Talk:Air America – Gloria Wise loan controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Added some image and updated info. --Wynot Minot 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I have replaced the Al Franken image with the Air America logo. With the Al Franken image the article gave the impression that Franken had some special significance to the GW loan affair which he doesn't.

Actually he does. He made a loan guarantee to repay the $875,000 that may nave been illegally obtained from the Gloria Wise charity organization. I'm reinserting the photo and placing that info in the caption. --DEastman 04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to represent this affair and the facts thereof accurately. Neither Al Franken or The Al Franken Show have made any such loan guarantee to repay the $875,000 that was illegally transferred by former members of the GW executive board to Progress Media, the former owners of Air America Radio. The relevant AAR press release is here. [1] The relevant NYC DOI press release is here. [2] There is no source which supports the assertion that Al Franken made such a loan guarantee. --Pmagnay 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't intend to read the supporting links you shouldn't continue to muck with the article. What does the statement "The escrow move comes as it was disclosed yesterday that Air America's star, Al Franken, signed an agreement last year to repay the entire loan," mean to you? That was in one of the supporting links. I'll make it easy on you and provide it here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nypost/20050908/lo_nypost/airamericaadjusts36tatic

In the future, if you doubt any statement just click on the little number beside it, capice? I'm going to revert the article you've vandalized again and ask you not to repeat your nonsense. --Kirby Morgan 00:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies on conduct during discussions and NPOV. I did previously read that supporting link and that NY Post article you cite here in this discussion is incorrect. The NY Sun corrected this falsehood [3] (scroll to bottom for correction). Franken did not sign any agreement which guarantees the repayment of the loan. The settlement agreement in question between Piquant and Evan Cohen clearly shows that no guarantees, terms or conditions were made in respect of repayment of the loan. The settlement agreement - if you would read it - is NOT a guarantee to repay the loan. In fact, GW is not even a party to that agreement. And Franken is noted in the settlement agreement as NOT even being an investor.

You insist on misrepresenting Franken's role in this affair. And simply characterizing the removal/correction of your POV edits as vandalism and/or nonsense does not suppport your continued POV campaign against Franken. If it happens again, then I'll put a dispute on the page and ask for mediation. Capice?--Pmagnay 13:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There have been repeated attempts to misrepresent this affair - back when this was part of the AAR article and now when it is it's own article.

First, Al Franken role in this affair is not significant for his image to appear of this article. This is a transparent attempt to assign responsibility for this affair (wholly or in part) to Franken. Franken had no involvement in the fund transfers from Gloria Wise to Progress Media, he had no involvement in the financial management of Progress Media or Piquant (former and current owner of AAR respectively), and he is not even an investor in the current owner, Piquant. And as I mentioned previously, the assertion that Franken or the Al Franken show made guarantees with respect to repayment of the GW loan is absolutely false. There is no credible source that puts Franken at the center of this affair. Therefore, Franken's image does not belong on this page.

Second, it is a misrepresentation to portray that AAR is under criminal investigation by the NYC DOI. It is the former members of the Gloria Wise executive board who approved and transferred funds from Gloria Wise who are under investigation. This includes former head of Progress Media, Evan Cohen, who was also a director at Gloria Wise, and Charles Rosen. Piquant has recognized the GW liability and recognized the misappropriation and transfer of funds by GW executives. AAR has recently placed the entire loan amount in an escrow account in anticpation of the outcome of the investigation. There is no source which confirms that AAR is under criminal investigation.

If we get into a cycle of reverts, then I'll throw this page into dispute. --Pmagnay 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no credible source that denies Franken has made loan guarantees. Franken hasn't even denied it. The only denial has come fron the Network but their credibility is in question given the criinal investigation they are now a principal in. On the other hand both the New York Sun and New York Post have confirmed Franken's loan guarantees and, despite AAR's protest, they have not retracted their statement. The why to handle that in the article is not by your censorship and vandalism but by including AAR's denial of the facts. --Kirby Morgan 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please read Wikipedia policies on NPOV editing. No evidence is not evidence. Not denying an false assertion does not make that assertion true. The assertion that Franken made loan guarantees is absolutely false. The settlement agreement between Piquant and Progress Media does not guarantee to repay the loan. Gloria Wise is not even a signatory to the agreement. And Franken is noted in the agreement as not even being an investor with any financial interest in Piquant.

As I stated above, characterizing my removal/correction of your POV edits as censorship and/or vandalism will not help your POV campaign against Franken. If it continues, then I'll put a dispute on the page and ask for mediation.--Pmagnay 13:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed Images - Reaching Agreement[edit]

In the interest of NPOV and in accordance with Wikipedia advice on reaching agreement concerning disputes, I am going to REMOVE both disputed images for the time being until such agreement can be reached through discussion. I ask all who are interested in coming to an agreement as to which images belong on this article, to put your comments here. --Pmagnay 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? Where does Wikipedia say you get your way until agreement is reached? --DEastman 00:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I normally don't quote Sun Myung Moon's publications (but perhaps doing so provides even greater weight). This NY Sun article [4] includes a correction (scroll to the bottom) which clearly dispels the falsehood that Franken signed any loan guarantee or agreement to repay the GW loan. Another NY Sun article [5] quotes Danny Glodberg's statement about Franken's role in signing the settlement agreement between Piquant and Evan Cohen.

