ABC, REI respond to Air America blacklist memo
Responding to Media Matters for America's October 31 posting of an ABC Radio Networks memo indicating that nearly 100 ABC advertisers insist that their commercials be blacked out on Air America Radio affiliates, ABC provided Media Matters with a statement in which the company did not challenge the memo's authenticity but instead noted: "It is not uncommon for advertisers and/or agencies to request that their ads run or not run in specific programming environments or dayparts. ABC Radio Networks does not solicit nor encourage these requests from advertisers. If a request is made by an advertiser/and [sic] or agency we make our best effort to comply."
However, one of the advertisers included in ABC's list, REI, apparently claims it did not request that its ads not be aired during Air America programming. Several Media Matters readers have sent this response from REI, which reads, in part:
Today, an internal memo on ABC Network letterhead was posted on the Air America website and picked up by various blog sites. The memo lists companies that refused to have their radio advertising supporting Air America and Al Franken's programming. REI was listed as one of the companies declining to advertise; however this information is incorrect.
The memo posted on the internet is not correct. REI has not refused to advertise during Air America's programming. In fact, REI has placed radio ads on stations carrying Air America programming.
It is unfortunate that this misinformation has been widely distributed. We are currently working with our advertising agency and the ABC radio network to track down how this happened.
'volunteered' some of the advertizers to this list? It would not be the first time some autocratic hate-monering group ASSumed they knew what was best...
I'm working on a list of web addresses and phone numbers of these companies so we can use our freedom of expression to try to force them to end their blacklisting practices. I pride myself as a liberal AMERICAN, however, I feel neither side should be blacklisted.
As much as I hate the Limbaughs, Hannity's, and O'Reilly's, I also feel that if one only side's position is allowed to be heard, then there would be nothing that could stop that side from taking away ALL of our freedoms.
If we work together on this, we might change this practice. It all starts somewhere, and I'm starting NOW ! Post if you want to get onboard.
I'll write a letter to every one of those "blacklisters" on the memo. I am even going to call our local KTXX station in San Antonio to advertise my law firm when I leave the bench in January! keep me posted!
For the Path to 9/11 and its conspiracy to bring down Air America.
To be fair, nobody "brought down" Air America. If they had more listeners, they would be more attractive to advertisers and they would have stayed on the air.
There is no conspiracy, only a very poor business plan.
Sorry, it may have had a "flawed business plan" but there has to be something behind these memos? I tend to believe there is a conspiracy out there to limit progressive speech.
I dont have evidence , just a feeling.
I don't believe there is any conspiracy. I just think the right has figured out a way to get big ratings on talk radio, and the left hasn't yet. Is is the message, or the personalities, or the marketing, or the issues? I don't know, if I did I would be making tons of money as a Democratic media consultant for talk radio.
I listen to "progressive" talk radio once in awhile. Ever listen to Stephanie Miller, she is very funny even though very one-sided. I don't listen for information, rather entertainment. Which I suspect is why Rush has so many listeners too. Although he is way too full of himself for my tastes, and rarely if EVER, allows himself to be challenged. He's boring.
Look at it this way, Tommy. At least people around here now believe that AAR is in trouble or wasn't doing well. Previous to them filing for bankruptcy, you couldn't get anyone around here to acknowledge that there was even a problem with the network. Ratings were great, talent was great, stations were great, blah blah blah.
Now they're changing their tune a little bit at least. "AAR, the futures FOX News Channel". LOL
Good points. Someone from the DNC, or somewhere, just released those fresh off the burner talking points.
"Air America, as viable as FOX was during their inception.....slam AA, and you slam FOX!"
"Look at it this way, Tommy. At least people around here now believe that AAR is in trouble or wasn't doing well. Previous to them filing for bankruptcy, you couldn't get anyone around here to acknowledge that there was even a problem with the network."
--Who said Air America wasn’t having problems?
"Ratings were great, talent was great, stations were great, blah blah blah."
--The ratings are great in some markets and yet there is still a lack of advertising dollars.
