Redstate

it's a NYC story and the NYT has long since ceded the role of best media coverage to the Post?

And the Post has covered it, no? What more do you want?

We forget that the "loan" to Air America happened in mid-2004, when, as I recall from listening to Air America's renowned political moonbat, Janeane Garofalo, the Earth was going to explode and all living things would be destroyed forever if G.W. Bush was reelected to a second term as President. Maybe not the exact words, but something along those lines. So, what's a little corruption here and there, when you're busy saving the world from total apocalypse? I sure that's how the Garafalos of the world see it.

Sounds like Cohen (major stockholder of Progress Media/Air America) has got himself in a bit of trouble over self dealing.  I am not surprised.

He was supposed to have deaper pockets then he really had.

I don't expect much blowback to Piquant/Air America.  I am curious if anyone finds Cohen.

I googled around and found this story from the New York Sun - not a faovrite source but maybe of interest:

http://www.nysun.com/article/17921

Stanford

True, this shouldn't blow back on the current management too much. The problem for them is that their ratings are horrible, they're strapped for cash, and now they have a lot of money to pay back. Let's just start calling Air America "Ricky Williams." If what happened to America Coming Together is any indication, I don't think rich Libs are going to have much of a stomach for propping up a lost cause.

And here's a double standard. If this were happining to EIB, or Hannity, you think maybe the sanctimonious Al Franken would be all over it? Funny, he's been kind of quiet on this topic.

If Hannity's parent radio station suddenly came under investigation I doubt you'd see him reporting on it, though other conservative radio outlets might.

I am rather surprised by all this.  Liberal or conservative, you'd think a guy like that would know better.  But people are enticed to evil by money all the time.  I have a feeling that Air America may not survive this, as their ratings were already in the cellar (Franken may talk trash about Bill O'Reilly a lot, but O'Reilly's clocking him in the "people who actually listen to me" column), and the trend was definitely downward.  Frankly, I think having to pay back that 10 million dollars will probably land them in bankruptcy court, but that's just a gut feeling about their financial state.

Schadenfreude anyone?

Please ignore the financial commentary portion of the above comment.

And here's a double standard. If this were happining to EIB, or Hannity, you think maybe the sanctimonious Al Franken would be all over it?

Do you think maybe it would be on the front page of RedState?

Well Progress Media and Piquant LLC are nearly exactly the same people, so unless you can get rid of prior malfeasance/misfeasance by simply changing corporate identities this should blowback all over Piquant and Air America.

Do you think maybe it would be on the front page of RedState?

I'm glad you brought that up. For most of my adult life, there was no such thing as the Internet. There was no Fox News. No one had ever heard of Rush Limbaugh, and what we today call "talk radio" did not exist.

It was a world in which Republicans were embroiled in one scandal after another, but Democrats weren't. It was a world in which crimes like this were simply ignored. Unless a Democrat were caught in the Tidal Basin with a stripper, the public would never hear of a scandal involving a Democrat.

One result of this was forty continuous years of Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives, and almost that in the Senate.

I'm sure that Democrats would prefer that none of us were here to upset this wonderful News Management operation that Democrats had going, but it was not to be. We're here, we'll jeer, and we're in your face. And now that you no longer have a monopoly on what Americans get to hear about, you lose elections. Isn't that something.

Why wouldn't it be?  The Plame/Rove story is, even though, as has been observed, we have precious little to go on in the way of reliable facts in that case.  RS's role in both matters has been to call attention to those parts of the story that aren't getting widely reported.

be splashed all over the NYTimes, WPO, and the LATimes for weeks, and they would be sure the dead horse was dead.

fiasco, but I am willing to bet there was more than one front page story or two on it, and I imagine quite a few diaries written about it.

So yeah, I would expect it to be on the front page of Red State.

Let me play devil's advocate here.  Why no serious pursuit of this story from another world-prominent, NYC-based paper, who is clearly a Subject Matter Expert (SME) on finance?  

