Why don't we just pretend Rush Limbaugh has 50 million listeners?
Call it The Washington Post's 766-word non-correction correction.
It ran Saturday in the form of a Paul Farhi article about the dubious nature of trying to measure the size of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience. Farhi stressed that trying to determine the total number of weekly listeners represented an exercise "in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data."
The article detailed how there aren't any hard ratings numbers within the radio industry regarding Limbaugh's audience size -- a topic of increased interest since the AM talker had emerged as the public face of the Republican Party under the Obama administration.
Farhi helped put the ratings question issue in proper context, but the unspoken point of the piece seemed to be to walk back the previous day's Post article by Howard Kurtz, which boldly announced in the very first sentence that Limbaugh's ratings had "nearly doubled" since the recent controversy with Obama began in January. It was a pro-Limbaugh proclamation that went off like a firecracker, especially online, as conservatives cheered the news and mocked Democrats for padding Limbaugh's audience.
But was it true? Reading Farhi's detailed ratings piece on Saturday, it was hard to see how Kurtz's claim of Limbaugh's audience doubling could withstand serious scrutiny. (A point I made the day the Post published Kurtz's piece.) In fact, on Saturday we found out the thin sourcing that Kurtz used for his claim was little more than a hunch, and the person who made the hunch didn't think the guesstimate of Limbaugh's size growth was scientific or that it represented a true ratings estimate. (More on that below.)
Plus, even Limbaugh himself didn't think his ratings had doubled in recent weeks. The same day Kurtz's article appeared, Byron York at The Washington Examiner asked the turbo talker about his ratings. This was Limbaugh's response, in full:
The latest numbers I have are for January, well before this kerfuffle began, and they are through the roof -- six shares in NY, for example. There are d aily ratings taken now in about the top 15 markets but I have not seen them yet. All I can tell you is that as of January, we booked 80 percent of all our 2008 revenue and we'll be over 2008 by the end of this month.
Limbaugh hadn't seen ratings more recent than January. Yet the Post on Friday claimed Limbaugh's ratings had nearly doubled since January. During his Monday broadcast, Limbaugh reiterated that he had no idea if his ratings had recently increased twofold.
Have Limbaugh's numbers spiked in recent weeks? I'd be shocked if they hadn't given the extraordinary publicity he's received. But doubled? There's simply no proof, regardless of what the Post claimed on Friday.
Kurtz's sloppy reporting highlighted the media's perpetual soft spot for Limbaugh's ratings. As Farhi noted, nobody has specific numbers about what the talker's audience is and "Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure."
Yet, for years, news consumers have been told 20 million people listen each week. It's a statistic that has become absolutely synonymous with Limbaugh.
But where did that ginormous number come from? From Limbaugh, of course. The first reported reference I could find came from the July 31, 1993, issue of the radio bible, Billboard magazine, which reported "Li mbaugh's show is now heard on 610 stations and reaches approximately 20 million listeners, according to [Kit] Carson," Limbaugh's "chief of staff."
According to Limbaugh's right-hand person, the talker had 20 million listeners. Was there any way to confirm that? Not really, but no matter: The media loved the nice round number, and soon it began to appear everywhere -- but often without the acknowledgement that the stat came from Limbaugh's camp. The following month, in August 1993, U.S. News & World Report announced: "Welcome, one and all, to Rush World, the one-man media theme park of the '90s. Over here, the Radio Show, reaching 20 million listeners a week on 616 stations."
And the month after that, conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote that Limbaugh "is heard on more than 600 mostly AM radio stations with an audience estimated at 20 million listeners per week, is a phenomenon unseen in modern times."
A check of Nexis today finds more than 800 news references to that mythical Limbaugh number throughout the years. Despite the fact nobody knows if it's accurate, the figure has been codified: Limbaugh attracts 20 million listeners each week. Wow.
But what other type of media reporting do journalists gladly repeat ratings numbers based on nothing more than a feel-good estimate provided by broadcasters? (Why stop at 20? Why not claim Limbaugh has 50 million listeners each week?)
And how amazing is this: Limbaugh in 1993 claimed he had 20 million listeners, and in 2009 the press is still mouthing the same statistic. Meaning that, until recently, Limbaugh's audience hadn't budged -- not up, not down -- in 16 years.. Obviously that doesn't pass any kind of smell test.
Why is it so difficult to pinpoint the number? First, much of radio's ratings methodology remains stuck in the 1960s, and it takes months to generate nationwide audience figures -- unlike TV ratings, which can often be measured within 24 hours. And second, because Limbaugh appears on a patchwork of stations all over the country, it's tough to add up all the numbers for an accurate reading. As Farhi noted, Arbitron, the overseer of U.S. radio ratings, has never tried to measure Limbaugh's audience. And it has no plans to since, as its spokesman told the newspaper, "There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis."