Now they're changing their tune a little bit at least. "AAR, the futures FOX News Channel". LOL
--Fox News was a money losing operation for the first five years of its existence, but you had a person like Rupert Murdoch who was willing to lose half a billion dollars before Fox News turned a profit. Air America needs someone willing to lose potentially a half billion dollars.
Get your Hollywood liberal friends to fork over 500 million.....shouldn't be hard.
"Get your Hollywood liberal friends to fork over 500 million.....shouldn't be hard."
--It's harder than you think.
The wealth of the Hollywood liberals you guys hate so much can't hold a candle to the soulless conservative money machine that supports right wing lie media. Say what you will those money whorshippers got deep pockets. MOST of the Hollywood liberals fall into the money incidentally when we the public take a liking to them. Most of them would do dinner theatre or lounge sing for the love of their art. Besides I would much rather have those rich Hollywood Liberals use their money for charitable efforts to feed the starving people of the world.
A poster a couple of days ago stated the majority of Americans held liberal positions. Doing a little math, that means that if each of those contributed a mere $4/ea, AAR would easily have their $.5 Billion. Start a campaign, Lynn, the money should be a snap to raise. Even though I tend to be conservative, I would throw in $4.
We could follow the Repugnant plan, and just steal the money (@$300 billion so far, in only six years!) - but that is the difference between us: your con-pals steal as a matter of course, and of entitlement for being white and having inherited wealth; the poor, dumb, Dems actually appear to feel guilty about stealing from the public.
of the talent is great, at least the day-time line up is. Now of course that's my opinion but I stick by that assessment even if AAR went black tomorrow. I was a fan of the MSNBC’s Donahue show as well. They took the show off not because of lack of ratings but because they were suppressing dissenting voices. It impetus was political. If you judge by the assertions of most of the conservatives that post here most of America is right of center and Liberals are somehow defective because we don’t share the majority view. Now I don’t know if that’s true or maybe living in the Northeast clouds my perspective or at least it limits my exposure to the masses of conservatives that you say exist. I kind of think that the vast majority of Americans are actually moderate in their political views and this accounts for back and forth of voting patterns and the very close parity in votes garnered by the Democrats and Republicans. Every now and then one of the party’s gains a slight edge. But regardless of the validity of the consdervative majority it matters not to me. If every person in America got on television and professed their conservatism I would be the lone Liberal left in America of course unless all you mean conservatives forced me out of my country.
Your analysis of why AA didn't stay on the air has one little flaw...AA is still on the Air. And like most new businesses the early years are a struggle financially.
But they are technically bankrupt.
There is no technically about it. They filed for banruptcy. Ever read the business magazines. You would be surpirised at what a common practice this is for businessess. If you have any doubts ask Donald Trump how many times he has filed. Have you had the opportunity to read the stats on Fox's early days or MSNBC's or CNN's or any number of other media start-ups...you may be surprised at the $ amount they were losing.
Ok, let's agree that their viability in talk radio is about as paltry as it can get. Semantics aside, they are basically irrelevant and are showing no signs of reversing that trend.
If you think they will become like Fox News and in a few years dominate the talk airwaves, I would venture to say that is a pipedream.
What's the basis of your rational?
Do you know what Fox's numbers were in the first few years that they were on the air?
I think the number of listeners of progressive talk shows is increasing, that means they aren't irrelevant.
We are not talking about progressive talk, we are talking about Air America.
Fox would not have made it if Rush did not pave the way, so you have to look at the movement in totality not just one particular company, which did have a flawed business plan.
To be fair Rush's TV show failed one year before FOX made its debut. FOX had problems getting on the air because at the time the fees the cable companies were charging FOX to get on the air were enormous. FOX has been a success from a business point of view. I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we blast FOX when discussing Air America.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about Rush paving the way with his Radio Program and I never bashed FOX.
Again, what are you talking about?
I am sorry, I dont know what you are talking about and I never said you were bashing FOX. I simply said his TV show failed and FOX is TV not radio.
Other than that I have no idea what you are saying in reference to what I said.
Then let's move on to something else, because now I am confused!