If the WSJ is remaining silent for now because it's "exercising due diligence" as it researches the story, then can't the same be said of the NYT?

I'm concerned that we not look too eager in our rush to condemn the NYT.  I don't want them to have a chance to claim martyrdom and persecution at the hands of the Mean Nasty Right Wing Blogosphere.

If the facts of the silence-on-the-Cohengate-scandal are sufficient to indict the times for its inaction, then let's not have any appearance of a rush to judge/persecute on the part of the Right Wing Blogosphere allow the Times to claim victimhood, start a brouhaha over its being "persecuted" and slip away under the cover of the resultant fuss.  If the NYT has indeed hoisted itself on its own petard, we don't want to inadvertently give it a ladder, on which it can climb down and escape.  Make them stay up there, and twist in the winds of the PR thunderstorm this story can create.

If the WSJ had been on the story, I wouldn't be raising this concern.  But I haven't seen it?  Any idea why?  

That the New York Times is just as partisan as the front page of RedState if they are.

(By the way, as has already been pointed out, we cover scandals involving Republicans. So we're actually less partisan, but who's counting?)

It is important to remember that while the editorial desk of the WSJ is one of the more conservative in the nation, the news section of the paper is consistently rated as one of the most liberal media outlets in the country (yes, even more so than the NYT).

The reason that this explanation still does not fly is that, again, the city's DOI is releasing official statements, and today, Eliot Spitzer even got involved in the investigation.

Now, it's clear that an investigation is underway at both the citywide and statewide levels. Are you telling me that two official investigations of a prominent media corporation bilking funds from a public charity isn't news? That that isn't enough to run with?

If so, what in the heck is the excuse for all the flippin' Rove coverage we've been seeing?

two or three paragraph blurb.  There is enough information out there to at least account for that.

But I predict that when the NYTimes and others are forced to finally put this in their paper, it is still going to be buried somewhere on page 9 or somethig.

As I recall, CBS claimed that the fault of the Rathergate scandal was not bias, but a rush to be the first with the story. How often has the NYT committed errors that are attributed to haste? They could create an addtional section called corrections of the day.

So now I'm supposed to believe that the MSM won't report a story until every last fact is known and proven to be true? I can assume this new standard has only been in effect for about...... 8 days. Perhaps the crack team that turned up zilch on John Roberts adopted children is hard at work making sure nothing but the truth comes out.

Since the NYT has set this new policy, I guess we won't see any more stories on Plamegate, Tom Delay, John Roberts or Rush Limbaughs' Drug.

And, since rumors and speculation are no longer tools that the NYT will use, then todays paper must be pretty thin.

Clearly this is because Al Franken is in a favorite son positiin witht he NYT. They know that this is, unlike most publicity, is not good publicitiy.

Now that Sptizer is involved, I bet this falls apart pretty quickly. I hope that AA stars like Franken are innocent of wrong doing in this, but the chips need to fal where they fall. The real question to me is just how many other left wing dominated charities are embezzling money into left wing political causes around the nation?

It offends me enough that PBS sticks its left hand into my wallet, but at least it seems they do it legally. AA did not even bother to get a law passed to cover their aprticipation in this theft.

Their actions, as reported by Michelle Malkin, in resloving this are actually raising more questions  and concerns than they are resolving.

since I'm sure he is sympathetic to Air America and the people involved with it.  Any sign of a whitewash in this investigation will portend negative consequences in his bid to be Governor.  He may be taking comfort from the fact that this story is running under the radar with the MSM, but just let a whitewash result and he will see the power of the new media.

It's all about the children.

Why cannot they just repay the loan to help the children? How much have the children suffered without these funds this summer? How many children have not been served due to the investigation? When can the children expect the benefits denied them by Air America's use of these funds? Has Al Franken taken food from the children's mouths? What are Al Franken's feelings about the children?

And so on . . . .

tht the New York Times hasn't covered this yet is because the story is pretty dubious....

http://www.mahablog.com/2005.07.24_arch.html

but this story you cited is now a week old and a lot has come to light since then.  I think you need to get up to speed on this before you cite the typical left-wing drivel.

