Talk:Air America Radio/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archve 1 -- Air American Radio talk page

Earlier today I added BoreAmerica.com to the "Fan sites: Message boards, archives, chat rooms" section, and it was removed by ClockworkSoul with this message: "Remove POV anti-blog. This contributes nothing notable or informative to the article." If BoreAmerica doesn't add anything, then neither do the fan sites. Or, are only sites that support AAR allowed? Is a critical discussion of AAR not allowed? Since I've covered negative information on AAR - information that you probably won't find at the fan sites - don't you think those coming to this page might not get the complete picture? LonewackoDotCom 19:20, 4 Apr 2005 (PST)

You might open up a sub-category in External Links for right-wing nut-job sites that are critical of AAR, but not just any old blog that has some ad hominem screed about "that nasty, commie, pinko, anti-american, stupid liberal joke of a radio network, ditto, ditto, ditto" thing. Also, the category is "fan sites, message boards, blogs, etc." so adding that there would not be appropriate, to my way of thinking, since they obviously are not "fan sites."
In general, I'd caution againt turning this article into some kind of horrible "debate" page, or quasi-editorial, that's not what wikepedia is. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As it standands, this is an article about the entity air american radio. That said, you might draft some other section about Criticism of Air American, however, it would have to be drafted with care to make it neutral and factually supported. For what it's worth, I've noticed more reversionism (censorship)of information criical of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and so on; but, on the other hand, some of the better pages on -- to quote Mike Malloy -- "flying monkey right-wing talkshow hosts do stick to the subjects of the articles and are presented in an accurate and neutral fashion. For example, I added a site showing some the gross distortions and lies factually documented about Bill O'Rielly and no one's removed it, just an external link. It was a good source, brought out another point of view in a neutral, factual way. Wikipeidia is not for editorializing, even weasel-worded editorializing. "some peple think" kind of phrases. See weasel words. I'd keep the focus as it is, on the -- who, what, where, when, why, how -- of Air American Radio itself. Hope this helps... Calicocat 14:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"right-wing nut-job sites"? Quite an interesting way of looking at things. In any case, my blog BoreAmerica.com has been online for over a year and, except for housekeeping entries like this one it's all about Air America, their hosts, and their outside projects. And, I cover the things you won't read at the fan sites currently listed at the entry. As it stands now, this entry has a great deal of pro-AAR information, but not very much about their various problems.
Quoting from the NPOV: "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."
So, I just created a new category as you suggested. LonewackoDotCom 11:45, 7 Apr 2005 (PST)
One site is not "Sites" so I removed the topic heading and moved it to "external links" with an appropriate heading. I also don't think you're correct in saying one will not see the opinions and information you post on your blog on the shows' and hosts' blogs. I read them and see plenty of critical opinions. Calicocat 23:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems like people are coming in here and slamming the external links section with news. That's not really what "external links" are for, is it? Seems kind of POVish abuse of the page. Calicocat 00:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll say right up front, I like Air America Radio, however, you do call attention to a fair concern: the article should not, even inadvertently, be turned into a promotional or PR venue for the network. Does the article on say Sean Hannity list all the stations his show is on? No it does not. (I don't have the heart to remove that however, since it must have been a ton of work to do it and I'd hate to see it just tossed into the history, but perhaps it should be moved to a "talk" page or something, anyone can follow an external link to the network and find those stations... As it stands, the article needs a lot of work. I'd appeal to all, fans and non-fans, to do some NPOV editing. Again, whilst I enjoy Air America Radio myself I am an NPOVist to the bone. Calicocat 00:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • There's nothing POV about the list of stations being included. --AStanhope 00:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not that it's POV to add them, it's more in keeping with wikipedia policy against "vanity pages," "not a listing of links service," type of thing. I suggest you see, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I think that explains my concerns. Calicocat 14:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vanity page, and from the Wikipedia policy it stats For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Given the expansion of the network is relevant to the article itself and the history of the topic, I would say it is relevant. Lestatdelc 23:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rhodes skit and Drudge