Sounds like people are just laying out the facts. Fox mat be a success now but if you want to look at the issue realistically you have to look at the early days and the finacial downfalls they faced...I think that is all anyone is saying. It is not blasting Fox to point out that they had the same struggle as so many other new ventures face...including AA.
so I am not dreaming of anything...just talking from a business perspective. BTW, what signs are you referring to? I know several of their shows have rising ratings so I would say that is a sign that they do have potential to turn things around but who knows. It takes a combination of several factors to make a business a success...I am reserving judgment. But if it makes you happy to have that many less voices out there think what you want. I think it is a good thing to have both view points out there, so in that sense I don't wish to see an alternative voice fail...whether I agree with them or not. I guess some only want to hear people they agree with so they hope the other side will fail...they may get their wish, but I don't think the public as a whole will be better off for it.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I wanted a stifling of voices, where did you get that?
I think it's very sad that we don't have a viable, issue-driven, factually accurate alternative to Rush and the rest. What we don't need is more of him, just from the left. That serves nothing except enflaming the rhetoric even more. If that was AA's business plan, no wonder they failed.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth I specifically said "IF". Although I must say you often appear to be sarcastic and gloating about AA's misfortune so forgive me if I mistakenly believed your misrepresentation of the facts (e.g they are off the air) to imply you are cheering for AA to fail and leave the public with only one voice and posed the "if" statement in my post.
"But if it makes you happy to have that many less voices out there think what you want"
******************
This is nothing worth quibbling over, but if I had said that to you, your reaction would be the same.
As for chastizing me about MY sarcasm and gloating over anyone's misfortune - well, let's just say I am hardly alone or anywhere near the biggest culprit of that.
Not that tired excuse..."yeah but the other guy did a bad thing so i can do it too." So just curious, why would you gloat about AA's possible failure if not that you don't want an alternative voice out there?
It's not gloating.....it's more of a little rib sticking to the left on this site that sang AA's praises for so long. Can you blame me or anyone? Sarcasm is as much a part of these posts as anything, you know that.
Besides, you know I am all for healthy and substantive debate - I do it all the time here. So you know I am the last one who wants anyone silenced, the more thoughtful voices and discussion around, the better for everyone.
AA just tried to be the mirrored image of conservative talk radio and it's failing. Why? As I said, I have no idea.
It's not the mirror image of conservative talk. AA tells the truth and has opinions based on facts and logic.
"think it's very sad that we don't have a viable, issue-driven, factually accurate alternative to Rush and the rest. "
Like Rush is issue-driven or factually accurate.
I hope the left NEVER comes forward with any show that is comparable to Rush. Its part of the reason that American's are uninformed and factually incorrect on so many issues is because they buy into the garbage being offered on his show.
I don't get it Tommy, why is it Air America is as bad a Rush? For one thing AA has plenty of conservatives (Neal Boortz is a regular on Al Franken's program) unlike Rush who just has cons on. I will admit I do not listen to AA(other than an occasional listen to Al Franken) but although the people are biased they are a lot fairer than Rush.
I don't think I said AA was "as bad as Rush", if you're referring to my "mirrored" image comment - well, some of them, aka Randi Rhodes, were equally as offensive to some with her rhetoric. But to each his own.
As I've said, I have no idea why AA is failing. I don't they know either, so I certainly don't.
I would welcome a healthy substantive alternative to conservative talk radio, but I wouldn't listen a "left wing Rush", anymore than I listen to him - which is never. I have explained why.
...they have had money problems from the start when funds that investors said were there weren't there. It obviously started off badly as a business, not the first by the way, but that doesn't mean it won't succed after chapter 11 as it will be able to reorganize. The number of businesses that have done that in this country is huge. As someone who is so for the "free" market you should know this.
Yep. Several airlines are in bankruptcy right now. I guess it must be because people just don't want to fly places.
Many business survive bankruptcy and go on to be very successful.
Maybe we can fill the cabins of those bankrupt airlines with streaming audio of Air America..........that'll bring in the passengers and kill two birds with one stone.
you have a job to do? What is your occupation Tommy? I'm wondering how you have all of this time to add your insightful and witty comments?
Maybe you work for an Airline or Ford... Could explain why they're doing so poorly...