Pop me a link if you have one handy.  I did google for the Stockholders of the various entities but I got zilch as to hard numbers.

What I came away with was a general impression that there had been a major change in stockholders.  

I agree that if the stockholders are close to the same, it would not shield the new corporations.

Stanford

Google Progress Media and Piquant LLC you can put together a fair list of the principals in both.

Probably not, right? If you were you'd know that the NYT doesn't try to go head-to-head with the Post on stories, such as media, where they're just going to get their brains beat in.

One of these Sundays, after the Post has done all the hard work, the boys and girls at the NYT are going to publish a big overview article in the Metro section that recapitulates all of the Post's reporting and adds their liberal brain stains to it.

It offends me enough that PBS sticks its left hand into my wallet, but at least it seems they do it legally. AA did not even bother to get a law passed to cover their aprticipation in this theft.

So, you're a taxpayer in Kings, New York or Queens counties? Yes? You feel Bloomberg is doing a good job with the 311 stuff? No? You don't know? You're not a city resident? You have no idea what you're talking about? OK.

Or maybe you're a big contributor to those liberal charities that are being defrauded? No? Never in a million years? You don't know what you're talking about? OK.

I like a good conspiracy theory just as much as the next guy. And I think Michelle is cute and mostly harmless, but she needs to stick to her California knitting. It's just embarrasing when folks get it wrong.

So come one down, visit Times Square, visit ground zero, spend your tourist dollars, but do us a favor and butt out.

where Michelle is getting it wrong.

1, and most importantly, you don't have the rank or crediblity to tell anyone to "butt out." Take if for what you want.

2, Michelle Malkin doesn't live in California, so if you're going to make cute comments about someone a lot more talented than yourself at least get the details right.

Yeah, we can trust the NYT.

Go steal money from needy children, flyers... that appears to be the Democratic way.

I did google as you suggested and found... you.  Someone referenced your post here where you had linked a Professor Bainbridge article.  I went looking and found the article.  That is a pretty interesting article from someone who knows about that area of law.

I did some other poking and see that some of the characters are the same but it is in a gereral way.  For example most of the BOD is the same.  That doesn't mean much to me.  A BOD is just a BOD.

If A,B,C,D & E start a corp where A owns 60% of the stock and B,C,D & E each own 10% and then they sell assets to a company where the stock is owned pro-rata by B,C,D,&E then I think there is a major change in stock ownership provided there is no attribution back to A.  That is that A is completely independent of the others.

I know there must be more to it than that and I am sure those like Professor Bainbridge will elaborate at some time.  But right now, I just find that Cohen is the major player, was dishonest, and is not part of the new company.  I don't even know who else is gone. Is Rex Sorenson part of the new company?

I read in this thread that Spitzer is involved.  I didn't know that.  If Spitzer is involved things will resolved in short order.

Stanford

It's not so much that she's got it wrong. She's got the words, but not the tune. Sort of like singing the Star Spangled Banner to the strains of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."

What I said about the NYT stands. It's not about political machinations (although there are plenty on other stories), it's about laziness and embarrassment at getting pantsed by the Post.

As for Spitzer, he's running for governor. He's going to prosecute those things that resonate with New York voters. I used to live upstate, so I can tell you that embezelment around a City charity doesn't even make it into the paper. Nailing some Wall Street executive, however, will.

In the City, the majority of residents lean left, so nailing some obscure financier who was involved with a wheezing liberal radio network that no one listens to anyway....nuff said. He'd rather let the local authorities take care of it.

The blog buzz has gotten Spitzer off his duff, but don't expect him to devote lots of resources to it when there are insurance execs to expose.

BTW, I'm not a big fan of Spitzer's. He cost me a client when he lowered the boom on Marsh. But I just don't see some sort of liberal conspiracy here. This is all about naked ambition on his part, and this case just isn't a winner politically for him.

