Brad, if not for Peter I would not know you. Why $5,000 from one person? Why not $10 from 500? Why not do what Buzzflash does? There are so many of us who appreciate Peter and you. Can't we buy him together?

I just sent a nastygram to my local radio station for not putting Peter B on in Randi Rhodes' timeslot.

I adore Peter's show, especially on Fridays.

This really sucks.

Terrible news. it seems that any talkshow host that is critical of the Iraq war, the war profiteering, the stealing of elections, is being targeted to be silenced and being moved off the air. Randi Rhodes show has been cancelled. Thom Hartman's show is no longer produced by Air America.

In contrast, Rush Limbaugh is being treated like some kind of prophet for the Republicans and his shows are heavily publicized on Fox news and other political news shows.

PBC: we are mortified to see you go.

I am so outraged I want to implode, the way this all came down......the way, this transition between the radio and internet...its the missing link, we need a new business model, we need perhaps newsletters with pod-cast links and new ways of looking at bundling out media. I like what I see here at Democratic Underground. Perhaps an artist could store their pod-casts here with transcripts and google advertising will save us, see the aD- sense code book, that guy makes millions just drawing readers to his fresh content on his web sites, why cant us progressives seem to get in the groove, We certainly are going to have to full throttle support Malloy and Hartmann, and Rhodes when she comes back and Amy Goodman, just to keep the species propagating, I have a feeling we will figure this out as soon as progressives value optimum business plans with dedicated sales staff, as the natural foods industry figured it out, my g-d, we have got to get it together!

This is just awful news!

Not only are we loosing Peter, but we aren't going to be hearing from all of the truly intelligent people who go on his show. What is happening in America when a thoughtful and careful voice of reason like Peter can't be heard anywhere!

How can this be!

You know Leonard Cohen's DEMOCRACY?? Well I'm thinking it ain't going to come to the USA afterall, we are losing what little air time we had. Peter B...you rock, sorry to see you go.

I have a page of links for online shows and films that I sent send out. These small individual efforts may be nice, but we have to have something more collective than each of us sending out a link for this or that show. A central clearing house for progressive media would be great.

I get lousy reception on AM sometimes, so I cruise the internet for progresive shows. It would be nice to have a website that gave links to online streaming and archived shows, googling progressive radio in this city or that is really an inefficient way to find the voices that are talking our side.

Quick blurb about the show with a link would save so much time and effort.

[ed note: admz, go to The White Rose Society. --99]

Horrible news. The loss of Nova M, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy teetering on the edge of extinction has me crazy. Congress must address ownership rules and return the Fairness Doctrine to insure that the new Hearst (Murdock) won't own everything and that progressive voices are heard throughout the country on stations you can actually tune into.

I live in the 14th largest city in the country and we have no progressive voices on the radio. If we want it, we stream it from our computers. Otherwise we get Rush Lintball, Insanity, Dr. Laura and the other right wing shills. It's awful.

We need information presented in a coherent, understandable way as Peter B. does so well. Not just a quick sound bite or 5 minute segment. We don't need or want to be entertained. Montel Williams on AAR? He'll fit in really well with Lionel. Give me a stinking break.

I still have this itchy feeling that within the Telecommunications Act was struck a deal that we intelligent people get the interactive internet and the dinosaurs get the old beta state trance induced television. And why 10% of the media? Is this like the 10% of any class are the A students? Is it our plight to keep dragging along others into their best interests. Was this an elitist rant or what- but the part about the Telecommunications Act could be true. At any rate, as America slowly decends to a 3 world country, perhaps the media owners realize that we are figuring it all out with the number of hours we have to work just for the basics and that we will rise up based upon this alone. As Randy Rhodes said, these leaders are frightened of us, and I will add......as they should be. Franken, you should have listened to Rhodes and BradBlog - now look, your almost no help at all.

Peter did not take his show out of consideration for the newly opened time slot on KKGN 960. KKGN did, as the station told him that his show would not be selected to replace Randi Rhodes. That seems to be the main reason he has decided to suspend his show. (He can't even get on as a regular host in his hometown! I'd be disheartened, too.)