Most of the major airlines have filed for bankruptcy- so what? they get the federal government to bail them out. It's really pathetic how so many want to write of Air America as DOA. Why should anyone be afraid of free speech? And there are many many progressive voices screaming to be heard. Even getting "blacklisted" by major corps in the government's back and front pockets9 that should scare anyone who is a fan of the Constitution) Air America is surviving and hopefully soon will be thriving.
>>" If they had more listeners, they would be more attractive to advertisers..."<<
100 won't advertise because of progressive content & subsequent fear of administration/right-wing retribution---not because of a lack of listeners.
Perhaps Wal-Mart won't advertise because AAR bashes them on a regular basis.
Air America defends for unions, the middle class and workers' right and they deride corporations for outsourcing jobs. All of these threaten the corporate structure therefore little or no corporate support for the station.
Is there no end to the conspiracy theories running rampant in the minds of some liberals these days? From elections, to talk radio, to the media.......poor liberals, everyone is just out to get you.
Could this be contributing to the reason that many reasonable people are beginning to look at the left as nothing but incessant whiners who never take responsibility for their own failures?
Stop passing the buck and act like grown-ups and not bratty kids.
Then how do you explain the memos?
Outside of REI's contradiction, the only one so far, the other companies did not want their spots aired during Air America programming - their absolute right.
For whatever reason, they didn't feel it was the wisest outlet for their advertising dollars. No conspiracy. No muscled twisting of their arm. No threats. No ultimatums. Nothing.
Only freedom of companies to advertise where they choose. Perfectly acceptable.
(except for conspiracy-drunk liberals)
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but if you are trying to sell a product, you don't care who buys it.
So, there needs to be a better explanantion than they have a right to not advertise.
Companies also have images to protect. Of course they don't care who buys their products, however they are very concerned about who their products are associated with.
I agree, image is everything, I just don't see how AA presents any less of an image than FOX personalities or Rush.
In my opinion, I would agree with you completely. But I don't own the companies that made their decisions.
what is your explanation? Your so quick to dismiss everyone else with your comments, yet you offer no viable explanation.
Lets just wait a few days.. lets see who America is sick of when they vote.
Everything is a conspiracy if it is not in the best interest of these liberals.
But aren't you the one who, just below, suggests that this is all a conspiracy started by a liberal to start "Right Hate"?
The above was a bit of sarcasim. My below statement, I stand behind.
The above was a bit of sarcasim. My below statement, I stand behind.
I would have guessed other way 'round.
I really do admire Evillib's honesty, though. He apparently hasn't yet learned that it is easier to hide hypocrisy if you simply pick the best lie and stick with it. That is what most successful hypocrites do.
It seems Evil tried this, but 1. picked the wrong lie and 2. somehow thinks that being sarcastic means you really don't mean what you say or otherwise lessens its import.
When you lie, you have to remember things....
>>>Is there no end to the conspiracy theories running rampant in the minds of some liberals these days?...everyone is just out to get you. Stop passing the buck and act like grown-ups and not bratty kids."<<<
I didn't say anything about a "conspiracy". You put words in my mouth.
I didn't say "everyone was out to get liberals".
I didn't "pass the buck", I didn't act like a "bratty kid".
I said 100 advertisers refuse to advertise because of progressive content and fear of retribution. If you'd care to agree or rebut, do so. But you might try doing it with a fact or two instead of immature insults and recycled, straw man arguments. For once.
I don't argue against whiners who constantly throw up conspiracy fright theories for lack of responsibility.
Stop with that silly tactic and you might get a reasonable response. Otherwise, find a fellow leftist and throw a conspiracy party, just don't tell people where it is or the boogeyman might show up and get all of you.
>>>"I don't argue against whiners who constantly throw up conspiracy fright theories for lack of responsibility."<<<
Again, it's YOU, Tommy, who brought up "conspiracy". As a straw man tactic. I never said conspiracy or implied conspiracy. Pretend you don't know that. But you do.
I said 100 advertisers as listed won't associate with Air America because they are afraid of retribution from right-wingers and this administration. Not because of a lack of listeners.
You obviously have no cogent argument. That's why you won't or can't argue responsibly or maturely.
"I said 100 advertisers as listed won't associate with Air America because they are afraid of retribution from right-wingers and this administration".
