Chairman, parter leaves Air America

[Johnny Punani2]

Chairman, partner leave Air America

By John Cook
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 7, 2004

In yet another sign of trouble for Air America Radio, the liberal talk network's co-founder and chairman, Evan Cohen, resigned Thursday along with his investment partner and vice chairman, Rex Sorensen.

The company also failed to make its scheduled payroll Wednesday, leaving its staff of roughly 100 writers and producers unpaid until Thursday.

The radio network has been on the air for only five weeks. On April 30, it was pulled off Chicago's airwaves because of a payment dispute.

"We're on a wild ride," said Jon Sinton, the network's president, acknowledging that Air America has suffered "the typical bumps and bruises faced by any start-up."

"But the bottom line," he said, "is that we are on the air to stay."

The departures of Cohen, a former Republican political operative from Guam who was among the network's initial investors, and Sorensen, an investor, mark the second executive shake-up at the fledgling network in as many weeks.

Last week, co-founder and Chief Executive Mark Walsh resigned (he remains a senior adviser), and programming chief Dave Logan was forced out.

Replacements for Walsh and Cohen have yet to be named. Asked when those positions would be filled, Sinton replied: "I wouldn't hold my breath."

Sinton said Cohen was forced to resign by investors unhappy with the way he handled a clash with Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Inc., owner of Air America's Chicago and Los Angeles stations.

After an acrimonious and public dispute, the two companies severed their relationship, leaving the network off the air in two of the nation's top three markets. (Air America remains on the air in 16 markets, including New York City.)

"I think that other shareholders were upset with the way that escalated so quickly," Sinton said. "I don't think that needed to be handled in such an argumentative fashion."

Cohen has previously said that Air America's investors include former broadcasters Thomas Embrescia and Norman Wain, TV pioneer Norman Lear, and Sheldon Drobny, the Highland Park entrepreneur who originally founded the company before selling most of it to Walsh and Cohen in November.

Sinton said he was unaware whether Cohen and Sorensen will retain their ownership stakes in the company. Cohen did not return phone calls.

Last week, according to two sources familiar with the matter, paychecks to some of the network's talent--a group that includes Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and Randi Rhodes--bounced, and Rhodes joked on the air about not being paid.

A scheduled payday for the staff on Wednesday came and went without checks, though the staff was paid on Thursday. Sinton chalked up both cases to "technical issues."

It couldn't happen to a group of nicer people...LMFAO!!!

[Kilmer17]

Speaking of media bias......

After a deluge of media hype over the start of this boondoggle, I wonder why the media is so quiet about it's failure?

Maybe Peter Jennings is working on it.

[SkinsHokie Fan]

All I have to say is this:

wonk wonk

[Buford]

maybe because your quest for the Holy Grail....I mean Liberal Media ends here.

Liberal shows don't work because they don't tell people its everbodies fault but theirs. Rush is too busy telling his listeners they work too hard as it is......why should they work any harder to help pay for welfare or something else? He tells them that its somebody else fault....to blame them.

Its very clever.

Air America was a dumb idea in the 1st place.

The Liberal Media bias idea is overblown. So overblown that they have Conversative shows in Cable news networks who complain about....the Liberal Media.....yet they are on the air.

[Kilmer17]

So because they dont control ALL of the media, that must mean they dont control the majority of it?

The existence of Right leaning media is obvious and apparent. And it PALES in comparison the the left leaning media.

[Buford]

the Left leaning media or whatever you call it doesn't spend more energy crying about the existense of the other side like their counterparts do.

That's one reason why its such a topic right now.

Forget explaining how Bush plans to reach all these goals in Iraq.....lets talk about this Newspaper in San Diego who's talking about the prison scandal and not reporting the real story. An Iraqi boy and his puppy were reunited after a week apart. Special Section in tomorrow's deluxe edition.

[Kilmer17]

the Left leaning media or whatever you call it doesn't spend more energy crying about the existense of the other side like their counterparts do.

Of course they dont. Those with most of the power rarely if ever complain about the power of the lesser side.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Speaking of media bias......

After a deluge of media hype over the start of this boondoggle, I wonder why the media is so quiet about it's failure?

Maybe Peter Jennings is working on it.
Because it hasn't failed yet. When it goes off the air I'd be willing to bet it gets reported on.

BTW - why hasn't the fact that el Rushbo is using ads in the paper to attack the prosecutor in his case directly been in the media? I mean OMG OMG it must mean there is a overwhelming media bias!!!! ONOS!

[Buford]

I'd say you should have your own show with those unique points of view that the liberal media is drowning out.

