Air America Radio Starts Mach 31st

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.airamericaradio.com/



On March 31, 2004 Air America Radio begins airlifting entertaining, progressive talk radio to millions of Americans who for far too long have been and are being neglected by talk radio broadcasters today.



Our on-air personalities and guests represent today's top political and popular humorists, commentators, activists and analysts.



Our irreverent, informative programming sparks the kind of challenging political and social dialogue that has been absent from AM radio for years.



Our programs will mix provocative conversation, challenging interviews and biting political satire.







The Two Shows I'm looking forward to are The O'Franken Factor and the Majority Report. I'll actually have somthing other than NPR to listen to now!



http://www.airamericaradio.com/index...ask=view&id=26





I know to some on here it means the beggining of the apocalypse...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Now if they'll just get on the air here in So Cal.
  • Reply 2 of 31
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    1. It's not going to succeed. Mark my words.



    2. It occurred to me: Depsite getting O'Reilly and Fox to drop the previous lawsuit, I think Al Franken may lost the next one. What lawsuit, you ask? The one that's coming due to the name The O'Franken Factor. That's a direct swipe at O'Reilly, and proving that Franken can capitalize on the "O" and "Factor" parts while possibly confusing consumers should not be hard (unlike the last suit...which was weak).
  • Reply 3 of 31
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    it won't suceed because bush will lose the election and there will be no reason for the moderates and left leaning people to have a radio voice for them...unlike now when bushey and company couldn't care less about moderates and the left...



    g
  • Reply 4 of 31
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    hehehehe...



    I don't think so.



    Once again... PARODY! SATIRE!



    No one is going to confuse AL's show with O'Liely.



    Here's a hint... one is on radio the other on tv.



    I hope they sue!
  • Reply 5 of 31
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    hehehehe...



    I don't think so.



    Once again... PARODY! SATIRE!



    No one is going to confuse AL's show with O'Liely.



    Here's a hint... one is on radio the other on tv.



    I hope they sue!




    Mikerowesoft.com
  • Reply 6 of 31
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Here's a hint... one is on radio the other on tv.



    I hope they sue!




    Well, there is "The Radio Factor" now too so Bill is on the air for about 4 or 5 hours a day. \



    On another note... they took over WLIB? I didn't see that one coming.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    So has he trademarked The ______ Factor?



    I don't think so... he can't own the word "factor".
  • Reply 8 of 31
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    I can't WAIT to hear this attempt...
  • Reply 9 of 31
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    "progressive"?



    That means partisan democrat now?
  • Reply 10 of 31
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    "progressive"?



    That means partisan democrat now?




    Correct. Anything to avoid the word "liberal" - it's like last week's potato salad... you can't sell it.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    You can't a be a partisan liberal because there's no political party called The Liberals.
  • Reply 12 of 31
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Democrats are not liberals. They are Bush-lite.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    I hope it does well. I don't have to agree with the opinion being espoused to enjoy the entertainment value.



    Of course the entertainment value is what will decide if this thing lives or dies, probably much more so than the political perspective.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 31
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    unlike the last suit...which was weak







    Let's see what SDW said about the last one at the time:



    Quote:

    The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose...



    I am just amazed by the statements I am reading here. It's like some of you live on another planet.



    Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.



    I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.



    But, the evidence is against Franken here...



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...n&pagenumber=1



    But, you know, thanks for your input and all.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    And Nader supporters are what? God's gift to government?



    or disillusioned and politcally impotent?
  • Reply 16 of 31
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,918member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant





    Let's see what SDW said about the last one at the time:





    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...n&pagenumber=1



    But, you know, thanks for your input and all.




    I stand by those statements. I'm not backing away from them. I still think Franken infringed last time, but in a legal context I was apparently wrong. Actually, we won't know, because Fox dropped the suit.



    This particular case seems to be a more direct reference to O'Reilly's show. Franken stands to benefit financially from that. Reagrdless of stance, do you honestly disagree?
  • Reply 17 of 31
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    They have completely different audiences!!!!



    There's no way anyone is going to think this show has anything to do with O'reilly... ESPECIALLY if they're an O'Lielly fan.



    See there's that word in there that might give it away... FRANKEN.



    Sheeesh.
  • Reply 18 of 31
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This particular case seems to be a more direct reference to O'Reilly's show. Franken stands to benefit financially from that. Reagrdless of stance, do you honestly disagree?



    You are trying to make copyright law something it isn't. We already know your understanding of it is very weak, as reinforced twice now just this week (the other time being your misunderstanding of PM).



    See, I actually have to deal with copyright issues on an hourly basis during my day. Literally. And even I know that cases like this are not cut and dry.



    I also have an uncle who is the senior copyright lawyer at a major publisher. Because our professions have so many intersections, we talk shop all the time. Even as a copyright lawyer for decades, he still spends most of the time 'staring out the window,' which is his way of saying that even he has to think hard about this stuff.



    You see, SDW, the reason you are so consistently wrong is that you think you can just infer everything from just a little bit of information. The fact is that copyright law is really complex when you get into individual situations. In fact, the law part of it is just a guidline, and every organization that works off that has a complex set of issues and solutions that move it far from the basic common understandings of copyright. You can't just infer this kind of stuff. The issues I deal with, for instance, require a TON of background knowledge. If you tried to deal with these issues you just end up tripping all over the place.



    Is your gripe (not fox's, since they have yet to say anything) is legitimate? I don't know, and neither do you, no matter how much you think you think being a 5th grade music teacher in rural penn has taught you about the copyright issues large organizations and companies struggle with.



    But my *guess* is that it won't go very far. If we are talking about two radio shows, then maybe, but I'm not sure how parody is handled.



    The previous case that you were dead wrong about was totally stupid and impossible to win from the get-go, and this was painfully clear to anyone with even a basic knowledge of it. Franken is pushing the limits more this time. Clearly the lawyers they have working for them (who are likely fairly accomplished) seem to think they can get away with it. Who knows, though? Not you.



    And you never will know anything until you start accepting that your judgement is often not accurate.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Actually Fox did comment.



    "Our country was based on the principle of free speech. We wish them well.''
  • Reply 20 of 31
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Actually Fox did comment.



    "Our country was based on the principle of free speech. We wish them well.''




    Well, there you have it, then.



    Live and learn, unless you live in coatesville.
Sign In or Register to comment.