************************
Ahhh, if that statement of yours doesn't imply there is a conspiracy by the "right wingers" of retributions (another conspiracy code word), then nothing does.
Come on Dave, you can parse words all you want. You know exactly what you implied, it's right here in black and white. Indignant denial means nothing, it just demeans your credibility.
So, I tell you again, it is a waste of time to argue with someone who baselessly throws up these charges with absoultely no factual backup? Do you have any? Do you have any proof that AA is afraid of such retribution? No, you don't. That's the point. You blabber on about conspiracies, or whatever you want to call them, with no proof.
If you have proof of your allegations, bring them on in detail. Otherwise, you're the bombthrower whose running away.
Tommy,
How is it that you can state:
"Ahhh, if that statement of yours doesn't imply there is a conspiracy by the "right wingers" of retributions (another conspiracy code word), then nothing does."
to validate your argument to say he/she is a 'liberal' conspiracy theorist yet when someone brings up the your 'implied' comments about stifling a leftist radio station, they're putting words in your mouth as you clearly are doing in the above statement.
Why are you acting like such an ass today?
Really? Are you asking the same of your fellow liberals here? I am simply stating my opinions, if you don't agree, fine. Calling me an ass is name calling, something you chastize me on.
???
Lynn's sentiment
Didn't you hear Janeane Garofalo's hilarious Halloween impression of Katherine Harris? Pricelessssss.
I would have to agree that Air America was a failed business venture. Americans dont want to hear one side all day on the radio. Al Frankens show would have done alot better syndicated then on a network with a poor business plan. I know some of you will say what about FOX? But FOX does have other shows and covers the spectrum of the news including entertainment and sports, weather, gossip.
Air America is strickly Republican Bashing all day and its not healthy.
...because that doesn't explain Limbaugh who bashes liberals and Democrats all day long and is strictly partisan and one sided.
Oh and he lies and misleads a great deal as well.
But the stations he is on do not air 24 hour a day anti Liberal shows.
Big difference.
The station that plays Rush where I am from does exactly that...it is all right wing talk.
There are two main AM stations in Atlanta where you can get conservative talk nearly all day.
I think AA being missing from ATL is a disservice to the conservative stations as well. I am sure there are others like me that used to listen to AA on AM radio and then flipped around to hear what the conservatives had to say. I don't even listen to AM radio anymore since the affiliate here was bought out and changed formats.
I couldn't agree more.
The same could be said for searching out different media watchdog websites to see what the liberals and conservatives are saying and the validity of their arguments. Everybody should be doing that, it serves nobody's intellect or sense of fairness to only have your own opinion reinforced and applauded. Challenge and reasonable debate are healthy.
>>>"Air America is strickly Republican Bashing all day and its not healthy.
There is nothing more healthy for a free, open, First Amendment-respecting country than to allow open debate and criticism of those in power. If you don't like it and can't stomach the "bashing" of your favorite right-wing candidates, you're perfectly free to tune your dial to Limbaugh, Medved or any one of hundreds of Democrat-bashing tv and radio shows.
Fox News lost millions in its first five years on the air. (If it had more viewers during that time, it wouldn't have. Right, Tommy?) The problem isn't that it's losing money, the problem is that it doesn't have a partisan sugar daddy like Rupert Murdock, Sun Myung Moon, or Richard Mellon Scaif willing to lose millions until the audience finds them. If George Soros really were supporting AA, they wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy. And variety has nothing to do with success. There are lots of stations that feature Democrat bashing all day long.
I posted the REI email message that I received on the Media Matters Blog yesterday. Is someone at MM diligently following up on the rest of the list today? I sure hope so!
...as the title implies.
I get my news from Foreign Media outlets, and the news I do see from within the States is always taken with a grain of salt.
Media Corporations know who butters their bread, and it's the Republicans, so obviously they have a conservative bias (not the individually journalists, just the credo of how the news corporations are run).
who fabricated this list? I feel the conspiracy lies in a Liberal. I have a feeling a liberal fabricated this list to start a bunch of Right Hate. That is just my opinion.