But there are already out there and people are watching them. So, its no secret. That point of view is out there.

[Kilmer17]

Nobody is denying that it is.

That doesnt change the fact that the MAJORITY of the media, specifically the big media outlets, have a left bias.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
That doesnt change the fact that the MAJORITY of the media, specifically the big media outlets, have a left bias.

But that is decided by the free market. For example the Washington Post out gains the Times because the Times is sh*tty. Most people I know that read the times, do it becasue of their media slant, while moderates/liberals/conservatives that read the post do it becasue it's a better paper.

So if your only argument is "there are more" then you have no argument. The more is decided by quality, which I might add is the same reason used for the success of conservative radio.

Americans are free to access the media sources of their choosing and most choose those that aren't slanted right. That does not equate to bias media, it means the conservatives in the press.....suck.

[Buford]

There are also more news outlets than ever before.

Cable...Internet...etc.

Just because this admin is getting donkey kicked in the face for their huge mistakes and their lack of being accountable for their huge mistakes doesn't mean they won't go after the new guy just as hard.

Is it ever going to be 100% down the middle? Nope.....this was an issue back in the days of the Boston Gazette and the New England Courant, over 250 years ago. Its not that huge though.....actually, its small enough that these guys like Scarborough, Miller, O'Reilly..etc are just as loud...if not LOUDER than the people who are complained about.

[Kilmer17]

It's not decided by the free market. Because the major players control the market. As much of a stir that FoxNews has caused, they still represent less than 5 percent of the audience of any of the big 3 networks.

Sure the Times can print opposing views. But that;s not the point.

Im not arguing that the left controls ALL of the media.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
It's not decided by the free market. Because the major players control the market. As much of a stir that FoxNews has caused, they still represent less than 5 percent of the audience of any of the big 3 networks.

Sure the Times can print opposing views. But that;s not the point.

Im not arguing that the left controls ALL of the media.

I se what you are saying but the media is a market and if the demand was there it would be met. That's what capitalism is all about. Sadly however the conservative media has not shown itself to grow fast enough to demand more of a response then it is already getting. FOX is #1 in cable news, but it's alone in it's slant. Give it competition like MSNBC gives CNN and it's share will be split and no longer will it look like the strong channel it pretends to be.

Look at news print, the Times is there yet it continues to fill only the role of the Post's ugly little brother, becasue people don't buy and it's been operating at a loss (Moonie has a vested interested in keeping it open).

[Kilmer17]

More to it than that.

I LOVE the Post. I dont pick up a Newspaper for the political part. I like it's Sports and Living sections. I get the NY Times every Sunday. People choose Newspapers based on their preference of the papers ENTIRE content.

Cable News netwroks are minor minor players in the grand media scheme.

[luckydevil]

It's not decided by the free market.

Of course it is

Destino is right

[Kilmer17]

The circulation is decided by the free market, not the political slant of the paper.

[Buford]

and if people didn't like or agree with what a paper was reporting.......they should stop buying it.

If people don't like or agree with the news on TV, then they should watch something different.

51/49 is a majority and way too much for some people.

[Kilmer17]

If the paper (in this example) ONLY dealt with politics, you would be correct. But as I have pointed out, I enjoy the Post for many other reasons. The NY Times as well.

[Buford]

that's because good sports writing and non-political stories attract people. There is a reason why the Post has Wilbon and Tony K......its a better operation top to bottom than the Post. But there are posters here who judge a paper by one section and like to voice that point of view over and over and over and over.

Perhaps these other sources (who think the media is too liberal) should invest in being at least average with the other topics. When you have an agenda that's so focused where you can't even report sports in a decent way, review a CD or pick a nice place to eat......its a problem.

[Kilmer17]

Your mixing up the issue.

The Post has a greater circulation because it is a better paper.

That's not the same as saying "More people must agree with the Posts editorial slant because more people read it."

The issue is whether or not the Post (In it's non-commentary and editorial pages) slants it's stories towards a Liberal Bias. I think that they do. I think the same applies to nightly newscasts.

And if these other "right wing" sources of news did make themselves more attractive, that still wouldnt change the left leaning bias of those currently with the most circulation and ratings.

[Buford]

we're not going to agree here. You think the media is very bias and its mostly liberal.

I think its slightly bias and yeah...it does lean, but not half as much as some say.

Plus.....its not the papers fault that there are 30 bad Iraq stories for every 1 good one. that's war.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by NavyDave
Boy both listeners of Air America must be p1ssed.


:laugh: :laugh: :D