...on coverage

or on failure to cover failure

now the bastard isn't always in the business of gloating about failure but he is interested in the lack of coverage of it sometimes. i gave up watching o'reilly because he's just become tiresome for me to listen to. it was jading my opinion on things. dad always said from his copy of the sunday times that you need to look at all points of view and the bastard does. it's how i come to the conclusions i do.

anyway, when air america first came on the air the bastard was glad that there was a liberal station coming out on the air to make sure that there was something the go up against the "big right wing conspiracy on the radio". now the bastard used to listen to a lot of talk radio and when abc/disney bought the one liberal station on the dial and turned it into espn radio, the bastard was bummed. i enjoyed toggling between the right wing drivetime guy and the left wing one. "clinton is a bastard/clinton is a saint". "he cheated on his wife./so what, everybody does it". it was a laugh riot for me stuck in traffic. also, it gave me insight into both points of view. now air america has taken that spot and now i know why the old liberal station was bought. not enough people want to hear it, and the MSM isn't covering this.

ok quick theory: fox news channel does better in the ratings than any other cable news station. why is this? well one would have you believe that it's because the folks in red states are too damn stupid, fuh fuh fuh. i disagree. besides it would be too convenient an answer if everyone was brain dead. this kind of runs into that weird anomaly of how george bush is both an idiot and a machiavellian genius depending on what suits said pundit's modus operandi. you see. if we go with the bernie goldberg theory of media bias(and to be fair, opinions vary on this), we can argue that if say, 50 percent of the country is liberal leaning and 50 percent of the country is conservative, and you have cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc, al gore's new channel, cnbc, cspan(let's be fair they just regurgitate footage) as liberally biased or perceived liberally biased news channels. then you have fox news channel as your one perceived right leaning news station. now that would lead 50 percent of the nation to watch one news station and you have 50 percent of the nation watching the other channels. not to mention the segment of the population that is more interested in watching survivor or american idol instead of current events. so do the math, more choices give fragmented viewership.

which brings the bastard back to air america. why is it failing? o'reilly is on one station, limbaugh is on another, i think that there might be one other right leaning station and then there's air america. the same logic should take hold shouldn't it. or maybe it might be that the left leaning 50 percent of this nation is more interested in music and the other 50 are listening to the radio free neo-con. i don't know. maybe their failing is based on how "stupid" the rest of the country is being told they are by a cantankerous fuck like al franken. i don't really know and i don't really care. the bastard could continue hashing out stuff about how maybe there is some salt in the notion that the rest of the country is fed up with liberal bias but the bastard doesn't really believe that. i think the country is as divied as the media says we are and there are just that few outlets for one spectrum and a shitload for the other. why else wouldn't they be covering air america's demise just simply as a media story? i think there would be some coverage if fox news went south but now the bastard is trying to goad his more liberal sibling into a fight. take the bait shiteyes...go on...take it.

—the bastard