Can somebody explain the logic of AAR

[choie]

Giving Mark Riley the 5 - 7a.m. spot without Marc Maron? I understand wanting to expand Rachel Maddow's show and consequently shortening Morning Sedition's hours, but why couldn't they keep the pairing of Riley and Maron the 5-7 spot? I don't understand it? Anybody????

[Oceansaway]

1. $$ ??

[Dawgs]

2. Maron would rather focus on comedy bits than talk politics...

AAR is for progressive political talk, not comedy. I completely agree with this decision. I don't have anything against Maron; I just prefer political talk over comedy bits.

[choie]

7. I really disagree with that...

Marc Maron used comedy as a way of talking about issues. The idea of Air America was to include comedic elements to progressive talk radio, hence Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, who are brilliantly funny and smart as hell. I genuinely laughed out loud at "recovery corner" or Laughton Small's Planet Bush, no only because they were funny bits, but because they were politically astute. I'm sure Mark Riley can handle the 2 hours, because he had a show on WLIB in New York before Air America was born. However it will probably not include humour, which I think is unfortunate. We don't need another NPR...

[K-W]

12. So surely Al Franken has also been released?

You are right, it did probably relate to Maron's focus on comedy. The only time MS really covered analytical ground was during serious interviews, but AAR is not for serious political talk only as the other shows attest. MS's political comedy routines were good and if the show had just made more effort to cover the politics and news side consistantly and not get caught up in antics and in jokes etc.

I also think the show was a little edgie. Maron made alot of fun of religion, they did strange and sensibility ruffling sketches sometimes.

AAR's business model is based on selling thier programs to stations right now. Whenever they drop a show that is the reason, they were having a hard time selling it.

[peaches2003]

3. Mark Riley

Can Mark carry a show himself for 2 hours everyday? I ask this because he took such a backseat role to Marc on Morning Sedition and I have no other knowledge of him.

[onehandle]

4. Riley was a radio personality for years before AAR.

I want both Mar(c)(k)s, but Mark will do fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Riley

[peaches2003]

5. Why 2nd banana?

I like Morning Sedition a lot, but also am very impressed with Rachel Maddow and she needed a better time slot than 5 AM. I wish AAR had come to a different solution though. Now, AAR- get rid of Alan Colmes and put Mike on live at 10 PM.

However, I'm just wondering why Mark took such a backseat role on MS? The show is 95% Marc (who I do like a lot and will miss).

[choie]

6. Actually,

Alan Colmes isn't on AAR - just on XM radio at the same time Mike Malloy is on. However, beginning in January, Mike will be replacing Colmes on XM.

[NYCGirl]

8. Because Maron wanted to move to Los Angeles, where his wife is living.

He's in negotiations to get his own show from there. Obviously, Morning Sedition would not have worked with hosts separated by 3000 miles.

[hlthe2b]

9. Maron didn't specifically want to move back to LA

He wasn't given a choice... Like Marc Maron or don't like Maron, but this was a Danny Goldberg decision because he (like some posting here) doesn't like his type of comedy and DOES want the morning line up to be more like NPR. Goldberg apparently didn't antiicipate how much backlash this would cause and thus AAR brass has had to quickly step in and publically SUGGEST that they would negotiate a show of some kind for Maron. That has NOT happened and the closer we get to the 15th, the less likely it will.

Maron is packing up to go back to LA because he doesn't have a choice.

I questioned those who demonized Goldberg and his decisions towards AAR (Sirius deal, firing Liz Winstead, announcing a NPR-like fund raising membership, etc, etc), though I too was not particularly pleased. But, with respect to the whole MS debacle, I think Goldberg absolutely is responsbile. I wish HE would go.

[NYCGirl]

11. I happen to like Marc Maron,

so I'm not saying this out of any kind of spite. But the fact remains that Morning Sedition had very bad ratings, and Goldberg is trying to get more listeners.

[hlthe2b]

13. note inside comment from former producer Jonathan Larson:

" So, we needed to let people know our show existed. And this wasn't another case of a show feeling neglected and making excuses; all the executives agreed, and said, in essence, that it wasn't possible to put a show on in the nation's number-one market, in the most competitive daypart and expect it to succeed without spending a single dollar to let people know it existed. To his credit, Goldberg brought in people to remedy that. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond my ken, the additional staff didn't yield any additional attention for or promotion of the show. We were, in fact, told to wait. First a new logo had to be developed. Then an overall network-marketing plan would have to be developed. Only then, finally, would the network be able to market Morning Sedition properly. If that was true, why cancel the show before allowing the still-unseen marketing to debut? If it wasn't true, why should we believe what we're being told now?"

more at his blog:
http://petty-larseny.blogspot.com/2005/11/morning-sedition.html

As I said, I didn't buy into the Goldberg demonization that was so prominent early on. But, I know longer defend him.

[Batgirl]

10. I found this link at Wolcott's blog

http://petty-larseny.blogspot.com/2005/11/morning-sedition.html

The writer of this piece is a former producer of Morning Sedition and here he gives his explanation about Danny Goldberg and his eviscerating Morning Sedition.