Just noticed this is an LLC.

Maryland, then. My mistake. She's practically a New Yorker. I'll meet her for coffee at the Village Delight.

First of all, I thought we made it pefectly clear that sites like mahablog and crooksandliars are not considered "reliable sources" around here.

Second, since the publishing of that worthless article, the DOI has released three (at latest count) official statements, showing that:

1. The owners of Air America had not been forthcoming with them about when they learned of the loan
   
   
2. Contrary to the claims of Air America, there were no instructions from the DOI to keep them from repaying the loan
   
   
3. Air America was disregarding their instructions for the repayment of the loan.

Also since that time, Eliot Spitzer's office has launched an official investigation into Gloria Wise's role in this loan. So, while nothing has been proven in a court of law, two separate official investigations are underway, and the investigating authorities are issuing clear statements calling into question the honesty of those they are investigating.

Given the amount of money and principals involved, this is a story. Four official government statements removes all claim of "dubiousness," because as we all know, investigations in progress are perfectly legitimate news stories (see Rove, Karl; Jackson, Michael; Holloway, Natalee; Comission, the 9/11; ad nauseam)

Cohen no longer works for either the club or the network, and there is some indication that the current owner of Air America, Piquant LLC, may not have been aware of the loans at the time it purchased the network on May 24, 2004.

The initial financial troubles at AAR were, to my knowledge, solely the result of Cohen's lies about the company's financing -- and, of course, AAR's gullibility.  It's likely that this 'scandal' that has rightwingers salivating for the final demise of AAR, is part of Cohen's (apparent) fraudulent activities and does not have much to do with the current leadership at AAR.  Air America had the misfortune of having a crook managing their finances in the beginning -- that crook is gone now but he obviously left some time bombs behind.  Looks to me like this is part of his legacy (it also makes me wonder about the internal controls at the Bs/Gs Clubs and the integrity of the leadership there) and probably will not bring down the fledgling network -- which, despite the fervent wishes of the Right, is continually expanding -- new stations picked up in Baton Rouge and New Orleans just in the last several days.

Now, AAR may end up having some financial responsibility for this fiasco with the Boys/Girls Club, but it hardly can be described as the death knell for AAR.  I think you all are going to have to get used to the idea of liberal voices on the radio.  A non-AAR progressive host, Ed Schultz, recently had his show bought by the guys that backed Rush in his beginnings, so you'd guess they might know a radio trend when they see one.  His show is picking up stations regularly.  Once rural broadband hits, all bets are off since anyone who's streaming over the net, like AAR does (and last I checked they were the #1 content provider over the Realplayer 'network') will be able to reach anyone, anywhere if they have a computer -- and you know how ubiquitous those are, why I bet everyone of you reading this has one or at least regular access to one.  Bottom line is that there is a market out there for progressive/liberal radio -- I know that's a scary thought to many of you, but it's true.

As to the NYT covering for AAR -- who knows?  I do know that the NYT carried Bush's water on WMD for months and months and months -- until forced to apologize for misleading their readers for coverage that was uncritically accepting of the Admin's position.  That apology, itself, was a singular event, in my memory.  The primary reporter of that coverage now sits in jail -- apparently protecting the names of highly placed Republican officials and the paper is standing behind her styling her as a martyr to the 1st Amend.  This is the "liberal" NYT?  The boogie man of the Right that always pushes the Dems' agenda and covers for their mistakes?  If one of you has the email address for the guy/gal at the NYT that's in charge of enforcing the liberal agenda, I'd like to have it -- I've got some fundamental complaints I'd like to lodge.  He/she's been falling down on the job for the last 10 or twelve years.