And this whole John Kerry flap - he is just a tool of Karl Rove to first get people mad at Kerry, and then turn it around and get people mad at Republicans, and turn it around to get them mad at Democrats again............ouch.
This is all just a conspiracy, I just know it!!! (headache)
"I want to know
who fabricated this list? I feel the conspiracy lies in a Liberal. I have a feeling a liberal fabricated this list to start a bunch of Right Hate. That is just my opinion."
...Probably the same liberals who convinced 16-year pages to lure Foley into sending and recieving 'simply naughty' instant messages.
Faux News didn't just lose money their first 5 years, they actually PAID cable and sat. operators to carry the channel.
I am sure if AAR had Murdoch's (or anyone else's) money to burn like that, they'd be more successful than they already have been (and they are more successful than people like Tommy give them credit for... Look at the ratings against their right wing counter parts).
Yesterday I spent most of my day off sending e-mails to thirty-three of the one hundred companies ABC Radio's blacklist stating my disdain for their actions. I realize they appear to be caught in the middle and are only the messenger, or lack there of. I also realize the airways all news agencies broadcast from are licensed by the government for free, therefore an extension of that same government I pay my taxes to. That said,they have a responsibility to not only me, but all Americans to do the right thing and refuse such request by advertising firms. What ABC Radio had done is tantamount to payola (in reverse) which is illegal.
Rather than continue to write e-mails to companies that do not care about my blacklisting them, I am going to start a letter writing campaign to those politicians who are now courting my vote in this election season to stop this practice.
Due to legislation allowing all the consolidation of all the news outlets, our news is so filtered as to not upset anyone it reflects little more than lies and promulgates this type of practice. Left unchecked, this practice would kill all opposing voices. My voice is just as important as President Bush's and with God's help it will be in the future.
I hate to break this to you, but most of the companies on that list requested the blackout due to reasons other than conservative intimidation. That is, there is no conspiracy. I did some checking, and very few of the companies listed withheld advertising from AAR while still supporting conservative radio shows. It appears that most simply want to avoid controversy and maximize their profits. In other words, their request for an advertising blackout was a business, rather than political, decision.
Here's the text of a post I put up yesterday on the other thread:
Also, you might want to re-read the memo. The companies liste requested the blackout from ABC, not the other way around. In this memo, ABC is simply acting on the wishes of its clients. Simply put, ABC didn't "do" anything except communicate their sponsors' wishes to their affiliates.
It's perfectly understandable to be concerned, but we should do our best not to come unhinged at the slightest hint of a whisper of a conspiracy.
Is MM going to follow-up with this story by contacting all the companies mentioned on the "blacklist" to find out what their responses are? I was one of the MM readers who followed-up with REI. Can MM find out if REI makes good on their "proof?" If MM wants to be a media watchdog, then please do the j0urnalistic "leg-work" on this story please. The commentary here is spinning around and more than slightly missing the point of corporate control of media sources. We have readers and posters commenting on bankruptcy, business plans, and politics--mostly. Can we get back to a more dispasionate discussion about journalism?
By the guy with multiple screen names who spammed this site over the last couple of days with multiple posts about one company, REI, who says that they do not participate in this ban.
Now he is spamming the site with multiple requests to Media Matters (guess what - there's a Contact us link at the bottom of every page so you can actually send a request to Media Matters) to investigate if every company actually does subscribe to this list.
If he thinks that this is an important thing to do, then one would think that he would contact all those companies.
I bet he has. I bet he found out that REI was the only company that responded the way that he wanted to see, a denial, and that's why he repeatedly posted that same message using multiple screen names. That's why he is now posting that the research needs to be done, because he wants to implant the seed that this list is not valid.
The list might not be valid, but until we get more evidence, we have the list to go on. Until we get proof from those trying to disprove this list, then it's all we got. If this poster wants to disprove this list, he can. If he wants Media Matters to investigate this list, then he can Contact them, instead of posting that 'request' here. If he wants to smear Air America and Media Matters, he will continue doing what he is doing instead of doing things that would be effective.
Everyone should notice how he ends his message. He says that we should move on, that's there's nothing to see here. How many rightwing trolls send us that same message over and over again!?
