Wealthy liberals refused to invest in AAR and other ventures.

[madfloridian]

Too Little, Too Late

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1678/

SNIP.."In a new book, Road to Air America, Sheldon Drobny, one of the network’s founders, describes his frustrating appeals to East and West Coast “limousine liberals” who didn’t want to engage in the project. I have encountered similar rebuffs dating back to the early ’90s, after my experiences as a mainstream investigative journalist for the Associated Press and Newsweek convinced me that the biggest threat to American democracy was the growing imbalance in the national news media.

Yet even as conservative foundations were pouring tens of millions of dollars into building hard-edged conservative media outlets, liberal foundations kept repeating the refrain: “We don’t do media.” One key liberal foundation explicitly forbade even submitting funding requests that related to media projects. (Who was this?)

What I saw on the left during this pivotal period was an ostrich-like avoidance of the growing threat from the right’s rapidly developing news media infrastructure....."

SNIP..."As the liberals stayed on the sidelines in the ’80s and ’90s, the conservative media gained powerful momentum from foreign sources of money, particularly from South Korean theocrat Sun Myung Moon and Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Moon alone invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Washington Times and other conservative outlets, while gaining protection for his dubious money operations from Republican defenders inside the U.S. government...." (Please note how often the Times is now quoted here, usually considered a good source, owned by Rev. Moon.)

[DireStrike]

1. What the hell?

...? Someone needs to explain this.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Some of these people...

Will undoubtedly be taking a look at their portfolios and positioning in the days ahead.

[ReadTomPaine]

16. Let's hope it's not too late.

[Crunchy Frog]

Our side

is still living in the age of stone knives and bear skins. I hope we get a clue soon.

[Kipepeo]

3. Lakoff touched on this in

"Don't Think of an Elephant."

Liberals tend to give money where it will immediately benefit people in need...to organizations that serve a specific purpose, like helping shelter the homeless, finding a cure for AIDS, or protecting redwoods, etc.

All very good and it makes sense that we give more money to specific causes considering that liberals, well, want to help people. BUT it means we are not putting our money into long-term solutions like into liberal think-tanks, liberal media, liberal institutions.

This is where the conservatives put their money and it's paid off. They practically own the media now, they invest in their intellectuals, and in framing the debate. Hell, they are opening law schools for conservatives, specifically for the purpose of churning out conservative lawyers who will fight for a radical right-wing agenda. Falwell is setting one up right now.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

5. Rich liberals don't want real change

That is why they push the social liberalism agenda of the present Democratic party. Real change means economic liberalism. Very very few upper income types want that. That is why they do not invest in liberal media. They do not want what it would give.

[Kipepeo]

6. I don't necessarily think that's true

I think liberals just function more in wanting to see immediate benefits from their donations.

Even working class and middle class liberals probably tend to give their money more to charitable organizations and organizations with a specific focus (like choice, redwoods, breast cancer, etc.) than to a think-tank for example, or a liberal radio station.

I think that has been shifting though during this past election cycle, when we saw how much money we could raise through the internet from enough of us regular folks.

[mitchum]

26. You are very correct

[ReadTomPaine]

15. Good points and I agree...

I think I'd like to read Lakoff's book.

RTP

[Kipepeo]

17. It's the best book I've read all year

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931498717/qid=1100210603/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-9386772-8955357?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

And a very quick read at that.

:)

[sandnsea]

4. Perhaps, liberals don't do propaganda

I can see where liberals wouldn't find it appropriate to create propaganda machines. I can see where alot of liberals would even find Air America distasteful, media should be objective, seek the truth, present all views. Of course, we don't live in that world anymore, but I don't have a problem with the people who understand we should. Just glad there are others who are a little more realistic.

[madfloridian]

7. But but,....nevermind.

Whatever the heck you say. But sure we do propaganda...all the time.

[sandnsea]

8. Propaganda machine?

Really? Name the liberal propaganda machines of the 80's and 90's.