Caveat:  I have not personally confirmed that the allegation that the NYT has not covered this 'scandal' adequately is true or not.  That being said, perhaps the reason the NYT is not covering it is because they don't see the benefit of destroying a company that had been run by a crook solely for the sins of that crook who was expelled from the company as soon as his true nature became known.  Investigations often include innocent people -- it's rare that an investigator can exclude all innocents without at least a cursory investigation -- and, of course, the innocents often know key facts and may themselves be victims.  Since the original poster decided to compare this to the Plame Investigation, I bet at least one or two of the subjects of Fitzgerald's Plame investigation may well be innocent.  (Though, no doubt, all are richly deserving of punishment for any number of other reasons.)  Many want the NYT to trumpet the AAR/Cohen/B/Gs Club (gonna have to come up with a snappy name if you want it to get traction) in an attempt to smear the current AAR mgt and damage them.  Is that fair?  Why not wait and see if the investigation bears fruit vis a vis the current mgt?  Isn't that the plea from the WH RE: Plame?

BTW:  To compare NYT coverage of the Plame investigation with Cohen's ripoff of the B/G Clubs is just this side of seriously absurd.  Primarily due to the significance of the people involved, innocent or not -- and the serious issues at stake whomever you feel is guilty.  If Joe Wilson concocted a scheme to discredit the CoC during wartime, he needs to be severely punished.  But Cohen's fraud, if that's what it was, seems kind of 'run of the mill,' fraud is all too common throughout business but startups are especially vulnerable, in fact some con-men use business startups as their MO -- though ripping off little kids' charities is pretty sleazy.  

PS:  Please forgive me if I've employed the use of Known Facts.  They're the only facts I know.

Which implies to me you actually do know and approve of the coverup.

As to my taxes, my son lives in Manhattan and does pay the ridiculous tax load. So maybe I don't pay city taxes, but please explain where that excludes my opinion? Additoinally, since part of the money embezzled is federal, it does effect me.

This is not a 'big conspiracy theory'. This kind of abuse happens, unfortuantely, occasionally anywhere you have board members and others in positions of authority able to control the money and the decisions with little or no accountability.

And while NYT can rationalize its ignoring of the story to your easily achieved satisfaction, are you seriously contending that the local ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. are incapable of reporting NYC metro stories as well? Enjoy your koolaid.

This has to do not with the petty internal politics of NYC, but rather with a corrupt media that first promoted Air America and then ahs refused to follow through on its reports because, they, like you, don't like the news.

but I'll try.  As Leon has stated elsewhere, the DOI is questioning the honesty of those under investigation, not just Cohen.  Remember, it's not the original crime but the cover-up that does the real damage.

To hear you tell it, Air America is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Let's see what staying power these new stations picking it up will have.  Sure, there's a market out there for progressive/liberal radio.  Just ask Cuomo and Hightower, among others.

You claim Judith Miller is sitting in jail, apparently protecting "high placed Republican officials".  I have seen no evidence of that.  Won't you be surprised if Fitzgerald discovers that she is protecting either Wilson or Plame, herself.

The real "scandal" is that the NYT did puff piece after puff piece on the roll-out of Air America, as did the rest of the MSM. There is a real story here (even though you continue to deny it), and the NYT and the MSM are asleep at their keyboards. Or maybe they hope this story will just fade away in the dog days of August.

You do have an acute sense of the relative importance of the issues at hand.  No doubt you are correct that 'puff pieces' on AAR outweigh flacking for the Admin to hype the war -- and are the 'real' scandal.  After all, a mere war doesn't measure up to a liberal radio show -- that's the real threat, liberals on the radio.

You are also correct that I will be shocked if Fitz discovers that Miller is hiding Wilson or Plame -- despite the huge pile of evidence that supports that 'theory' -- I guess I'm just a self-deluded partisan.  Also shocked if he finds out that the whole thing was a double-cross perpetrated by a hippie-CIA cabal intent on a bloodless coup.  I won't be shocked, though, if the whole thing fizzles -- but hope springs eternal.

Is AAR the 'greatest thing since sliced bread?'  Well, it does have it's good points.  I've always enjoyed talk radio and I always liked Al Franken.  So getting Franken on the radio is a good thing, imo.  It's been a great change from listening to Rush -- who I've listened to regularly for the last 13 years.  But my real point was that AAR is not about to fold.  Their original business plan wasn't realistic and they had big financial problems, but they retooled and continue to pick up new stations.  Even Clear Channel is carrying them in some markets.  Time will tell.