5 Grand a month! How hard could that be to raise each month? Anybody have any ideas?

I am very saddened that Peter B. Collins is leaving the airwaves. KKGN (Green 960) is not the only game in town in the Bay Area because KGO has been using substitute hosts to fill the old Bernie Ward show at 10:00 PM. Maybe Peter B. should go after that slot?

I think it sucks that John Scott, the Program Director of KKGN, thinks we need to be entertained. Um, no. If I want to be entertained, I would listen to music or play Sim 2. I only listen to progressive talk to talk radio to get information.

Totally agree with Kathy's comment #1: I'm in for $10 / month! Surely we can find 498 others? Brad, help us out here --- how do we do this?
ALSO, tried to vote for Brad on the Green 960 pole, but since I had already voted for PBC as my first second and third choices, I could not revise my vote. Any advice on this?

I just find it so hard to believe that progressive investors and financially saavy people can't get together to form a viable syndication network. It's crazy that they don't see the necessity and potential benefits. And I mean real progressives, not old D hacks. That said, I'm in on a monthly dues basis as soon as we get a centralized list of pledges together.

Also, I don't really buy the "ratings" whether they be radio or TV. Certainly given a level playing field we compete well there too. But when has that ever happened. Internet "radio" is going to be more widespread in the future, but there are interests that want to purge all liberals from the airwaves before that happens in order to delay the inevitable.

"Clear Channel", a right-wing network, owns far too many "progressive" stations, and I don't think everybody fully comprehends what is going on.

Mark my word: They want to silence progressives...and they can do it. I will not name his name here, because I detest him and I think he is a snake. But many of you fell for his "openness", even after he convinced you that you preferred entertainment over substance. He is like a crack dealer, convincing you that you really don't like to LEARN when FUN and VARIETY are available.

What you're going to get is a watered-down version of what used to be a strong progressive voice on radio. Ultimately, those watered-down voices will be replaced with "moderate conservatives." And you will be told that this is what YOU wanted.

I'm beginning to hate radio, and more-and-more, I'm turning it off. It is turning into the great propaganda machine that broadcast television became years ago (and many people STILL don't realize that).

Brad, help us out here --- how do we do this?

Beyond what ever story we tell ourselves about why Peter might have to talk about leaving or what we call the situation or who is to blame, there is this: There is us. Ten bucks a month. A few more are need perhaps to speak up. So speak up. Put your wallet where your indignation is.

Brad?

"Brad, help us out here --- how do we do this?"

Thanks for asking, Kathy. And for giving a damn. I asked Peter, before Friday's announcement, if there was something I could do, along the lines you mentioned, and he said --- at least at that time --- there really wasn't. That for long-term, sustainability, he'd have to be able to count on some $5000 per month.

While we could do a funddrive for him, and perhaps even raise $5000 or even $15,000 if we went full bore, could we come up with something that was sustainable beyond one or three months, so it doesn't have to be done again?

I dunno. That's a lot of folks, at a bad time for the economy, who would have to commit for many many months. If it was doable, I'd be all for it. And maybe it is, but I don't know.

I also haven't talked to PBC about the idea, and wouldn't want to spearhead anything like that, unless he supported the idea.

I suspect he's reading comments here though, and I hope to talk to him soon about these notions to get a feeling from him.

Of course, that's just me. There is nothing to stop a real *listener supported* effort --- where you guys run with the ball --- if you think you'd be able to build up enough momentum out there. Of course, I'd be happy to let folks know about it if that happened.

If I learn anything specific from Peter, of course, I'll let ya know.

Progressive media has a living example of how to survive in a corporate-owned environment: Pacifica. They have been subscribing on public subscriptions since 1949, a time ripe with hostile "anti-American" blacklisting and persecution.

There is no good reason why the Left isn't taking advantage of the internet media possibilities and asking for subscriptions. No one will get rich this way, but progressive media can then live on in spite of corporate efforts to kill off open dialogue.

Rightwing AM radio is being funded even at a loss to take up the airwaves from progressives.

http://www.motherjones.c...republican-noise-machine

It's in billionaires best interests to fund rightwing radio and not let progressive radio take hold. They will pay for this, they will pay to finance this DEARLY, because in the long run it pays for them to keep progressive radio off the air.