[regnaD kciN]

46. We just don't do it very well...

:-(

[ProfessorGAC]

12. They Should Rethink That Position

That's just naivete! It's not logical and it's not noble. It's just blindly silly for them to think that it's necessary to be propagandistic by telling the news from a different POV. If one has a liberal POV, it's ok, as long as it's honest.

Faux is not honest! They claim to be "fair & balanced" when there are stalks of celery smart enough to know that's not true. NOW, it's propaganda.

AAR isn't propaganda. They make no excuses for, and do not hide what they are.

Any limo liberal who think they stay above the fray by not fighting back is a rich little twit.
The Professor

[Iris]

21. I know what you mean.

When I listen to AAR, I feel like if I couldn't understand English, I wouldn't know the difference between it and a RW radio talk show.

[ReadTomPaine]

9. Purse-strings, Progressives and Politics

Have you ever stopped for a moment and wondered why Democratic Underground is so very popular? Why it seems so very central to grass-roots progressive Democratic activism? Have you noticed how often the truly active, vital liberal movements and causes have to pass a hat around and beg for money when they are fighting for things that seem so critically important to our future?

If you want an answer and a slap in the face at the same time, just try to get a job on the inside of the party or at a mainstream Democratic organization.

Are you a renowned writer? I don’t care, sweep the floor.
Are you a talented photographer? Too bad, work the phones.
Do you shoot film and write music? That’s nice, go and get us lunch.
Are you a ballsy young journalist with a sharp eye for news? Interesting. Go and make these copies.

Yes, it really is that bad and they expect you to work for free even though we raise more money than they do.

When the conservative movement sees an outspoken, effective messenger in their midst, they’re embraced immediately. In many cases they don’t even have to *ask* they are approached and made an offer. A place is made for them. They are given a chance to use their abilities for the benefit of the GOP’s goals and, this is most critical, they are *rewarded* with a comfortable salary and plenty of options. Those who do well are given an immediate career path upwards. Not surprisingly, it’s become quite popular, even for moderates, to take that route. Why? Because it’s a *viable* one. It’s not a lifestyle hit, it’s an upgrade. There is an unending line of effective communicators all of whom are pro GOP in some way or another.

Now where exactly, is the liberal progressive counterpart to this?

Why does William Pitt eat Spaghetti-O’s?

Simply put, every talented liberal with skills to contribute to the Democratic message should have a comfortable, secure job from a party-related source if they desire one. It should be *profitable* to be a liberal, not a sacrifice. We shouldn’t have to go lone-wolf or beg for money, it’s a stinging humiliation that we have to do so when so many of us are tremendously wealthy. It hurts the party very badly.

Conservatives pump money into their causes like they are paying tithes, and it shows. Our funding tends to go upwards. Can you image what loyalty it would inspire among the rank-in-file if outspoken, talented communicators could put their kids through college making our message? It would transform the party, and maybe that’s the problem. We are shut out. Donna Brazile gets the check, and uses it to go have dinner with Karl Rove. They don’t eat pasta out of can.

RTP

[IrateCitizen]

11. Will Pitt does not eat Spaghetti-O's out of a can...

He lives off a steady diet of Guinness and Marlboro Lights. With the occasional tequila chaser thrown in....

[sandnsea]

13. They didn't ask you?

:cry: I know alot of people who were plucked out of volunteer status to go to work in the Kerry campaign. In fact, Michael Meehan started out as Kerry's driver many years ago. The philosophy of the orignal Kerry campaigners was "don't ask anybody else to do something you're not willing to do yourself", including phoning, stuffing envelopes, what have you. Everybody can't be a star, the grunt work is critical and to be respected. Not to say every single person started as a volunteer, or that some politics went on too. But your statements are overly broad and just aren't based on reality.

