape involved in buying a station is considerable, and it's something one cannot do quickly. They may, in fact, be planning to do this--I don't know. But it is undoubtedly cheaper for them--as well as faster--to purchase air time on an existing station. This is a completely sound business decision if one is dealing with a reputable party on the other side. From what I've seen of the court documents so far, and especially of the court's preliminary rulings to date, the stations' owner's actions are highly questionable. I think it's a bit premature to blame AAR's business plan for this one.

[Frodo]

16. Not a "completely sound business decision"

But remember that this isn't primarily a "business" (yet).

If you're paying stations to run your programming, you're an "infomercial" not a "radio network". But that's ok - they didn't seem to be in it for the quick profit. They are trying to blunt the effects of the conservative lock on talk radio.

Of course, I'm sure they hope/plan to turn a profit eventually.

As to the court's ruling, I'd like a link, because so far it looks like AAR screwed up.

[Shakespeare]

17. Please tell me how it's unsound.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to know upon what you base this statement, because I find no details at all in your answer to explain that.

I'm also not sure why you think the fact that they're leasing airtime somehow makes them "not a business." Their start-up approach may require them to be infomercial-esque (a novel and workable idea, if you ask me), but that doesn't really disqualify them from being a business. And they are, in fact, a radio network if one includes the internet and satellite broadcasts, for which ad time is being sold. So I find your quibbling definition of "network" a bit, oh, wrong.

Here's a link to AAR's petition for injunctive relief:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0414043air1.html

The judge ordered the Chicago station to put them back on the air (done after one day), and the decision on the Los Angeles station was pending last time I checked. In the meantime, however, as to gather no moss, AAR has a press release up noting a settlement with MCR, and new affiliates in Chicago and LA:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=resPressRelease&htmlId=725

Judging by the company info on their site, this seems to be their market strategy: buy time initially in major markets to gain visibility (smart by any measure), then gradually build a network (yes, network) of affiliates (note the difference between buying time and affiliate agreements) in other markets across the country--something they're clearly doing with measurable success if you're keeping count of the stations beginning to add their programming.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=resPressRelease&htmlId=667

[Frodo]

20. OK.

First let me say that "unsound" doesn't mean they can't ever turn a profit.

1) The "infomercial" approach is fine IF you are selling a product that actually pays for the advertising costs (you know, a "male enhancement" pill or a weight loss super-exercise machine that doubles as a chicken roaster).

2) Has it worked before? If it's a "sound business model" what evidence are we basing it on? There haven't been any successful national liberal SHOWS, let alone all-day schedules. I don't know if it's demographics or what, but there isn't an identified liberal radio audience large enough (at least we haven't demonstrated so with previous attempts).

3) Talent - with (I think) one exception, none of the headliners have experience in this kind of medium. Nothing wrong with Al Franken (he's entertaining as he11), but we've had several liberal lights of equal intellect snuffed out by this medium. If Mario Cuomo couldn't make it work, I'm not betting on a guy who's experience is in ten minute monologues.

4) The "they've all failed because they didn't try BIG enough" never sold with me. Big local failures translate to bigger national failures.


Now - None of this matters because, again, the purpose is to have a response to the conservative lock on the radio waves. To have a medium for getting out a message that would be suppressed in more "traditional" news outlets.

Supposedly, the "ditto" thing with Rush is not "I agree with what you say", but "It's so good to hear someone who agrees with me finally saying it" (or something to that effect). There are too many liberal out there who have never heard validation of their beliefs from daytime radio. Just knowing you aren't the only one out there makes people more comfortable speaking out.


As for the court case(s?). A temporary injunction would be expected once the bond was paid. You only have to show that you have a tiny tiny chance of winning in court to get that kind of order (because if you didn't get it, you would be irreparably harmed even IF you won a couple weeks later - It would be too late).

Even more disturbing to me is that they didn't even FILE a claim in CA (at least not that I've seen) and are now talking about when they will find a new station. Given what I said about how easy injunctive relief should be if you have any legal leg to stand on... I can only assume the worst.

[Lex]

24. That's a misstatement of the law.

You said "A temporary injunction would be expected once the bond was paid. You only have to show that you have a tiny tiny chance of winning in court to get that kind of order . . . ".

I believe that the standard is that you have to show that it is more likely than not that you will win on the merits. That is a MUCH higher standard than "tiny tiny chance" of winning on the merits.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[Frodo]

25. I don't think that's true.

It's a balance of the harm involved to each party. You don't NEED a temporary injunction unless one side would be hurt by the delay Even if they won.

"The purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable damage or change before the legal questions are determined. "

[Lex]

27. It's well documented what the standards are

for a TRO to issue.

(1) *substantial* likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;
(3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party;
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

Well established law.

Show those 4 things in a hearing for your TRO and you get your TRO.

Sorry, but "tiny tiny" doesn't factor into it.

