I have just learned a Air America Affiliate has been sold to a Christian Broadcasting group. It is rumored that they will kill AAR from that station in Phoenix, even though AAR rating have increased that stations listenership dramatically. I believe the control of the media/delivery system is as old as the oldest profession. Control of the message is being bought by the wealthy and those who do not have to pay taxes. Religious groups that are now a major owner of the media are not burdened with paying taxes.. A Study by the Industrial College of the Armed Forces Industry Studies 2001 stated the two following statements :
Armed Forces College

link
Phoenix Air America Affiliate Sold to Christian Broadcasting Group
by Zelph
Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 07:38:07 PM PDT


AAR
AIR AMERICA RADIO RECEIVES BOOST IN RATINGS
Statement:
Spring Book ’05 Shows Significant Success;
Network Affiliate Base Jumps from 1.3 Million Listeners to 3.1 Million Within One Year

link


1 Is the consolidation of the media a good thing for the american public/democracy?
2 Do non tax paying religious entities an advantage to media ownership?
3 Is democracy based on good distribution of information through the media?

1. It seems clear to me that the less consolidation of the media, the better it is for everybody. Unfortunately, since the media are part of the world of business, the trend is always for the big fish to swallow the little fish. The FCC will have the final say on how far this is allowed to go.

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)

That scares me, whether the company is Left, Right, or Center.

2. Well, not having to pay taxes is always an advantage, of course. Personally, I have no objection to religious organizations having a tax-free status. The responsibility that comes with that is that these religious organizations stay out of partisan politics. Certainly, it's inevitable that religious opinions are going to overlap with political opinions to some extent, and religious broadcasters should be free to offer their opinions on issues where the two meet. However, a very close watch should be kept on religious broadcasters to ensure that they do not wander away from theological discussions into purely political areas.

For example, I think it's a scandal that the Christian Broadcasting Network, whose primary function is to offer the world the peculiar political opinions of Pat Robertson, retains its tax-free status.

Link



(The fact that the CBN also does some genuine charity work doesn't alter the fact that it is primarily a political organization.)

Again, I would oppose such things from the Left or Right. It just happens to be a fact that religious broadcasting in the United States is strongly associated with very conservative politics.

3. I'm not sure if I would say "based," but certainly the media play a key role in any form of government. Repressive governments can't allow a free press to exist. The more voices of all types we hear, the better we are. Much has been said about news blogs and other emerging media as a source of such voices, but I have yet to see these have the powerful influence of the traditional mass media.

Yeah, it's technically a 'dramatic increase' in listeners, it isn't exactly the 267% AAR's press release would have you believe. They bought a station with essentially a zero rating and it went up.

According to the latest latest arbitron ratings, this station was doing so-so. Note these are quarterly books - fall 04 through summer 05. I don't know how to do tables, but basically, the leading conservative talk station KFYI (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) has a 5.3 rating for adults 12+. The apolitical / sorta conservative talker KTAR (Tony Snow, news) has a 4.6 rating.



I guess the question for you is - Why don't you believe that the owners of KXXT-AM have the right to sell their radio station? What if they wanted to sell it to a salsa music network - would that be OK?

As long as AAR is operating with 1 ratings in the fringe spectrum of AM radio, they are going to have big challenges in keeping their station roster. If and when their ratings increase and if they ever get their finances together, they may be able to build a more stable network. Right now, they are running fund raisers like NPR, which is pretty embarassing for a for-profit enterprise.

first I noticed you did not post all the radio stations, there were what now 20 below AAR ratings. IE 20 that are not doing as well as AAR.

Next the most striking bit of data that is obvious to me an Engineer that gets paid for analyzing numbers is several things. First it looks like many of the news talk shows listed in Phoenix market including your Rush station has dropped in listener ship in the arbitron ratings you posted as well as almost every other station with just a few exceptions like a few rock, one nostalgia and a few Spanish ones. AAR GAINED THE Most SIGNIFICANT RATINGS gains of all that were listed.... and again Rush station dropped during the same time.

Now with your link it shows there were are 20 stations or so that are lower and probably could be purchased for less if these numbers are what determines station value.

Next you have not proven you statement that they did not grow by 267% did you. They said from spring 2004 to spring 2005. Your listings did not show spring 2004 to spring 2005 did they. I await your proof or retraction of your apparently false conclusion.


I am not sure what you are saying when you say "They bought a station with essentially a zero rating and it went up." From what I understand AAR did not buy the stations, they have a deal with the station to air their programming.

Secondly with that statement you are admitting the 267 growth rate was correct, you are admitting the starting number was lower than you posted, you stated almost 0. Thus in my book that is arguing two sides of a coin.