Obviously radio syndicators have ratings numbers off of which they sell advertising, but those figures are closely held -- unlike Arbitron data, which is more widely avail able. So, basically, it's up to the syndicator to dole out the ratings numbers to the press; like last year, when Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, claimed 20 million listeners tuned into Limbaugh's show each week.
Also keep in mind that eight-digit number is what's known in radio as the "cume" (short for cumulative). It in no way reflects the actual audience size like the way television shows are measured minute by minute or half-hour by half-hour. Instead, the cume number represents a very large -- and generous -- umbrella covering the number of people who, in theory, tune into a program at any time during the week, even if it's for just two minutes.
As a radio trade reporter confirmed to MSNBC last week, common industry shorthand to determine the actual size of a radio audience at any given moment is to cut the cume figure down by a factor of 10, which would mean Limbaugh's 20 million becomes 2 million. Or, if you take the more modest cume number of 14 million, which some inside the industry have used to judge the talker's audience, Limbaugh's rating becomes 1.4 million, which is roughly the same size audience that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann get each night on cable TV. So why doesn't the press treat them as the ultimate kingmakers?
The point is, over the years the press seems to have gone out of their way to puff up Limbaugh's ratings and audience size, which brings us back to the Kurtz assertion that Rush's ratings have doubled. What was Kurtz's sole piece of proof for his sweeping declaration about Limbaugh's audience having doubled? Here it was:
"The people who love him are a very small segment of the public," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, whose research indicates that Limbaugh's weekly audience has spiked from 14.2 million to about 25 million since the controversy escalated.
A couple points about Harrison. His estimate, which Kurtz presented as fact -- as research -- was just a hunch; nothing more and nothing less. It was Harrison's best guess. As he told the Post in the subsequent Farhi article: "[I]t'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."
The fact that Kurtz used that tea leaf-reading methodology as the anchor for his claim -- in the first sentence of his article -- that Limbaugh's ratings had "nearly doubled" was rather remarkable, since there's absolutely nothing substantive to back up the claim.
In fact, over the weekend, Harrison expanded his thoughts in emails to AOL blogger Tommy Christopher regarding the latest estimates of Limbaugh audience size:
They are only our thumbnail estimates based upon our contacts in the field, tracking of Arbitron estimates and understanding of the business. We make no claims as to "scientific" accuracy. ... [T]hey are not "ratings" per se.
Also, note that Harrison's guesstimate for the Limbaugh audience spike applied only to last week, and even Harrison didn't think the alleged audience jump would last. Kurtz, though, made it seem as if Limbaugh had permanently doubled his audience since January.
The third point is that Harrison is an unabashed cheerleader for talk radio. That's his job -- to drum up business for the format. (Harrison last week: "All things taken into consideration, now is a great time to be a talk radio advertiser.") And that's fine. Journalists, though, ought to take his ratings estimate with a grain of salt. But not Kurtz: He presented as "research" Harrison's guesstimate that Limbaugh's ratings had nearly doubled.
But the point here isn't Harrison. It's Kurtz, because he's the one who typed up the unequivocal lead to the Post article. And it was Kurtz, the high-profile media reporter, who people then cited as the author of the Rush-doubled-his-audience claim. And coming from the pages of the Post, that gave the bogus claim instant credibility.
- "Since the first of the year, Rush Limbaugh's audience has exploded, according to Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, even as his daily assaults on Obama have intensified." [D.C. Examiner]
- "Rush Limbaugh's Ratings Explode" [Free Republic, March 6.]
- "The more pressing matter is whether he can move beyond his base of listeners, which has reportedly doubled since the current controversy exploded." (The New York Times' Opinionator blog, March 6.)
- "Limbaugh's numbers are doubled." (Chris Matthews on The Chris Matthews Show, March 8.)
The truth is journalists only have a faint idea of how many people listen to Limbaugh's program each week. And until reporters can get some independently verifiable information, they shouldn't pretend hunches represent facts. And they shouldn't announce Limbaugh's audience has doubled unless they can prove it.
Let's pretend he has no listeners, just idiots.
You said pretend, that's a fact.
MMFA interns listen to his show ;)
If they weren't borderline before, a couple of weeks of RashL will send them across the line ;>)
Hey bud, the overwatch job was a botch, but I just got out of a long interview at NI. God, I sure hope something breaks...