If Tom Hartmann went up against Rush Limbaugh, Hartmann would CRUSH him. Rightwing billionaires and corporations can't let that happen.

Rightwing radio being "successful" is a financed SHAM! The people with the money control the airwaves.

It's a financed SHAM to fabricate the false talking point that progressive AM radio doesn't or won't work. All FAKERY. They're PAYING so it isn't aired free on AM radio. Because the truth would ruin them.

It doesn't MATTER if Collins was successful. They'll pay to replace him with something non-progressive. Then they'll say he "wasn't successful" (wink wink) in their media.

You can't have the truth broadcast over the AM free airwaves, they know this. It has nothing to do with "success" or "ratings" - WAKE UP!!! Find out who's doing this and financing it!!!

http://www.peterbcollins.com/you-can-help/
Peter has something on his home page that asks listeners to donate what they can to cover the costs of the show.
http://www.peterbcollins.com/you-can-help/
Apparently, the donations have not been enough to sustain the show. Peter mentioned on yesterday's show that if an angel appeared and paid 5 thousand per month, he could stay on. One of his regular callers suggested what people have suggested here: Several listeners pledge to pony up the money. Perhaps someone should put the call out for angels to apply. Get something organized...
Anyway, Peter can be contacted here: peter@peterbcollins.com

Here is what Peter wrote on his blog about sustaining his show:

You Can Help
Listener Support Helps Keep PBC on the Air!

It’s not a secret that, like many others, we’ve been hit hard by the Bush economy. Over the last few months, hundreds of people have volunteered to support the show. It means a lot to me personally, as I have subsidized the costs of producing and distributing the program since 2005; your support is an important affirmation that you value the work we do, and was figured in the the mid-November decision to stay on the air.

A number of listeners have volunteered to support us on a subscription basis. They have pledged amounts from $10 to $200 per month. If 200 or 300 people can do this each month, we can cover our costs and keep delivering great radio shows every day. Mailing address and PayPal link below.

At the request of one of our affiliate stations, we are limiting our references to listener support on the air. I’d like to be able to mention each of you who supports the show, to thank you while reminding others that they can help. When I have some time, I will post the names of supporters here on the website–so if you prefer to remain anonymous, please indicate that. I will also post a page crediting our monthly subscribers.

Some of you live on fixed incomes, and are facing your own financial problems. No one should ever feel pressure to donate. There’s an unknown listener from Portland who has sent in a one dollar bill twice, and that means as much to me as contributions from people who can afford to give more.

As a way of showing our appreciation, we’re offing a gift with donations of $50 or more. Thanks to author Michael Hemp, we’ll send you an autographed copy of his fascinating book, The Nadjik Pheromone. It’s a novel that explores new methods of truth and lie detection. Click on the image below for more information on the book.

pbc
http://www.peterbcollins.com/you-can-help/

"I am very saddened that Peter B. Collins is leaving the airwaves. KKGN (Green 960) is not the only game in town in the Bay Area because KGO has been using substitute hosts to fill the old Bernie Ward show at 10:00 PM. Maybe Peter B. should go after that slot?"

How many cities have more than one progressive stations, besides San Francisco? That was one of the problems Peter cited: few progressive stations. A town with more than one progressive station? Forget it!

I used to listen to KRXA, it was there that I heard Brag commiserate with Al Franken on election night. The KRXA program manager continually buried the real talent, Thom and Randi, by constantly moving their time slots, dropping hours from their shows, and there there were the incessant technical glitches. Oh, don't forget PBC and his Pelosi shilling, hand waving over the Impeachment blockade. On some issues PBC might be worth listening to, but he isn't a voice I trust, not at all. So for me, it is good riddance PBC, the left doesn't want or need more Republican lite.

"Pelosi shilling"? "Hand waving over the Impeachment blockade"? Perhaps you've been listening to a different PBC than I (and the rest of the world) have.

BTW, how many "Republican lite" radio hosts have been banging on 9/11 and WTC Bldg 7 and demanding answers on air for years? How many have been covering election integrity issues each and every week? How many Progressives have been doing that btw?

Whatever world you live in, good luck there, amigo. It's bound to be a lonely place.