Air America was started by a Republican operative. It was originally designed to fail spectacularly and to prove that America doesn't want to hear what liberals have to say.
It would have worked too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids with their streaming, podcasts and satellite radios.
I can't join a boycott of the companies on the AAR blackout list -- I'm already boycotting every single one of those companies for one thing or another already -- with the exception of REI! I will join in the call for good riddance from bad corporate will. We don't need to patronize such stinking moral losers.
Dave
After seeing BofA on the list, I contacted them with a complaint. Today, I received the following e-mail response in which they denied restricting their advertising. Something's fishy about the ABC memo:
Dear Jeanne M. Scott,
Thank you for your inquiry dated 10/31/06 regarding advertising on Air America.
Please be advised that we have not participated in the memo referenced by the Media Matters for America website. Bank of America does not buy national radio advertising, except for XM Satellite Radio because of its coverage of baseball.
We also approach our advertising in such a way that we remain nonpartisan and non-controversial to reach a broad range of diverse customers.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact us again by e-mail. Thank you for choosing Bank of America.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Ringler Bank of America
What sells is a steady diet of bombast,lies and hate in no particular order.Rightwing radio succeeds because it panders to its fans most base instincts. Although a mindlessly simple formula,it sells like freedom fries.
Left wingers may like to listen to fm and cd's more than those on the right. Hence, as a group they don't listen to talk radio.
That might explain a lot! :-)
As far as the memo from ABC being fishy; OF COURSE it is!!! However what is funny is they BACKED it. BACKED IT! Now we need to see the written requests from these Co.'s to ABC 'KuZ as I see it, ABC is calling their clients LIARS and putting words in their mouths. ....and if ABC doesn't come up with the goods? Wellllll..... It looks like AAR will have a money war chest after all.
ABC.
Dear sir,
I am a fairly regular visitor to "Media Matters for America". They have posted a memo/list of companies with your letterhead on it claiming to have requested that you do not place their ad during Air America content. [link to www.fair.org] [link to mediamatters.org]
It is a list of over 80 or so companies including Microsoft and Sony. You later sent "Media Matters for America" conformation concerning the blacklist by saying:
"It is not uncommon for advertisers and/or agencies to request that their ads run or not run in specific programming environments or dayparts. ABC Radio Networks does not solicit nor encourage these requests from advertisers. If a request is made by an advertiser/and [sic] or agency we make our best effort to comply."
In other words you seem to back the authenticity of the blacklist.
Strangely, two companies so far has denied this request: REI and Bank of America. [link to mediamatters.org]
My question to you is this: Will ABC be able to produce these requests from REI and B of A in written form when asked?
Thank you.
_____________________________
Here is their reply:
"Thank you for contacting ABC Radio Networks Customer Service. We are currently unavailable. If you have a technical problem or you need immediate assistance, call ABC Technical Services at 212-456-5000. For all other requests or information, affiliates can log on to www.abcradionetworks.com."
Too funny.
Thanks to all of you who are following up with this. It is indeed scary if it is true, but the fact that REI has spoken up saying they are not participating in such a ban is refreshing. Hopefully this isn't something made up to rile up fans of Air America.
Truth is, even if it is true, companies do have a right to pay for certain time slots and not for others. And it is not illegal for companies to dictate and pay for which time slots their commercials are aired. This really comes down to large corporations dictating to what radio, television channels and shows the general listen by not advertising during those times. When large companies control the airwaves in this manner it becomes fascism.
Thank you to those who are looking into this. Whether this is true or not, we're fooling ourselves to think it never or rarely happens and should be flooding these companies with letters, emails and phone calls so they know we actually care.
We need to hear from these companies and we need to ask them "what's up". Can you believe REI would request not to be in time slots durring AAR? Could you imagine REI not wanting to be in say, ECO TALK!? GeeeeeZz! Autodesk advertises in it! (Support AutoDesk! Makers of 3D Studio MAX and Maya!!! They support our freedom!)
It's crazy. ABC is just-like-Fox.
AIR AMERICA LET THE BEST ONE ON THE AIR GO,Mike Malloy.I will never support them again. My MONEY will go to NOVA radio. That's where M.Malloy is now.