Dang, going to take more than crossed fingers, toes, eyes, etc. Maybe I'd better work up a sacrifice to the gawd of jobs (if I can find a virgin toad) (just kidding). I'm really praying (yes, I pray) that this slump starts turning around. I have one son in the job seeking mode and another who is finishing his Masters next month (two interviews scheduled for today and another hanging fire.) I haven't seen it this bad since the last years of Carter/first years of Reagan.
Back to the topic, sort of. (what was the topic, oh yes, RashL audience). I think MMFA may be helping the audience (short duration blip for the blimp) with their Limbaugh wire, but what the hey, it's their website. I understand audience data is based on a projection of anyone listening for any 15 minute period during the broadcast (from a friend that was in the industry for awhile, some time back). So, be it 12 Million, 15 Million, 25 Million, 50 Million, or whatever, does audience rating really mean anything at all?
"does audience rating really mean anything at all?"
It shows us what kind of idiocy the conservative movement is all about.
But, you must have missed all those right wing idiots over the years who post here, talking all that schlock about Limbaugh's audience rating as proof that the country is center right. It wouldn't be a bad bet to lay money on the possibility that you, along with all the free market zombies, have tried that argument yourself.
Try to keep up Oscar.
Audience may mean something, audience ratings, because of their subjective nature (it appears) means less. Read a little closer, oh denizen of the tower. At the moment, the center of the country has swung a little to the left. If the next 3 years 8 months goes well, it may well stay there for a time. At the same time, if things do not improve or go well, the center may start moving the other direction.
If I get much closer to you from what you see as a trailing position, I may lap you.
A little to the left? The defeat the right took was historic. Conservatism was repudiated. Even while the narrative was being pushed that the country was more conservative, more people actually agreed with liberal ideas. Healthcare for all, progressive taxation, infrastructure investment, to name a few, are progressive issues that held (and hold) strong approval throughout the country.
Yet, the walking dead radio talking head crowd, like Tommy, always tried to tell us that audience numbers were representative of the political landscape of country at large.
This bares repeating: This Limbaugh is the GOP hook-up is a stroke of brilliance that should make Rove himself swell with pride. The Democrats have learned how to take the right's greatest strength, their media monopoly and it's head guy, and turn it into it's greatest weakness. And don't bet on this strategy being a liability for the left. Not until Republicans of every stripe reject Limbaugh publicly, without contrition or fear of retribution.
The spotlight is on the heart and soul of the Republican Party now. Too bad for you guys, too, because it's giving the non-partisans, the persuadable middle, a very good look at the true ideology of the right. You see, real conservatism doesn't play very well with most of the rest of the country.
The funniest aspect of all this is that, while all the electoral and political victories were rolling in for the right, things were hunkie-dorey with Rush: "He's just kidding, he wasn't serious; but he has a point," was the constant refrain. Now that the right are getting thumped, he's not so funny. In fact, he's an embarrassment.
Too bad. Take up some of that personal responsibility you're so quick to whip out (when it suits your case), acknowledge that the GOP is rife with idiots and kick Limbaugh and his horde of media zombie pals to the curb.
Yep, ranks right up there with the Presidential election of 1984. Good catch, RH.
The persuadable middle for the past couple of cycles do/did not like what they see in the right, therefore "historic" gains for the left. Govern well, or they will move back. The beauty of the country is that the executive branch changes affiliations on a regular basis. Outside of FDR/Truman for 20 years and Reagan/Bush for 12, I can't remember either party controlling the executive for over 8. One drawback is that it seems to be very difficult to dislodge an incumbent in Congress on a regular basis (1994, 2006 & 2008 being exceptions), due to gerrymandering (by both parties at times.
Not being a member of the GOP, I doubt I have very little ability to rid the party of idiots and/or RashL.
Right. Cede your personal responsibility to do what you can to dislodge dorks like Limbaugh from the public debate. Guess you can't write to your representatives and admonish them to ignore the threats and advice from the likes of Limbaugh?
Nope.
You're powerless to do anything.
Good Stay that way, be a defeatist. It's much better for Democrats (and by extension, the country) if conservatives, and those too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore, resist the temptation to take ownership or responsibility for the health of their Party. Just step aside and let all the right wing psycho talkers utterly cull out the guts of conservatism. I'm all for that. Let conservatism die a bitter, resentful, slow death.
My Senators are not threatened in any way by RashL, nor do I believe is my Representative. To be honest, I will be voting to term limit each of them the next time they appear on a ballot. That fact my friends and neighbors know, but I'm not into writing them (members of Congress) threatening type letters.