That was a troll, on acid, Brad, big as heck.

Brad I will write to Peter.
And Greg, I took one of your lines without crediting you.

I have been sending PBC 10 bucks a month when rent was due. Perhaps as Brad has mentioned the White Rose Society, we could think of it as a big jukebox and pay to down load podcasts as though we were renting from Netflix or someone could add these podcasts to a subscribed book circle service, similar to what I understand some progressives have put together a regular movie club, the issue would be timely of course....eh just thinking but the FM radio station idea is sort of working out for Karel, so perhaps as the next generation really starts getting pissed as they actually see caskets coming home, will wake up and take some talk show along with music....just brainstorming......or.....dedicated sales staff,,,,,,,,,

I, too, am saddened by this setback to Peter. I don't know how quite yet, but I'm sure a man like him will resurface with a new show elsewhere.

One way is for Obama's FCC to reinstitute The Fairness Doctrine in a new form. From 1949 to 1987, it operated within the bounds of each broadcast station. According to Wikipedia, it never required equal time for opposing views "but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented." Since there were only three nationwide TV stations, the statute was relatively easy to administer. That was before cable television. And now foreign news outlets are available. These outlets are, of course, outside federal jurisdiction.

Wiki cites an e-mail from Obama's 2008 Campaign Press Secretary Michael Ortiz, indicating that the then-candidate favors

opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible...That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

http://www.broadcastingc...of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

Obama's opposition to the Fairness Doctrine dooms its chance of restoration during his term. But fairness can come in a new form if Obama's FCC imposes a cap on right-wing claptrap.

That would lead to a new Fairness Doctrine under a different name. As noted, the revoked version operated within the bounds of each TV and radio station. (It didn't apply to newspapers because, unlike broadcasters, they weren't licensed. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)) If Obama gets his way, something like The Fairness Doctrine would operate within geographic bounds. Cities or regions that have six right-wing stations and zero progressive stations will be subject to regulation. Right-wing blowhards will howl that the government is violating their right to free speech. But they are indifferent to the way their monopoly violates progressives' right to free speech. Nor can right-wingers argue that liberals cannot compete in the media market. Olbermann and Maddow give Fox a run for their money. Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes boast that they "crush" Rush when they compete head-to-head with The Pigman.

Just as Reagan revoked the station-bounded Fairness Doctrine in 1987 by executive order, Obama should enact a geographic-bounded Fairness Doctrine also by executive order. He should also enforce The Sherman Antitrust Act to curtail the influence of The 1996 Telecommunications Act. If the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010, they can then codify the new version into law --- if they choose to behave as Democrats.

Progressive voices like that of Peter B. Collins would then have a sustainable economic environment.

I'm willing to pledge $200 a month to keep Peter B on the air.

You can use my name.

It's all fakery and fabrication, and things people really want on AM radio are purposely cancelled and they make up crap like "it wasn't successful". I mean seriously, everyone here knows about e-vote machines, and they say this certain guy won and trust the machines. How can you think for a moment they are on the up and up with rightwing AM radio? And not democracy itself with the e-vote machines? They cancel something we want and is good for us, because it's NOT good for them...and then provide a fake excuse. Like it wasn't successful. They need an excuse, you know, they can't just cancel a good show and not give a reason and the reason is "because this guy is wildly popular and telling the truth, so we have to cancel him". You think they're going to say that for their reason? No, they're going to say "He wasn't successful and no one was listening to him". Wake up.

Update: Rush Limbaugh's 'Doubled Ratings' an Article of Faith or a Lie?

The claim, appearing even on these pages, that Rush Limbaugh's ratings have "nearly doubled" is under attack today. So far, there are two camps on this: the claim is super-weak, or the claim is a lie. Media Matters stops short of calling the claim, published by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, an outright lie:

http://news.aol.com/poli...ticle-of-faith-or-a-lie/

'm especially curious how the Post knows so much about Limbaugh's ratings success because even people in the world of syndicated radio don't know since they don't have comprehensive rating numbers for February yet. And in terms of truly national rating numbers (as opposed to just the top markets), that information is only gathered quarterly, I believe. Meaning, it would be impossible to tell if Limbaugh's up nearly 100 percent nationwide since January.