I guess Rome was not built in a day. Are you aware with the hundreds if not billions of dollars invested into FOX it took 3 years to turn a profit. Shame the dems do not have the ultra rich in our party to bankroll even a low cost radio rollout. Shows which party really has the money doesn't it.

I am glad that we do not have people in our party that were on Delays payroll that today plead guilty to be a part of stealing over 82 million dollars, plus more in political contributions. And that is just the tip of the iceburg, of the Ulysses Grant parallel party.

I would not have a problem with sound business decisions behind taking AAR off, I do have a problem with potential monopolization of political dissenting minority voices. Again hearing one real liberal voice in this country is good for democracy. sound business in my book is not taking off the air the fastest growing show in that market. And definitely business is not more important than democracy.

Yep, it's a darn shame alright. Why just yesterday I had to loan George Soros a couple of bucks for a cheeseburger and I heard rumors that Ted Turner was pan-handling down on the corner. Being the compassionate conservative that I am though I think I'll run over there tomorrow and throw a couple of quarters in his tin cup.

I can play this game, here is some big money.... Murdoch, Coors, Olin, Scaife/mellon, Gates/microsoft, Amway, office depot, target, K-Mart, GE, Dell, Conrad Black, Sinclair Broadcasting, Hearst, Defense contractors, engineering firms like Haliburton, Bechtel, the big one T Boone Pickens, all the WalMart billionaire kids, that put the penuts the dems have with a handful.
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/

Edited to add, virtually all energy companies, including Enron, chemical companies, drug, medical, financial and so on, ie virtually the majority of the fortune 1000 corporations, my rough estimate 90+%.

Many or most of the above are involved in limiting distribution of information in the media by either buying it to control it directly or indirectly. In a lot of buying it that is consolidation. Or by making stipulations in their advertising agencies contracts that no negative articles can be run not only against them but their entire industry. Is democracy based on good distribution of information through the media? in my book we have a purchased media which, in my book is democracy for sale to the richest kings?

Ugh. Yes, CBN could have purchased a Tempe FM dance hit station, if they wanted a Tempe FM dance hit station, but they wanted a Phoenix AM signal. Yes, there are 20 stations with lower ratings. 4 of them simulcast their FM sister stations, and 10 of them have ZERO ratings. Adide from a handful of new formats like "rhythmic oldies" (think funk / dusties), these signals are super-weak, and/or they transmit from outside Phoenix (Scottsdcale / Tempe) but which have some overlap in listeners, because people commute one way or the other and can get the signal sometimes. This is pretty basic stuff here.

My Rush station? I don't live in Phoenix or listen to Rush Limbaugh. The November 2004 ratings showed a spike. Hmm...what happened in November of 2004 that would drive people to political talk shows.... Also, I hate to get nerdy, but during the summer book, talk stations are always down because people roll down their windows and listen to music during the summer. When the next Fall book comes out, the talkers will show an increase vs. the music stations (but probably not match the spike from election 2004).

Again, I just said that AAR did "so so," which is a fact. A big percentage increase is nice, but when you own a furniture store in Phoenix and there are 15 stations with at least twice the ratings of AAR, that's where you advertise. Unless their niche is so compelling for you, you don't spend dollars on low-rated stations.

Fine. It's 267%. Big freaking whippee do. They may have changed the call letters 'cause they aren't in the Spring 04 book that I see. So, let's say they had a 0.4 rating, and it went up to 1.1 -- a 267% increase. Bringing them to the 24th-ranked station in the market.

You are right - I misspoke here. In some cases AAR actually pays the station to run their network, unlike the way most radio works. For example, a station pays big money to run Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern, and in exchange the station gets to sell a certain number of local ads. When you listen to AAR, have you noticed the high number of public service announcements? That's because they can't sell their network ads. Depending on the station arrangement, there may not be any local ads either. It's a little different, as they haven't figured out a business model yet.

Sheldon and Anita Drobny are multi-millionaires. They took a decent idea - liberal talk radio - and applied a lousy business model. It took decades to build radio networks like Westwood One, ABC and Clear Channel. To assume you can take a few million bucks and get on the air simultaneously in every major market was quite arrogant. They should have started small and focused on programming rather than station ownership / lease deals. This is what Jones Radio is doing with Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz.

1 Is the consolidation of the media a good thing for the american public/democracy?
I'm torn on this - seems that more and more information sources are out there - from to blogs to internet and satellite radio, so I don't see how it hurts. On the other hand, companies like Clear Channel are clearly abusing their power, for example leveraging concert promotions and airplay.