As to how the earth-shattering investigation of AAR will turn out -- time will tell on that as well, but I doubt it will be all that significant for AAR.

I think you all are going to have to get used to the idea of liberal voices on the radio.

The idea, yes.  The sound, not so likely.  At least not as long as they think stuff like this is comedy:

"Sam Seder of The Majority Report occasionally records skits and prank phone calls for broadcast during the show. For example, Seder called the press department of a senator who claimed to have proof that catholic leaders in Massachusets were sinful due to an abundance of sinful women in the city's vicinity. Seder called the senator's press department asking if they had an actual number of women of ill repute, and perhaps their phone numbers so he could do further research personally."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio )

Whew.  Now that's biting political commentary.  Too bad there's not a single station in central Florida that carries this biting wit to my ears.

:)

Why I detest some people from New York.

you'll get your chance to listen at some point, mike.  Don't worry.  In the meantime, you keep studying up on that wikipedia -- I don't have to search the internets to learn what comes out of the Voices of the Right.  I listened to Rush almost daily for 12-13 years -- and I've heard my share of Holy Hating Hannity the Blasphemer.  I've heard their "biting political commentary."  I listened to Rush as he took so many drugs his destroyed his own hearing and he would just shout through the programs, mostly reading the drudgereport.  I agree though that it is going to be hard for Franken, et al., to get down to his level of discourse to really compete effectively.  Franken's "Liam the Loose-boweled Leprechaun" might come close to rivaling Rush -- of course, it does have the added advantage of actually being funny, so it probably wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Rush is doing well - still - and Air America had to "borrow" money from a Boys and Girls Club (geez, why not the cash box at the local church?) to stay afloat. If the criminal investigation doesn't get 'em, the marketplace of ideas will.

"I agree though that it is going to be hard for Franken, et al., to get down to his level of discourse to really compete effectively."

PLEASE. This excuse is so old that it is featured on "urban legends" websites. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

By the way, has Al Franken ever been involved in anything that has been successful? Anything? Should we consider "Stuart Smalley" an appropriate addition to the level of discourse? I look forward to the day when Franken's patrons get tired of propping him up just so he will come to their little cocktail parties.

[H]has Al Franken ever been involved in anything that has been successful? Anything?

5 Emmy awards for writing and producing.

A Grammy award for best comedy recording.

At least 4 books on the NYT best sellers list.

But when I look at Press Releases from the DoI....

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doi/html/press/july2005.html

I see no mention of any investigation into Air America.  Not saying it doesn't exist.   But I only see references from partisan sources.

Spitzer's office is, accoriding to NewsMax,  ""We are looking into it in consultation with the city's Department of Investigation," Spitzer spokesman Darren Dopp told the New York Post on Saturday."

I would like to see  a link to the official statements if you have them.  

There are lots of assumption in this "scandal" so far.  Not much content.

As I recall, Hillary won a Grammy, so that means nothing.

"Lying Liars and the Lying Lies They Lie About As They Lie About Lying" is another good example of elevating the discourse - thanks for reminding me. NYT bestseller does not equal coherent thought, but I will grant that it is some measure of success.

Five Emmys - I will not comment until I research what exactly they were for. On second thought, I don't give enough of a crap to check. Looks like Franken's patrons have quite a lot of influence with the awards thing.

Thanks for the list.

in our local paper - Opinion, Commentary by a regular columnist, David Reinhard: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/edi
torial/1123322562261030.xml&coll=7

Oregon is one of the few areas of the country where AA is still growing.  (No surprise...)

Of this and this. Consider this your one bite.

Saturday Night Live. Of course, I don't know if you'd call a 30 year run on national TV as successful (Franken, an original SNL writer, was with SNL for 15 of the 30 years.)