[Frodo]

28. Check that again.

That's a "mandatory injunction"

must show (a) irreparable harm, (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and (c) a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.[

[Lex]

30. Uh, no. Sorry buddy.

One of the first things to pop up under a google search is ACLU v. Reno which sets out the standards for a TRO, as snipped below.

It pops up in different federal and state cases just this way too. It is an established legal standard.

---------------------------------------

To obtain a temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs must prove four elements: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) that less harm will result to the defendant if the TRO issues than to the plaintiffs if the TRO does not issue; and (4) that the public interest, if any, weighs in favor of plaintiff. See Drysdale v. Woerth, 1998 WL 647281, *1 (E.D. Pa.) (citing Pappan Enterprises, Inc. v. Hardees's Food Systems, Inc., 143 F.3d 800, 803 (3d Cir. 1998)). The plaintiffs need not prove their whole case to show a likelihood of success on the merits. If the balance of hardships tips in favor of plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs must only raise "'questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation.'" ACLU v. Reno I, 1996 WL 65464, *2 (E.D. Pa.)

http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/ACLU_v_Reno_II/HTML/19981120_tro_order.html

---------------------

[Frodo]

32. Here's a legal textbook answer.

In case "google" is the extent of your legal background.

To justify a temporary injunction it is not necessary that the plaintiff's right to a final decision, after a trial, be absolutely certain, wholly without doubt; if the other elements are present (i.e., the balance of hardships tips decidedly toward plaintiff), it will ordinarily be enough that plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground for litigation, and thus for more deliberate investigation.

And from "CyberLaw"

Injunctions

Often, a party to a lawsuit will ask the court to impose immediate relief ao as to prevent or cease an alleged harm from taking place or continuing to take place. An injunction is an order of the court barring the commission of an act or affirmatively compelling a person to act. Injunctions are often granted in cases concerning violation of intellectual property rights. Courts, upon a showing of a meritorious claim, will ordinarily issue an order compelling the offending party to cease his or her violation of the plaintiff's ownership rights. The injunction may be temporary (preliminary) or permanent. A temporary injunction, i.e., one that is issued pending the final determination of the litigation, may be granted when the court is given sufficient initial proof by affidavits that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in his or her lawsuit. The issuance is to prevent any further damage to the plaintiff pending a final outcome of the case at hand. A grant of preliminary injunctive relief if the moving party establishes "(a) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and (b) either (i) a likelihood of success on the merits or (ii) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor. Tom Doherty Assoc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 33 (2d Cir. 1995). At the cessation of a case, the court may issue a permanent injunction, which is an order barring a party thereafter from acting in a manner in violation of the plaintiff's rights.

In short - perhaps I took it too far with "tiny tiny", but the point is clear - the TRO does not imply that AAR was likely to win the case (or likely to lose), merely that they had a reasonable claim. It has been implied here that the mere fact of then being back on the air proves that the other guy broke the law. There has been no evidence either way.

[BostonTeaParty04]

8. Wow, you are really in the know......

the biz plan was in place. Talk to the judge who ordered immediate airing on those air waves.

It's pretty simple... AA needs to do business with someone else.... Multicultural will not serve in the longterm.

How were they to know that Multicultural dude was a crook and a jerk?

and the repukes probably induced that guy to screw things up....

[xray s]

2. poop

that's all I have to say

[SoCalDem]

3. Soros needs to start BUYING radio stations instead of

"renting" them.. Murdoch put out gazillions to BUY what he needed.. Then no one could tell him his stuff was shit, and make him take it off..

As long as our people have to "rent space", they are always a few "irate complaints" from being 86ed..

The Loma Linda station out here only has ONE show Franken.. and the 1580 Korean/Hispanic channel, I was never able to get..

They better be prepared to put out some real money and buy themselves some stations.. or sign long term leases..

[rooboy]

14. Rupert Murdoch inherited a media fortune...

and took a further 40 years or so to build it up. If AA was the same size as News Corporation, they probably could. But they're not.

[HereSince1628]

5. I own a hilltop halfway between Milw and Madison,

Why don't we put the pieces together?

I have the high point of an almighty drumlin that is among the highest points in a 12 mile radius... I have no problem with leasing the footprint for an antenna tower...

Any liberal entrepreneurs with a broadcast license out there? AM stations from Chicago can be heard there and FM stations broadcasting from Milwaukee (30 miles east) can be heard all the way into the western suburbs of Chicago.

[demdave]

6. Leasing the footprint for an antenna tower?

Why not donate the space? Someone else would have to pay for construction and utilities anyway. This id why this idea will NEVER get off the ground. Too many here see fit to tell Mr. Soros how to spend his money but never look to themselves.

[HereSince1628]

10. Unemployed...currently paying mortgage with 401K funds

If I owned it outright I'd donate the space.

As it is, I have administrative control--but only if I don't lose the land ...I never suggested making a profit.

Other comments repressed because I realize everyone can have a bad day.