An update to the piece quotes Limbaugh saying he doesn't even know February's ratings yet. Media Matters misses out, however, on the thin sourcing that Kurtz did provide. I didn't miss it, and have no qualms about calling it an outright lie: (from Daily Dose)

This is a specific, measurable claim. The word "ratings" is not some kind of pliable, esoteric concept. It refers to a specific type of measurement. So, what ratings was Kurtz using? Arbitron? Nielsen? Zagat?

"The people who love him are a very small segment of the public," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, whose research indicates that Limbaugh's weekly audience has spiked from 14.2 million to about 25 million since the controversy escalated. "A lot of people still think he's a shock jock, a hatemonger (ed. where'd they get an idea like that?), a right-wing radical, or hold his personal baggage against him."

Here's how strong Harrison's "research" is: His own magazine wouldn't cite it without sourcing the quote to Kurtz's article! He's the publisher of "Talkers" magazine, but they didn't publish the "research," quoting their own publisher from another publication.

Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air

Limbaugh is widely acknowledged to be the most popular talk-radio host, as evidenced by the record $400 million, eight-year contract he signed with his syndicator last July. But estimates of Limbaugh's nationwide (and overseas) audience are exercises in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data. Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure.

http://www.washingtonpos.../06/AR2009030603435.html

Let me repeat that:

no independent support for that figure

We're being FAKED OUT by the rightwing media and their corporate sponsors and rightwing billionaire financers. Do some research and find out who is really financing Limbaugh's huge contract. Also, who writes Limbaugh's script? He's too stupid to think of anything himself, and I'm being serious.

Why don't we just pretend Rush Limbaugh has 50 million listeners?

by Eric Boehlert

Call it The Washington Post's 766-word non-correction correction.

It ran Saturday in the form of a Paul Farhi article about the dubious nature of trying to measure the size of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience. Farhi stressed that trying to determine the total number of weekly listeners represented an exercise "in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data."

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200903090031

You don't believe e-vote machines are accurate, but you believe rightwing AM radio "stats" (ahem) are accurate!!!

when the ratings numbers are collected, they're not made public. The only way reporters can get ratings information for syndicated talkers is if their syndication companies want to release it. (Or via advertiser.) In other words, the only way we'd know if Limbaugh's ratings have "doubled" would be if Limbaugh's company said so.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903060023

Attn Kathy Srabian, etal. Peter has posted a blog on his website that address the "What can be done to save the show" question. Here is the link:
http://www.peterbcollins...i-made-a-tough-decision/

Here are the key paragraphs in Peter B Collins blog post on how to save the show:

Many people who heard the $5,000 monthly cost figure have emailed to pledge $10 a month and said, “how do we find the other 499?” We have tried that to some extent, but I don’t want to turn the show into a pledge-a-thon, ’cause I listen to the radio, too, and don’t like them. Plus, I’m well aware that many of my listeners can’t even spare $10 a month right now. Overall, I don’t think we can shift to a voluntary subscription plan to produce a reliable funding stream.

If you disagree, email me: fullofit@peterbcollins.com Tell me if you’re willing to subscribe for at least 6 months, and how much you can pay. If enough people respond by Monday night 3/16, I will make a final review of this decision. Dave Berman in Eureka, Tom McAfee in SF, and Aldous Tyler in Madison have offered to coordinate this kind of effort, but I need to give them your names and emails.
http://www.peterbcollins...i-made-a-tough-decision/

Once again, a profund reason for progressives to begin taking seriously the concept of a mass media strategy. I have contacted Move On several times to ask why they won't begin to bring this up for consideration among their membership, as large as it is. The so-called conservatives worked on media control for years & years, marshalling their resources to succeed, as typified by the subject story. It is very late for countervailing tactics but if they aren't formulated there'll be more of this crap.

It's time for progressives to stop pouring money and resources down the black hole of talk radio and focus more on where the progressive audience is --- talk television.