[ReadTomPaine]

14. That's good to hear, but it's a drop in the ocean and just for elections

.. this should be institutional, not just when they want to win a seat. This should be SOP. I'm not saying the gruntwork isn't important, but that's *all* many talented people are asked to do. Their talents are more often than not ignored. Why *not* let them use these talents? What do we have to lose? Look how much there is left to be gained!

RTP

[Kipepeo]

18. lack of funding for think tanks

I think what he's talking about goes back to our lack of funding (until recently) for liberal think tanks and institutions that exist solely for shaping our message and getting it out there.

The right wing grooms it's young conservatives. They help them publish, they help them find jobs, they book them on cable news shows, they put them out there because by putting them out there they are putting their message out there.

Take a look at the Heritage Foundation's website (shudder): http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

[ReadTomPaine]

20. Exactly, there's so little of this on our side...

.. that it's shocking we have any sort of traction with our message at all.

RTP

[sandnsea]

22. That is true

People could list their gripes a little better perhaps. Also, people are working on that problem as we speak. Including that dastardly elitist, John Kerry.

[Kipepeo]

23. I don't think he's a dastardly elitist

A dashing one perhaps...

:) only kidding.

Yeah, I do think we are working on this now. And I have very high hopes for the Rockridge Institute: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ and for the Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.8473/

just for 2 examples. I think if there is a silver lining to this theft of a 2nd election it might be that we change our infrastructure.

[ReadTomPaine]

25. This isn't about Kerry or his campaign.. it's about party infrastructure.

I think John Kerry was a big part of the solution, particularly regarding donations. Your words about his campaign are inspiring. One thing for certain is that he and especially John Edwards aren't elitists. They are very pragmatic, down to earth people.

But this doesn't change the fact that the Democratic Party and its most influential institutions have an archaic infrastructure that is exclusive and hostile to outsider talent. People have to go it alone. It's been this way for a long time and the GOP have a lead of 20-30 *years* on us. I don't see how anyone can even argue this issue or consider it griping. It would be a tremendous asset to progressive politics. I'm glad that you agree, as we largely have the same view on this issue and we certainly have the same goal.

RTP

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

32. think tanks are for REAL change. The rich liberal does not want that!

The conservatives and mega corporations used the rightwing machine (think tanks, foundations) to move America to the right and drop taxes and drop trade barriers, weaken unions, increase exploitable immigraton, weaken the social safety net, and all the other bad things. That was REAL CHANGE. And they could not have gotten that kind of change without that machine.

But the democrats (the party and the activists) have redefined liberalism to include just social issues (gay and gender and minority rights, abortion, guns, religion). ECONOMIC issues have been relegated to a side show. When did Kerry (or any other leading democrat) explain to the voters that he wanted PROGRESSIVE TAXATION? Progressive taxation used to be the a major core of the DEmocratic party! When did he say that he wanted to protect jobs and explain why and how, in more than just a nominal way? THe democrats just pay lip service to core economic issues. And that is why they lost. Not because of vote tampering. But because at the top, the Democrats and their rich backers actually agree with the GOP on most of its agenda. And they have willingly gone along with restricting the domestic debate to gay and gender and minority rights, abortion, guns, and religion.

[lostnfound]

30. Conservatives pump money in because they get payback.

Conservatives get immediate personal paybacks -- capital gains cuts, huge contracts for their companies which yield huge bonuses for their executives and/or stock gains for their shareholders.

[Kurovski]

31. ReadTomPaine,

this would make an excellent article. I encourage you to expand on this.

David Brock's excellent book, The Republican Noise Machine, reveals how the Republican Party nurtures and rewards their messengers.

[m berst]

35. very true

I am too frustrated and angry about this to answer in detail right now. Memories from 35 years of being dismissed and marginalized and half-starved to death by my supposed comrades are just washing over me now. They were all to busy pursuing the liberal version of the Reagan suburban lifestyle, and activism just wasn't fashionable. Anyone fighting on the front lines was seen as a "loser" by the socially striving middle class liberals, which of course was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Or we were told that we were "idealistic" as though that were an insult.

Thanks for writing this.