2 Do non tax paying religious entities an advantage to media ownership? I'm against corporate taxes, so in my world, they would have no advantage. I also think the government should get out of the media business, so NPR / Pacifica / PBS would also have no advantage. That said, if Clear Channel has to answer to shareholders, but Christian Broadcasting does not, this seems to actually be an argument for more diversity of programming. Clear Channel will play to what drives ratings, but CBN can stay true to its mission and produce quality religious programs regardless of ratings. Isn't this a good thing?

Dare I ask why you are focusing on non-tax-paying religious entities? What about public radio and college radio? Are those unfair too?

3 Is democracy based on good distribution of information through the media? Not lately.

I live in the area and used to listen to the channel--but they went from entertaining to fairly repetitive and dull quick--so i bought digital radio with no commercials and also download podcasts---As a consumer the constant commercials of AM and FM left me desperate for alternatives.
Thanks to the free market and people who want to make money I have options out of the wazoo. The days of the networks on television and the local radio stations being the sole source of information and entertainment in the genres of music and talk and news are long over--So who cares who owns them--There are so many options available it matters not at all.

I haven't watched network news or even cable news for months--and I would gamble pretty healthily I am better informed than those who do.


Is democracy based on good distribution of information through the media?Maybe once it was--but no longer. The available sources from the internet have consistently proved to be faster on the draw and more accurate.
If you don't like whats available you can start your own service for free--blogs and and such-- and just need to start making some contacts. I have no doubts that you will find what you need and can be as objective or as biased as you want to be.

Doesn't anyone remember "see a need, fill a need"?
Thats the beauty of Capitalism and free markets--if someone already doesn't have one for sale, guaranteed there are those waiting for you to produce who will buy it.

Are you stating this as fact?? where did you get this information from please link us to your source. specific signal strength issues, that they specifically wanted a AM signal and so on.

Your cited rush station is what I am talking about. Again I am having a hard time following you, the arbitrons you cited are quarterly and now you are stating Nov 2004, please cite your source for this so I can follow your point. You say as a fact that people roll their windows down during the summer yet your cited source the arbitons show AAR increasing by close to 30 percent from spring 05 (1.1) to summer 05 (1.5). Kind of shoots your argument in the foot doesn't it?

well to quote you "Big freaking whippee do" it is to me, that is why we are here to be as accurate as possible. If the numbers are available lets use them, if you want to falsely accuse AAR of making up numbers please do not do it yourself.



Can you back up with specifics that AAR bought the airtime in phoenix, we are talking about Pheonix. It also sounds like you have a bit more radio experience than I, can you tell us how many radio programs have started this way, and specifically how many stations AAR bought airtime at. Was it one? two three or you don't know at all. Was it just the very first couple and the last 70 are paying them?



from the sounds of it Anita and Shelley are not big money guns.... not BILLIONAIRES just millionaires. A millionaire is not in reality very rich now a days are they? Believe me I can testify to that. Can you tell me about the net worth of Drbny?
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=17726
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/drobny/031024_TrashingDrobny.htm

that is a good point, and shows how they can minipulate much more.



Simple, no-one has brought them up in any debates about the media that I have seen and as I showed they are as posted one of the largest groups of radio stations, and behold that appear to be not for profit. And if these are not for profit the typical argument I have heard is market should determine what is on the air, so these arguments become hypocritical. I.E. it was a set up on my part to see how deep some on the right would argue free market/capitalism, yet allowing for their right wing non-profit programming to flourish.
Pacifica is 5 stations and I did not see government support for it on their web site, just stated listener sponsored. I would love PBS/NPR to be completely cut and have felt that way for a long time, now we have to deal with:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1121-15.htm

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False
Broadcast ex-chief sent 'bragging' e-mail to Rove
By Deborah Zabarenko




I guess I would point out not all people in the USA have computers for one, second some actually hate computers, and some can not wait to get off them from work and would not use them for fun like some of us. next I would follow the money, when people run for office they still do the lions share 95+%? of advertising/influencing on the traditional mass media, radio spots and TV. I assume they are skilled in how to spend the campaign funds for best influence distribution of their message.

I would be interested to know if you can back up the more "accurate" part?
I think this is what liberals have tried to do that is called AAR. The only real liberal outlet in the media right now. This debate is the TV and Radio media, and you cited no sources to show the internet is more convincing or better to educate, disseminate or manipulate the general population for political purposes. If you have the sources that show how influential the internet is please post them as I am open to this information.....


and how is the religious right non profit radio stations a part of this capitalism you are fantasizing/dreaming about??