Progressives are failing on talk radio because that's NOT where the progressive audience is. Talk radio is a predominantly AM-band medium --- and the vast majority of Americans who listen to the radio tune in to FM stations, a whopping 83 percent, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

To reach progressive radio listeners, you have to go on National Public Radio, Pacifica and other FM radio outlets --- especially if you want to reach young people. Young people do NOT listen to AM radio, mainly because of its inferior signal and monaural sound.

The AM radio audience is overwhelmingly middle-aged and older, predominantly male and overwhelmingly white and conservative.

Another misperception about conservative talk radio is the size of its audience. Many people are making the mistake that Rush Limbaugh draws 20 million listeners. NOT TRUE. Unlike television, radio audiences are measure by the week, rather than by the day. Thus, Limbaugh's 20 million WEEKLY listeners breaks down to an average DAILY listenership of only 4.2 million!

I work in radio, so I know what I'm talking about.
With more than 90 percent of the 600-plus stations that carry Limbaugh's program on the AM band, Limbaugh's daily audience is less than HALF of the all-FM NPR's daily audience. And that's just NPR alone. Throw in all the other FM stations, and Limbaugh draws less than 10 percent of the total U.S. radio audience.

And Limbaugh's 4.2 million daily listeners don't come even close to the six million people who watch the three all-news cable TV channels.

And when it comes to talk television, conservatives rule only Fox News.

So STOP trying to draw progressives to a medium that they won't listen to and concentrate instead on expanding the progressive audience on the medium that draws them the most --- TV.

I am a secular progressive Democrat and web savvy. I would love to see progressive talk radio and related websites succeed. There are no progressive talk radio programs locally. I receive the Air America email newsletter but, frankly, I rarely do more than scan it before deleting it. Why? It seems to me to be irrelevant.

The focus of Air America's outreach and marketing is celebrity commentators. It's seems to be all about promoting big names or branding campaigns that attempt to elevate unknown names to celebrity status. I do not care to hear what this celebrity commentator or that celebrity commentator thinks is clever or cute. I don't want vacuous and superficial analysis. I am sick of pundits, left or right.

And I will not support left-wing radio on faith or solidarity alone. Give me some food for thought to chew on.

[ed note: Chew on this then. --99]

I agree with some of the past replies that the powers are not allowing things to happen!! In my hometown station we also have a sabator!! And answering your question who talks about 911 and election issues there is only one and it is Malloy! But the people here would not know that unless you own a computer because Thursday and Friday pre-empted for Sports!!

Look out- its GOOGLE VOICE holy telephone, batman! I am listening to a local show on technology out of San Francisco, KGO and he is announcing how google voice can sort of be your phone company. Good ideas here this thread- how can we come up with a cyber business plan to get our progressive voices out!

Skeeter (#38)writes:

"It's time for progressives to stop pouring money and resources down the black hole of talk radio and focus more on where the progressive audience is --- talk television."

Um. Actually, television is sort of "over". In my house, NBC is a four-letter word.

While your stats on the AM radio demographic are enlightening, and while I may not be the "youth demographic" you cite, most under 40's are increasingly getting all our news/ information/ entertainment via the internets.
TV will be obsolete, sooner than we think.

As a former television junkie/ newsphile, I have been off the TV wagon now for the better part of a year and I don't miss a damn thing. In fact, I find I'm better informed. From my computer, I can track the real news AND the made-up news that only people with TV and AM/FM are exposed to.

So AM/ FM --- shouldn't matter, as long as there is a link with a way to livestream the program from my computer, I'm in! And I'd follow Peter B. Collins all over the radio dial and beyond. (And I suspect many of us would. Established audience/ ratings, ready to go.)

That said, I'm stymied by the ineptitude of the Air America/ NOVA M standard bearers - why do they keep firing Randi Rhodes?! I don't care if she's difficult, she is the best answer we have to the ferocity on the Right! Why do they keep screwing with the schedule so you have to seek out your favorite shows? And HOW THE HELL DOES SOMEONE LIKE RICHARD GREENE keep a show as shitty as CLOUT on the air during their 9:00 pm drive?

Like Karen above, I think progressive stations with the cash backing just need to learn a new business model for internet marketing, and how not to fuck with a good thing. The Stewart/ Cramer show down proves there is a HUuuUUGE market for telling truth to power.