[Book Lover]

37. I hope Elizabeth Edwards comes by and reads this! (nm)

[high density]

10. Air America is doing great but they have a lot of work

ahead of them...

[ReadTomPaine]

19. Kick

[Eric J in MN]

24. If someone told you he was starting another liberal radio

network, would you promptly write him a big check?

If not, how can you fault people who didn't write big checks to start Air America Radio?

[ReadTomPaine]

28. Of course I would! Most of the people here would.

And that is why we find fault with them, esp those of us with far less than the people they were asking. People here often sacrifice a lot to be progressives.

RTP

[Iris]

27. Thye're all dumb asses! eom

[MattNC]

29. i wouldn't have invested in AAR

given the business model they used initially.

[PrpgndBrdcstingSystm]

34. AAR would not help anyway. AAR is not interested in core economic issues

From what I have heard of them, all they are interested in is typical wedge political issues, i.e., gay and gender and minority rights, abortion, guns, religion. And the war, which is a good issue. Other than that, they just concentrate on horse race issues and demonizing the GOP and its politicians. Maybe if AAR could actually discuss the rationale and the reasoning concerning WHY high taxes on the rich are good, then they could be of some use. Look at the rightwing machine--they provide a backdrop for their economic agenda. THey explain why low taxes are better. They explain why free trade is better. And so forth. Of course, they lie and their studies and bought and paid for. And they never explain why Sweden has a higher standard of living than America. But they neither does AAR. Nope, they just concentrate on gay and gender and minority rights, abortion, guns, religion and GOP demonization and campaign horseracing.

[not fooled]

42. so why does AAR have Krugman, David Kay Johnston???

Not true that AAR ignores economic topics. Franken's show in particular gives a notable amount of coverage to guests and topics dealing with finance and taxation.

For example, until Krugman went on sabbatical, he was on Franken almost every week, exposing the inequities of * economic policies. And, just this week, Johnston, the author of "Perfectly Legal", was interviewed at length, discussing the fallout of a second * term on tax policy and income distribution.



"MANDATE" MY ASS

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[SoCalDem]

44. It took a long time to get where we ARE

and it will take a long time to get where THEY are.. and tons of money.. They bought up all the cheap stuff already, and they don;t plan on selling any of it.. They will prop up loser stations with drivel, so the left cannot buy it.

The Moonie Times has bogus subscription numbers (most copies are GIVEN away in DC) and they have NEVER made a penny of profit.. They LOSE money every year, yet c-span and other venues use them as if they were the NYT.. They BOUGHT legitimacy...

Do you think that people are clamoring to buy the crap that is advertised on Liimbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, North, SavageWeiner??

If those stations do not make a profit, you can be sure they have a way to "write it off". They are there solely as propaganda vehicles of the right..

AAR is a start, but it alone cannot compete and overcome the headstart..

[PretzelWarrior]

33. NO wonder we suck. If we don't get our money people to

give up the bones to make inroads in the media universe....I don't see how we'll win. ever.

[Democat]

36. It's great when people on our side call people “limousine liberals”

Isn't that something better left to Bill O'Reilly?

[ReadTomPaine]

39. That expression irks me as well.

[ReadTomPaine]

38. Kick

[Forkboy]

40. I got mine!

screw the rest,eh?

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. Yeah. :^(

------------------------------------------------------
Fight the fraud; fund the recount!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[ReadTomPaine]

43. Kick

[KharmaTrain]

45. I Posted About This Months Ago...

There's more to the story, you're hearing the Drobny's side.

There was a lot of other games that went on as well...and demands of willing donors and station owners that drove them away and almost destroyed the whole venture.

AAR's still only a partial success as there are no local stations that the network controls outside of New York and has burned a lot of bridges with the radio community.

There's a tremendous need for Progressive & Liberal talk, and a new generation of talkers, station owners and operators. That's what the left did in the 60's and early 70's, then the right did in the 80's and 90's.

Good luck to all