Bos. Herald: Where Have You Gone Air America...

[raccoonradio]

Another satisfied AAR customer, from RE Blog comments:
"I completely agree with the analysis of Frankin's & Rhodes' programs. I am on the left of the spectrum and make it a point everyday to give each of these "hosts" a chance, but all I ever hear is about Bush being the world's worst person and so on. I welcomed AA as a breath of fresh air, but now i find myself tuning into Rush or Hannity because AA wont talk about the current events. Yesterday I lasted 5 minutes before I could not take the orgy of agreement that Bush is the the stupidest man ever.

"AA had so much promise going in and now it is left to a continuous track of "Bush is Bad" "Everything Bush Does is Bad," and "Bush's America Causes every problem." I mean I don't agree with him, but come on. Talk about policies and today's news. Don't just say he is a Awful, go to a caller that agrees, bring a guest on that will echo your point, and wonder why no one is listening.

"Thanks to the radio Equalizer for keeping track of the failures of AA. You know no one is listening when you call and get through on the first try."

[FightingIrish]

Another satisfied AAR customer, from RE Blog comments:
"I completely agree with the analysis of Frankin's & Rhodes' programs. I am on the left of the spectrum and make it a point everyday to give each of these "hosts" a chance, but all I ever hear is about Bush being the world's worst person and so on. I welcomed AA as a breath of fresh air, but now i find myself tuning into Rush or Hannity because AA wont talk about the current events. Yesterday I lasted 5 minutes before I could not take the orgy of agreement that Bush is the the stupidest man ever.

"AA had so much promise going in and now it is left to a continuous track of "Bush is Bad" "Everything Bush Does is Bad," and "Bush's America Causes every problem." I mean I don't agree with him, but come on. Talk about policies and today's news. Don't just say he is a Awful, go to a caller that agrees, bring a guest on that will echo your point, and wonder why no one is listening.

"Thanks to the radio Equalizer for keeping track of the failures of AA. You know no one is listening when you call and get through on the first try."

RR, you keep throwing up all these anonymous comments from biased blogs as proof of something. What that 'something' is, nobody has any idea.

What exactly is your point?

[EDIT]

[EDIT-inflammatory]

[barooosk]

The only syndicated conservative talkers that get good ratings are Limbaugh and Hannity.  The rest get ratings either slightly higher, equal to or slightly lower than AAR's top talkers, Schultz and Miller.

[evnlee]

The only syndicated conservative talkers that get good ratings are Limbaugh and Hannity.  The rest get ratings either slightly higher, equal to or slightly lower than AAR's top talkers, Schultz and Miller.

Schultz and Miller aren't AAR talent.

Thanks for playing!

[Phillip Dampier]

Another satisfied AAR customer, from RE Blog comments:
"I completely agree with the analysis of Frankin's & Rhodes' programs. I am on the left of the spectrum and make it a point everyday to give each of these "hosts" a chance, but all I ever hear is about Bush being the world's worst person and so on. I welcomed AA as a breath of fresh air, but now i find myself tuning into Rush or Hannity because AA wont talk about the current events. Yesterday I lasted 5 minutes before I could not take the orgy of agreement that Bush is the the stupidest man ever.

Yeah right.  The Freepers are back.  Because a true liberal is going to spend five seconds complaining about "Bush is bad" rhetoric on left wing talk radio and then soak in joy at hearing talking points that make endless excuses for the president's political problems and attacks anyone who disagrees as being "with the terrorists."

These blog comments are about as real as the Unequalizer's "sources."

And yet another underwhelming hit and run post from the guy who does nothing but post these kinds of talking points.  It makes me really think twice before I take the rest of what you write seriously, for this reason alone.

[fred flintstone]

The only syndicated conservative talkers that get good ratings are Limbaugh and Hannity.  The rest get ratings either slightly higher, equal to or slightly lower than AAR's top talkers, Schultz and Miller.

Tsk. Tsk. 
An error, yes.  But Dr. Freud tells us errors can be very telling.   
It's true.  The top two progressive hosts are not AAR's.
And the host AAR has treated like an unwanted step-child is number three (despite having to share a time slot with one of the top two).

[barooosk]

The only syndicated conservative talkers that get good ratings are Limbaugh and Hannity.  The rest get ratings either slightly higher, equal to or slightly lower than AAR's top talkers, Schultz and Miller.

Schultz and Miller aren't AAR talent.

Thanks for playing!

I'm glad that your only disagreement to my comment was a misunderstanding of what I was saying.  I know that Schultz and Miller and not AAR talkers.  I said top AAR talkers (like Rhodes and Franken), Schultz and Miller. 

[Scribbler]

The only syndicated conservative talkers that get good ratings are Limbaugh and Hannity.  The rest get ratings either slightly higher, equal to or slightly lower than AAR's top talkers, Schultz and Miller.

Tsk. Tsk. 
An error, yes.  But Dr. Freud tells us errors can be very telling.   
It's true.  The top two progressive hosts are not AAR's.
And the host AAR has treated like an unwanted step-child is number three (despite having to share a time slot with one of the top two).

Oh, come on, Fred....you know damn well that Barooosk knows that Miller and Schultz aren't on AAR.  It was perfectly clear what he meant.  And you're wrong in saying that Miller and Schultz are the top two lib hosts.  Schultz may be number one, but he's followed by Franken and Rhodes.  I don't like either Rhodes or Miller much, but Rhodes is on far more stations than Miller, and so is Franken.  You may wish that Miller was number two, and she may be when it comes to people under 25, but that's not where the listeners are when it comes to talk radio, even libtalk radio.

[fred flintstone]

Oh, come on, Fred....you know damn well that Barooosk knows that Miller and Schultz aren't on AAR.  It was perfectly clear what he meant.  And you're wrong in saying that Miller and Schultz are the top two lib hosts.  Schultz may be number one, but he's followed by Franken and Rhodes.  I don't like either Rhodes or Miller much, but Rhodes is on far more stations than Miller, and so is Franken.  You may wish that Miller was number two, and she may be when it comes to people under 25, but that's not where the listeners are when it comes to talk radio, even libtalk radio.

I know what he meant.  And I read Freud's Psychology of Errors in college. 

Talkers Magazine would probably agree with your ranking.  However, in the absence of hard numbers, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Stephanie Miller trails Ed, Franken and Randi based on station count.  Randi is bumped to evenings (dead time) on many of those stations.  Stephanie Miller is on progressive talk's top performers (biggest audience share) in mid-mornings and morning drive.  Both are doing well for the format.  Any "wishes" I have about Steph have nothing to do with her audience rankings in Talkers.