Drudge made the charge that Secret Service is "investigation" other draft accept that as fact. Burden of proof on Drudge and should not be stated as fact. My draft included sourced and placed the AAR denial right next to it, etc. My draft is more in keeping with wikipedia policy than the previous and should be discussed here before another vistually wholesale reversion. Calicocat 13:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and cut & paste everything that was said in the Rhodes article because it's the same argument. Equinox137 18:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, fair enough - he didn't provide any confrimation from anyone in the government, so I'll leave that be, but as far as I know, Drudge has not distributed a false story. He has, in fact, broken stories most of the media wasn't willing to cover until the absolutely HAVE to - Lewinsky being the biggest one, but not the only one. The thing I do have to call you on though is that the SS is INDEED an investigative agency. It has exclusive jurisdiction over threats to the President and also investigates counterfeting. There are 12 (i think) federal law enforcement agencies and each has their own little domain. Alleged threats to the President belong exclusively to the SS.
I saw the statement on the AAR website yesterday when I added the paragraph. I should have hot-linked it at that time. I would guess the statement was probably removed because I remember it being towards the bottom of the front page.
As far as the SCOTUS case goes, I have to agree and really I don't think it's going to go far even if there is an investigation. The big problem I have is the way it's been phrased with "alleged" investigation. By phrasing it that way, one could assume the article accepts AAR's version of the facts and it detracts what Drudge has reported. The section of the article is supposed to be about what aired on AAR, not about how biased or through Drudge may be. If you feel the previous version was POV, I've gotta say your revert is DEFINITELY POV . . . maybe the entire section needs to be reworded altogether. Maybe a heading of "Report of Secret Service Investigation" or something of that nature??? Equinox137 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey Calicoat, your own final edit says that UPI reported that the Secret Service did investigate and decided to let it go . . .Doesn't that pretty much settle the issue?

In any case, I kept most of your changes with a few minor ones of my own. Let me know what you think. Equinox137 16:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took a little closer look and deleted the sentence "The comedy presentation contains the sound effect of 'gunshots' which Drudge alleges constitute a threat against the life of the president, others disagree and think it an example of Drudge engaging in unethical scandal mongering and insinuating himself into the public eye for his own self-promotion." I want to be fair but come on, Cali - that's blantantly POV. By putting that in there, you're making the story about Drudge instead of the story he's reporting. Since he's the guy that broke Lewinsky, I don't think he needs to promote himself any further. Equinox137 18:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Randi_Rhodes"

I think it's fine to have the sections here and at Randi Rhodes match. My primary objection here is your removal of the term sound effects, which is what they are. As I said, sound effects are a used in virtually every AAR show, including gunshot sounds use as comedic fashion. I've mentioned this more than once and invited you to do reaserch on the sourced links. Listen to them on AAR on stream and you'll hear it. I don't have any fair use audio postings to give you, but the archives at air american place would also be good. This is real and part of radio production going back to the earliest days of the medium. Calicocat 23:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to the sound effects. I think I nuked the reference by accident. Your most recent revision pretty looks good to me, although the way you worded the "Information and News" as though you're trying to sell the network instead of report facts on it. You wanna take a fresh look at it? Equinox137 01:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, the SS investigated it and dropped it. They didn't take an interest in it. Equinox137 01:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I can see how you think he's "trying to sell the network", with the ethical journalism thing, but I think the point is that Air America is a reality-based opinion network, and is not just some fringe network that makes thinks up or reports as fact things that are completely untrue (sadly, one could not say the same about some of its right-wing counterparts, I've seen Rush make up quotes a number of times). The point is, Air America does not make things up. How would you more properly rephrase it? Knuckle50 03:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
That right. There's a detailed article on journalism ethics which I've worked very hard on along with a good group of other. Take a look at it and you'll see why it's an important point with regard to AAR public affairs content and news. If anything AAR watchdog's the spin doctors with regular features from People for the Amerian Way, The Nation magazine, Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America. Calicocat, Joe Conoson, ... they also interview Government officials, quote from studies, etc.. 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The way it was rephrased is much better. The only issue I have, and a minor one at that, is the statement "All programs, however, are rooted in the basic principles of ethical journalism". Is the author, as a detached provider of information, stating that? Or is someone belonging to or promoting AAR? Equinox137 12:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Category: Air America Radio?

Should there should be a category for Air America Radio? I think it can be filled with links to the Randi Rhodes show, Al Franken and Ring of Fire (radio program). --Blue387 23:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a full category. It's fine as it is that way. Networks like ABC and so on do not have those. Calicocat 23:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Calicocat. Equinox137 01:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)