[Catt03]

13. Your offer was generous

and someone out there should take advantage of it...and pay you for the lease.

[HereSince1628]

19. And I'm talking peanuts, really

I currently rent 55 acres of land for $2200 for an entire year--my rent is indexed to average milk prices for the last decade, not price gouging peaks...and I know I am a nice guy because I am in last place.

Not knowing how high an antennae may be, or far from the base the supporting cables may run and consequently interfere with farming operations, I am not in a position to make a guess at the cost...but it couldn't exceed $2200 and considering the costs of personalities, royalties for music etc, etc., I think what I am looking for would be trivial compared to other expenses.

[info being]

11. We aren't all billionaires.

[BostonTeaParty04]

9. oh, please save that spot for our future short wave radio action network!

I kid you not. In the worst case scenario... we will all need to turn to short wave to stay connected....without interference.

[HereSince1628]

12. Well, in the worst case scenario we need to broadcast from EU

or from several "off-shore" sites rather than Wisconsin.

In the worst case, the best I could do from Wisconsin is broadcast a beacon for parachute drops.

[BostonTeaParty04]

22. Well, I will let ya know if my little civie paratroopers need a beacon....

in Wisc...

Hopefully not. LOL

[never cry wolf]

15. I hope they find something soon

and a station with a stronger signal too! The signal here in the NW burbs sucks on 950. Liu can keep his shit channel, I listen streaming anyway cept when I'm in the car.

[Citizen Daryl]

18. If you think that's strange...

...look what they're getting into in Memphis. They've picked up a 50kw station, but look at the ownership:

http://www.wwcr.com/wmqm.html

[nolajazz]

21. AAR to Announce New Stations in Chicago and Los Angels Shortly

Here is the link:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=resPressRelease&htmlId=726

They reached a settlement with MultiCultural. They are also adding stations in Colorado, Florida (2 stations), Maine, Vermont, New York, and California (2 more stations)

[MissMarple]

34. Colorado Springs station KBZC 1300 AM. WOW!!!

It's owned by Citadel Communications which owns stations across the country including 5 in Colorado Springs. The CEO is apparently associated with Via com and CBS.

Poor Dr. Dobson is going to have another stroke if this gains ground here.

[rawstory]

23. restricted to registerers only

Can you try to post non-registered-restricted links as well, in the future?

Thanks!

[nolajazz]

26. Sorry, I did not notice that. Here is the press release

Press Release


Air America Radio to Announce New Stations in Chicago and Los Angeles Shortly

We are in discussions to broadcast Air America Radio on strong signal stations in Chicago and Los Angeles. We'll have an announcement on these developments shortly.

In addition, Air America Radio will continue to add stations around the country. In fact, in the three weeks since our launch, we already have added 11 stations.

...

[thebigidea]

31. yeah, heaven forbid we link to the NYTimes or the Washington Post here, eh

[booklearninboy]

29. My first thought when I heard about this...

...was that AirAm wanted the whole brouhaha to go away. Based on past performance, even if AA could make a new deal to broadcast on MCR's air, how would AA know that MCR would hold up their end? And look at how the idiot press played the story. Not "wow, this MCR guy must be a real piece of work, and look at how Drudge distorted the story"; but "Al Franken bounced a check, and it's another victory for that rakish rake Drudge." My very limited experience is that a suit could go on forever, cost you dearly, and in the end no matter what the merits of your case you could end up paying your opponent to go away. Bad press, bad faith, bad money--might as well get out now. Especially when there's no long-term benefit in continuing the relationship.

b

[gatlingforme]

33. that's too bad I enjoyed them while they were on

[Almost_there]

35. The problem with listening to streaming...

I listen to AAR streaming, since I am a whopping 27 miles from midtown Manhattan and the signal comes in crappy unless you wave your arms and use tin cans or something on the Antenna. But, the problem I have with listening streaming from the AAR website is that who is getting the Arbitron ratings? I know this is a bit silly, but, that's what makes or breaks things in the industry. The reason that Rush and Hannity are on hundreds of stations is that they get the ratings, which in turn gets the advertisers, which means dollars, and the advertisers make money, and so on.

So, we have got to get on some serious markets, and get some decent transmitters out there. If the ratings come in under .5's in most of the major markets, I can't see AAR lasting until the end of summer. Its a matter of money. If AAR truly "bounced a check" as thesmokinggun said, well, there are rough waters ahead.

I hope they can make it, and usually I am optimistic, but, in this one I agree with the fact that there hasn't been a successful nationwide Liberal talk SHOW let alone hours upon hours.. Maybe if Art Bell did overnight... lol.

~Almost

[demdave]

36. Don't laugh about Art Bell, you should have seen the thread about

"chem trails" the other day. :tinfoilhat:

[narcjen]

37. Could someone possibly be 'influencing' the owners,,

perhaps with some nice financial incentives, to throw up a few roadblocks for the budding newcomer?

Naahhh. Couldn't be.