The WashPost still needs to clean up its Limbaugh ratings mess
March 07, 2009 9:59 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Yesterday I raised doubts about the claim in a Howard Kurtz article that Limbaugh's ratings have "nearly doubled" since January. The Post offered no hard evidence to back that up. And as I noted, even Limbaugh himself suggested he has no idea what his ratings are since he first announced in late January that he wanted Obama to fail.
Today, the Post's Paul Farhi writes more about Limbaugh's ratings in an article that only raises more doubts about Kurtz's claim that the talker's numbers have increased two-fold since January.
Specifically, I noted that it's basically impossible for reporters to get solid information about nationwide ratings for syndicated talk show hosts since those numbers are not released publicly.
Farhi confirms my point:
Arbitron, the radio industry's dominant audience-measurement company, has never publicly released a national estimate for Limbaugh, and it says, in effect, that the job is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming to bother with..."There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis," says Thom Mocarsky, an Arbitron spokesman.
I also pointed out that even within the world of syndicated talk radio, there aren't any internal, nationwide numbers about Limbaugh's most recent ratings. Meaning, not even Limbaugh's syndicator, Premier Radio, knows if his ratings have doubled since January.
Again, Farhi confirms my point:
What's more, Premiere's figure is based on data from the first three months of 2008, a virtual lifetime ago in the fast-moving radio business.
Bottom line: If the Post has any tangible proof to back up its Friday claim that Limbaugh's ratings have nearly doubled since January, it ought to print it.
UPDATE: In his Friday piece, Kurtz quoted Michael Harrison, editor of Talkers magazine, who suggested Limbaugh's ratings had doubled recently. In today's Post article, here's how Harrison explains coming to that conclusion:
"It's what we're hearing, based on the e-mails, the calls, all the buzz this controversy is generating. We put a little bit of our interpretation on it, added it all up, and that puts you in the ballpark."
That's the information the Post used to announced that Limbaugh's ratings had doubled? Please.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
So. Does this mean that when Michael Harrison does NOT receive those e-mails, calls, etc. anymore, Rush's audience will have cut in half?
Might be nice to check in with Michael Harrison during a period when Rush is "out-of-the-picture".
Anyone that promotes "any" positive ratings for Rush should be able to back their claims with proof and "not" beliefs. Please stick with this story Mr. Boehlert, America needs "facts" not "hype". Great read.
Btw, I think a story should be done too on the smoke screens coming from people in the financial industry that have bankrupt our Country's economy. Something does not make sense when the Dow was above 14,000 back in 2007, and today in 2009 it's 6,400. People are quick to drop how the Dow went down in 2007, and I "sure" want to know why. Just a thought, 'cause something don't add up here. Thanks.
Great job doing some actual research and journalism, Eric. Perhaps one day the MSM will learn of these concepts.
There is so much data in what this guy is seeing, but apparently, he hasn't bothered to break it down to figure out trends, or what people are actually saying. I mean, heck, he could have a million letters, and maybe they all say Limbaugh should be taken off of the air.
That is an interesting new method for doing math.
If a larger number people respond to controversial issues than respond to non-controversial issues it means that your listening audience has doubled.
I always wondered how they got those high ratings on Faux. Now we know.
So, given this level of "fact checking"' apparently being done by Post reporters, I assume when the Post prints a story about Peanut Butter X being completely safe we are going to believe them?
How about Sports Scores? International Events? Stock Prices?
Once your articles can no longer be trusted to contain facts, only those people with an ideological ax to grind (or those that are not very bright and have poor analytical skills) are going to believe anything they read in your newspaper.
Of course this does open up all kinds of advertising possibilities....
"Miracle Hair Grow/GOP Ointment - Grow Hair and ward off Liberals by just smearing this product all over your head..."
Wow. With all the emails and buzz, it sounds like Rush's ratings have tripled!
I think as part of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, he did place tracking devices in all our radios.