Any date or news on Central Air? (liberal radio network)

[waylon]

I thought I heard March but now I cant find the story I read. Anyone know?

[waylon]

1. Nevermind.....

http://www.centralairmedia.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[Eric J in MN]

2. I hope since Al Franken is from MN, he'll ask them to broadcast here. (nt)

nt

[cprise]

3. So this Central Air is public radio?

If not, where will they get ad revenue from when the radio personalities start advocating tighter regulation and limits on corporate power?

Just wondering...

[Eric J in MN]

4. Bill Clinton was elected twice as an advocate of deregulation

Bill Clinton was elected twice as an advocate of deregulation.

He didn't do much about corporate power.

The network will probably be in that spirit.

I don't think any of the hosts will say that Congress should reverse the FCC and ban cross-ownership of newspapers and tv and that the tv-station-ownership-cap should be lowererd to 35% or less.

[cprise]

5. Then it would be a neo-liberal network

...not liberal.

[HootieMcBoob]

6. liberalism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive

Far from it. They'll sell air time to companies that want to advertise their products to the millions of people who will be listening. It will be a very profitable business, and they will be able to say what they want about corporations. If one business decides they don't like the message, there will be dozens more waiting in line that want the message about their product or service to reach the many people who will be listening.

There are more Democrats than Republicans. Democrats are as a group better educated with more disposable income. We're the audience they want to reach and they'll spend money to do it once the ratings go through the roof, which they will.

Does that answer your question?

[cprise]

7. This is not the 1980s

MSNBC ignored Donahue's ratings to get him off the air. Randi Rhodes and Jim Hightower have met with similar treatment. What makes you think this network won't do the same?

I just saw Al Franken in a debate on CSPAN. It was the usual conservative/liberal media bias mush; It was but-he-said-she-said-they-said-blah-blah. He couldn't or wouldn't assert that the media has deep structural problems.

Liberalism and capitalism are mutually-exclusive if captialism assumes control over all mass communication; then capitalism is a system for ensuring control. If there is no room for any other means of funding, then the capitalists have become extremists. The liberalism you get will be social and little else.

[HootieMcBoob]

8. Because the idea behind this network

is to give a large stage to progressive ideas. That is their reason for being. MSNBC/Donahue makes the point that MSNBC was willing to sacrifice ratings/revenue in order to promote a conservative point of view.

This is a chance for liberals and democrats to be in charge of the message. If the ratings are high companies will advertise. Probably not GE or Haliburton but there are plenty of businesses out there who will.

You seem to have the idea that every business out there who might be willing to advertise is some kind of evil big corporation. That's just not true.

There is public radio which is publicly funded and even they take money from large corporations. Or do you think the government should fund it? That'd be great - state run media run by a state that's controlled by large corporations. Just what are you advocating?

Why don't you wait and give it a chance instead of condemning it before it's even taken it's first breath.

<edit: clarity>

[cprise]

9. A private corporation's reason for being

...is to make money for the investors. The conservative POV is profitable for the class of people that own their stock. For that, they want consolidation and elimination of the competition. Nothing else matters. Ultimately there is no ideology except that one for them to serve. That's why we have class warfare on our hands now.

What if another network wants to buy Central Air, and investors stand to gain from the deal?

How will management present consistent attacks of media deregulation as being profitable?

I recognize that business is a general term. But not all businesses are corporations. As for "public" radio, the government DOES fund it, that's part of what's wrong with it... they are beggars to the bedfellows of politicians and corporations both. It should be called Charity Broadcasting, not Public.

Public Broadcasters are public corporations, chartered by the government just like their private counterparts, but with the power to levy fees on all receivers owned, or some similar revenue device. (It is not much different from a democracy that fines people for not voting and puts the money back into a generic campaign fund.) The result is not state-controlled, but instead highly insulated from both state and corporate coercion.

This is SO right under our noses. Can anyone name the corporation that fits the above description?

[HootieMcBoob]

10. Sounds like the BBC

I would not be so quick to write off the network. Just wait until they actually start broadcasting, then critique them all you want.