Saddened by this news, but encouraged to hear PBC's talk of a potential podcast. I have buddies who are doing this quite successfully, making good money from sponsors/ reaching about 40,000 people from their basement. Adam Corolla started his own podcast within days of being fired here in L.A., and is doing quite well...

Skeeter Sanders:

I think progressive talk should ALSO be on AM and FM. It's on NEITHER where I live. I would listen to it. I don't have a TV in my car btw

HOW THE HELL DOES SOMEONE LIKE RICHARD GREENE keep a show as shitty as CLOUT on the air during their 9:00 pm drive?

Indeed, Talkabout a NO TALENT ! AAR doesn't give a shit.
~

The focus of Air America's outreach and marketing is celebrity commentators. It's seems to be all about promoting big names or branding campaigns that attempt to elevate unknown names to celebrity status. I do not care to hear what this celebrity commentator or that celebrity commentator thinks is clever or cute. I don't want vacuous and superficial analysis. I am sick of pundits, left or right.

You don't listen to Air America radio, if you just said that. I listen to it all the time, and what you said is not true.

Tom Hartmann, ever listen to him? Ed Shultz?

I do agree with the person above, who said Air America is mistaken getting rid of cutting edge people like Randy Rhodes and Mike Malloy. Air America is kind of like the Democrats - they bend too much so they're "inoffensive". Which is very bad.

But what's left is very good, like Ed Schultz and Tom Hartmann. Especially Tom Hartmann, he's one of the best ever anywhere. Tom Hartmann would knock Rush Limbaugh off the air if put side by side with him. That's why they won't let it happen. Ed Schultz would knock Rush Limbaugh off, too. So, they won't let it happen.

You don't listen to Air America radio, if you just said that. I listen to it all the time, and what you said is not true.

Tom Hartmann, ever listen to him? Ed Shultz?

Can we get the facts straight?

Neither Thom Hartmann nor Ed Shultz is on AA. Shultz has never been on AA. He gets pissed off with people assuming this all the time, and rants about it almost daily. And I don't blame him.

AA is adding Montel Williams, who is a celebrity. And as Peter B Collins stated, Williams is a shill for big pharma (just Google it). If I owned a truly progressive network, I would not be staffing it with shills like Montel Williams, for God's sake.

This does contain much truth.

The focus of Air America's outreach and marketing is celebrity commentators. It's seems to be all about promoting big names or branding campaigns that attempt to elevate unknown names to celebrity status. I do not care to hear what this celebrity commentator or that celebrity commentator thinks is clever or cute. I don't want vacuous and superficial analysis.

AAR is now AA Media
Tom Hartmann just split from AAM after only a few yrs.
Ed Schultz has *Never* worked for AAR or AAM

AAR and :"The Drobney's" did help get the ball rolling in a significant way.

If Peter B. cannot continue on AM radio, he should redefine "staying on the air."

We listen to PBC by podcast, and I am happy to contribute $15 per month for a "podcast subscription." Two people in our household will subscribe at $15 each per month.

So, "staying on the air" might mean producing a radio show which may or may not be transmitted over the public airwaves, but will be accessible by podcast to those of us who need our daily "Peter B. Collins fix."

Peter should go the subscription route. I see Thom Hartmann is charging $60 for an annual subscription to his podcasts. Peter should do the same. $60 x 1,000 listeners would give Peter his $60,000 minimum operating capital.

We love you, Peter B!

And many thanks to Brad for hosting this forum!

Signed,
Montana Mule Gal and the Bittermonk

Radio is an advertising-driven business.

Advertising is a corporate-driven business.

Progressive, anti-corporate, pro-people content and personalities will have only limited success in a media that is funded and managed in direct opposition to their beliefs.

Eventually, we have to move away from advertising-driven and corporate-controlled media and start buying our media directly, as Montana Mule Gal suggests.

This will be a difficult transition, and some great talent will be lost in the paridigm shift.

now I feel guilty for not "voting" for Peter to fill (temporarily we all foolishly dream) Randi's slot - in favor of Frangela - selfishly, more enjoyable for me during drive time. But ... I don't understand why Peter "took himself out of the running" for the drive time slot??? Anyway, I am so sorry this is happening. Don't put it all on Obama - the man has 45 years of crap on his plate.