I posted the ratings. I linked to the ratings. If a station exists in Phoenix with ZERO measured ratings, it is because it is not really a viable Phoenix radio station. It's axiomatic. I will do no more research. Believe what you want. If CBN bought an AM signal, I think it's obvious - they are a talk format and they wanted an AM signal. FM signals are priced higher, because music sounds better on FM.


Arbitrons are not quarterly. They are named after the seasons, but really the ratings are based on one month. Just like television, they are one month - have you noticed that your local TV news has a bunch of special features in November? This is because November is a big Nielsen ratings period. November 2004 = Fall 2004. They send a diary to a bunch of people, those people fill out the diary for 4 weeks, those represent the Arbitron ratings for that month. Which is then called "fall" or "spring" or whatever.

As to fall of 2004, if you look here, you will see that all political talk ratings went up in Fall of 2004. I thought this was common sense, but since you ask for proof, you get proof. Talk radio as a format had higher ratings during a tight presidential race. Go figure.


To borrow my own phrase, big freaking whippee do A .4 increase in ratings, which was exactly equal to the .4 point increase in the average for talk radio ratings for that period. It means nothing. A new station should generate some interest - frankly, I'd expect a bigger increase. My "argument" is a statement of fact - people roll down their windows in the summer and listen to music. This is, again, axiomatic. Not an "argument." The fact that AAR were right on trend does not disprove my point.


You're just being pedantic I guess. I already said it was a 267% increase. And that means exactly NOTHING. I typed this line 267% faster than the last line. I should get a medal.
I don't know what arrangements AAR have with KXXT-AM. They are not exactly forthcoming with details. Their stations make it sound like they are a network but they are not. I don't know what to tell you. Do you, mr. inventor, believe that KXXT-AM, a 15,000 watt daytime only AM station in Tolleson, Arizona, is a big major signal worthy of a healthy radio network in America's 15th-largest media market? Don't you think that there are other stations that are probably bigger, healthier, better signals? From an 'engineering' point-of-view, you can at least acknowledge that a radio station that broadcasts only between sunrise and sunset, is not an especially valuable station, when the sun starts going down at 5PM in the winter? Honestly, if you turn on a radio and randomly dial the button, you find "stronger" stations on both FM and AM. Even KFYI - "my rush station" - has 1,000 watts at night.

If you object to a cheap, insignificant radio signal in suburban Phoenix being sold from one company to another, I think you just object to capitalism. This has nothing to do with anything else. It's a fringe station with hardly any listeners in a big media market. The sale means nothing.

I will reply to the above it is not worth re-asking you to support the specific things I asked for. Specifically you were giving signal strengths, I asked for that and you could not back it up. and how you channeled your guess they wanted AM for lower cost, and that FM cost more is also not backed up. Sorry I just can not take your word on everything. My gut feeling is those high powered AM stations sell for more than most FM stations.

First you stated it is not quarterly, well the 4 seasons are quarters to engineers. Here is why it is just plain hard to follow you, again you SAID not quarterly and made a big to do about it.

from your cited source, they state quarters as I said.
http://www.arbitron.com/national_radio/home.htm


next you made a big deal about AAR being nothing it appears they even won a award in that market.

http://listings.phoenixnewtimes.com/gyroba...oid=oid%3A35274
2005: Megalopolitan Life
BEST NEWS RADIO
KXXT-AM 1010


you also made a big issue with not having signal strength at night,
From your cited site you can reach 73 percent of the listeners from 6 am to 3 pm. So seems you only need daytime to really be effective in talk radio.


http://199.249.170.141/radiomonitor/news/b...t_id=1001306191

As far as a new station and your assumption it obviously should generate interest. Where do you get this vast information, that is nonsense unless one does some advertising in the region. From what I am aware AAR is not backed by deep pockets. And we can assume that station who put them on that had a non-existing rating till AAR got on did not have deep pockets either. more importantly in this red city/area we are seeing growth. whereas the non-profit christian stations that the buying this station did not even make the radar of where their other stations are. Their stations are listed on the source you listed, ie to low to list?

http://199.249.170.141/radiomonitor/news/b...t_id=1001306191

Communicom Buys Three From Crystal
Oct. 14, 2005
By Tony Sanders

So with your new rule the ratings will go up with the changes. We will see. Also as you can see we shoot holes in a lot of your arguments, they bought two stations on AM in the Phoenix market....

And lastly you now state you do not know the arrangements that AAR made; exactly..... so we agree your previous statements of their business models was speculation at best and possibly made up and propegated on right wing media and no place being stated as fact anywhere.