So I reiterate that since Franken's involvement in this affair is limited, his image does not belong on this article.

Concerning Spitzer's image, I have no objection per se to this image appearing in this article. But I do object to any characterization in the caption that AAR itself is somehow under criminal investigation. This is inaccurate and misleading. AAR is not a "target" of the investigation. Although several of AAR'a management have been interviewed and some have provided testimony, neither AAR nor any current AAR management or staff have been identified as "targets" of this investigation. It is not even clear that former management such as Evan Cohen or Terri Sinohe are targets either. (Terri Sinohe's attorney denied that his client is a target of this investigation.) The legal distinction between "targets" and "witnesses" in such an investigations is quite clear. Witnesses are not under investigation and they do not deserve to be tainted with statements that they are under "criminal investigation" simply because they have been called upon to provide testimony to such investigations as witnesses. --Pmagnay 17:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Post has also reported Spitzer is criminally investigating AAR. Until you can come up with a better source than AAR who denies Franken has guaranteed the loan and/or Spitzer is criminally investigating AAR the references stay as statements about what the papers have reported. --DEastman 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Raising Dispute & Calling for Third Party Opinion concerning POV Images[edit]

The inclusion of Franken's image and the caption to Spitzers image is clearly POV.

NO evidence is NOT evidence. Absence of a denial of a falsehood does NOT make that falsehood true. And it is absurd to post inaccurate/incorrect reporting as facts, reporting which has been duly corrected by the publication in question.

1. Franken's Image The settlement agreement is clear. It is a legal document and is the primary source of facts in this instance. The settlement agreement clearly demonstrates that 1) it is NOT a loan guarantee, it does NOT include any terms or conditions relating to the repayment of the loan, 2) Franken is not an investor, he has no financial interest in any of the partys to the agreement. Franken has no connection to the original loan transfers.

Franken's limited role in this affair therefore does NOT warrant his image in this article

2. Caption on Spitzer's Image AAR is not a target of the investigation. Therefore the assertion that AAR is under "criminal investigation" is clearly POV.

I have attempted to engage in dialogue to resolve these two issues but no such courtesy has been returned. So I am now going to start the dispute resolution process.

1. A NPOV dispute banner will be placed on this page until these issues can be resolved. 2. I am also going to clearly indicate in the body of the article exactly where those disputes lie. 3. I will be requesting for a third party opinion to resolve the disputes.

I ask you to follow Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution. --Pmagnay 16:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it about Piquant LLC and Progress Media, the owners of AAR? If so, wouldn't including "Air America Radio's owners" into the Spitzer thing fix it? I dont consider myself 3rd party given my hand in the article, but I figured I'd chime in... --Badlydrawnjeff 17:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Saw this on WP:3O and thought I'd take a gander. From my understanding of the situation, it appears that Franken is on the fringes of this issue and really only notable as a recognizable talent on Air America. The picture of Franken doesn't serve a purpose on this page -- maybe one of Evan Cohen could go in its place; he seems more central to the issue? The picture of Spitzer definately adds value, but the comment on AAR should be removed. While the news media does use the Air America name frequently, I imagine that's in the name of publicity -- they always eventually state that it is the parent company being investigated (Progress Media) and paying back the loan (Piquant LLC); its interesting how they mention it off hand and rarely actually name the parent company. Anyways, we shouldn't let their POV treatment of the story affect our own. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variety of sources[edit]

I'm wondering, if this case were on the level, why is almost every source cited from the NY Sun? I mean, there are a few from the NY Post and Times, but not many. Have other papers failed to chime in because they consider the case non-newsworthy? Or was it that the NY Sun's coverage was cherry-picked in order to bias this article? Whatever the reason, a greater variety of sourcing is required. Kasreyn 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is basically a rewrite of a series of Michelle Malkin columns. The dead giveaway is the incorrect reference to the intial newspaper that broke the scandal as "The Bronx News" (like Malkin did) instead of the correct name "The Gotham Gazette". Many of the "quotes" in this article appear to have been lifted from Malkin's columns. FinFangFoom 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last year I wrote Byron Calome, the NY Times Public Editor, who acknowledged puzzlement that the Times had written so little about this subject. He sent an inquiry to Times editors but got no straight answer. WBcoleman 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Malkin and "The Radio Equalizer" have written about the New York Times coverage: By their count, the NYT published over 50 articles about Air America that have been either positive or informative, with the first mention of the Gloria Wise "loan" in a version of the paper distributed exclusively to the Bronx. The accusation is that the NYT is purposefully omitting negative coverage of Air America.


Typo[edit]

I noticed there is a problem with the last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph. "Piquant LLC subsequently out of court on November 18, 2005." How about a verb in this sentence? Hildenja 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air America – Gloria Wise loan controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air America – Gloria Wise loan controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_America_–_Gloria_Wise_loan_controversy&oldid=1198200827"