CharlieL said:

Radio is an advertising-driven business.
Advertising is a corporate-driven business

.

Finally! Someone gets it right. Ad dollars is what pays the bills, NOT donations, contributions, and subscriptions. You guys want to stay on the air? You need money! Stop trashing America, stop bashing Republicans, stop poisoning minds with your "anti-everything" jibberish. Nobody wants to hear that nonsense. Advertisers won't pay for that because they know their customers won't listen to it. Right-wing talk radio is successful because ratings prove it; advertisers pay based on ratings (it's called "demographics") because they know there's a wide audience and their message for their products and services will get out. Wise up folks.

Yeah, Peter! You putz! Listen to ol' Ferdikins here, man! The American public wants a circus of harpies screeching their xenophobia and thumping their concave chests in front of their microphones! You bumble along like some doltish good citizen and who the heck wants to listen to that noise, when fascist flag wavers are so much more, you know, inspiring?

Why make people pick between good sense and decency, which is hard and boring, and foaming maniacs who encourage one to sit back and work up the energy to slap one's knee, sometimes even working up the spit to dial and ditto? Get with it, dude.

The American public wants a circus of harpies screeching their xenophobia and thumping their concave chests in front of their microphones! You bumble along like some doltish good citizen and who the heck wants to listen to that noise, when fascist flag wavers are so much more, you know, inspiring?

There you have it folks, --- "JIBBERISH"!!

I rest my case.
--Ferdikins

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

God, Ferdy Boy, you have NO idea how badly I needed that laugh. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Really. Thank you.

What's so strange about this is how good Peter B. Collins really is compared to a lot of other hosts out there, including progressive ones who have been more successful. I first heard him subbing for Thom Hartmann, who I also like, but what struck me at the time was : wow, this guy's better than Thom Hartmann! Then I tracked down his own show and listened to it regularly from then on. Hartmann seems to be doing well. Not that I begrudge him it - I still like him too. But Peter B Collins should be able to do as well.

His voice, his technique, his manner with guests and callers, they really are as good as it gets. Of course he's also very well informed about the issues. It's just so strange that he can't flourish while lesser talents do.

"Pelosi shilling"? "Hand waving over the Impeachment blockade"? Perhaps you've been listening to a different PBC than I (and the rest of the world) have.

You are not being factual, Brad. I hope you aren't always so sloppy when forming your opinions.

Listen to PBC, before he went on vacation, around the time Pelosi erected the Impeachment barricade. Big talk, no action. Then listen to PBC make excuses in the following months. All while trash talking Cindy Sheehan (who was pressuring Pelosi to defend the Constitution, and went as far as running against Pelosi last year).

Why not ask PBC himself? Ask him about his ties to Pelosi. Ask him about his dancing around Impeachment (actions vs words). Ask him why he bad mouthed Sheehan.

While PBC may have covered some things well, he did a grave disservice to the Nation, in a time of peril.

Yo, I don't know what Peter B said or did not say relative to Pelosi or Sheehan, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is somehow his fault Pelosi is a traitor, and Cindy, while a completely higher class human than Pelosi, was too wimpy and associated with a circus-like atmosphere, and above all poor to beat her in an election.

I'm not a regular listener because I can't hack the commercials. They give me bad headaches, but from the times I have listened to him live or listened to archives of the Peter B Collins Show, I have been hugely impressed by his wonderful work. I think you must have been pushed so far over the edge by the perfidies of our broken government that you're lashing out at someone who really seriously doesn't deserve your ire.

Impeach PBC, your rant sounds clueless. I don't think anyone was pushing for impeachment harder than PBC. He was frank both about his prior connections to Pelosi and his complaints about her current performance. He was against the Sheehan run primarily because he thought it had no chance of succeeding. IIRC, he even had Sheehan on at the time she was running so she could have her say, even though he himself wasn't supporting her.

PBC has been more willing to talk about the truly sinister side of the Repugnicans than virtually any other host except maybe Mike Malloy.

I recall PBC specifically raising the impeachment question with guests who were obviously uncomfortable with it and pushing them on it to the point where their feathers became ruffled.