I'm looking for a party with sensible Conservative leanings (I know, to you that is an oxymoron, but that is your opinion which along with around $4.00 may buy you a cup of Starbuck's best). If we (the group I'm working with) cannot make the necessary inroads in one of the major parties locally, we will go the third pary route and work up from the local level.
Go get 'em, Oscar. Eventhough you could do more to marginalize the Limbots, I'm sorry I doubted you.
I like it. Start locally, organize communities around clear values and achievable goals, bring the collective efforts of all involved to a pressure point and leverage yourselves the best you can for change. But be careful, you may be led deep into the heart of Progressivism with all that grassroots, community organizing... and you might like it.
(So, since here in KY, Starbucks' finest only costs $2.07, does that mean my opinion is worth less, too?)
Just get a load of, Dave, below. He's a prime example of wing nuts gone wild.
You are correct sir!
Thank you, Eric, wonderful piece!
What this means is that there are no numbers on Limbaugh's viewers.
For years, they have been using the estimated reachable audience of the stations that carry his show ... what a complete crock!
I just noticed that I'm not seeing the Ratings Queens around this site as often anymore.Thye used to be here all the time, rebutting facts and logic with all-caps chanting of BilldO Reilly's or Rushbo's supposed ratings numbers.
Popularity is a very important part of conservative thought. It's what makes traditions and "normal" behavior right; 20 million people can't be wrong!
I still have no idea how radio ratings are measured. I don't mean the methodology of averaging out different shows and times, I mean the basic collecting of the numbers. I've asked here before, and nobody seems to know.
Are there little transmitters in the radio that tell the ratings scientists who's listening? Is it done by survey? Do the ratings people have any way of separating the faithful from those tuning in for a laugh, or to keep an eye/ear on the lunatics, or to decide which sponsors not to patronize?
I'm not kidding, I have no idea.
It's really verrrrry complicated. They have these super precise power monitors that detect changes in output power. As more mindbots dial in, power increases, and that monitor breaks that change in output power down into numbers. There's some super secret stuff that even the CIA doesn't know about that takes into account distance, but completely dispells weather (because global warming isn't real to them), and that information is fed into the same super computer jack bauer uses to determine actual viewing audience (+/- 42, the ultimate question).
My theory is that over the years about 20 million car radios and portable radios were secretly equipped with tracking devices. Also, regardless which channel you tune to on those doctored radios subliminal clips are played saying Tune in to Rush Limbaugh! and Liberals are bad people! That's just my theory...but, you know it could be true. ;>)
When I see stuff like this I just have to believe you're right!
GOP Rep: “Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers” For Dems
GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.
McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):
McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.
That's what kills me about the righties - it's always about the message, not the policies. The public has woken up and they aren't buying their garbage anymore.
I have yet in my lifetime to see one political party do anything to "prop" the other party up, but the partisanship has gottem much worse (IMHO) since the days of Ike.
Kentucky fried Col posted:
Profits my good Col. Profits.
Profits. Tbone? OK, fair enough. Then let us stop pretending we now how many people listen to Rush each day. No one knows. It is all conjecture and none of it is correct.
How is being funded by right wing corporations considered profitable? How is having right wing idealogs buying his books by the thousands just to boost ratings considered profitable?
What a stupid comment.
It's true. It's known as the conservative welfare system. Well to do cons buy up radio stations in market after market in cities in which con talkers get their a&&e& handed to them by Randi Rhodes and Thom Hartmann.
It's all about controlling the message. Cons can't win on the merits of their record or ideas.
Nah, it's about average for you, little fella.
I've been trying to find that out too. I think it's done by survey but I'm not sure about that.
This is Arbitron's website. See if you can figure it out.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
I've been trying to find that out too. I think it's done by survey but I'm not sure about that.
This is Arbitron's website. See if you can figure it out.
Thanks, Loonz.I didn't spend too much time there, but it's sort of what I expected. A lot of guesstimating and market researching for samples. In other words, nobody has any idea how many people listen to Rush Limbaugh,let alone how many listen for the freak show aspect vs. the suckers who call him up and thank him for "educating" them.
This was about the least muddled description I found;
Radio networks use Arbitron's RADAR® service to show the value of their audience by pairing listening estimates with commercial clearance data. Radio networks and radio syndicators use Arbitron's Nationwide service to demonstrate the value of their audience on a market-by-market basis
A while back at this site, one of the wingnuts was making the case for the popularity of right wing radio with some loony theory about the productive members of society being Rush's base, listening as they drove to their jobs.
Of course, Rush is on from noon to 3 East Coast, and from 9 til noon here on the left coast.The number one conservative talk show happens, nationally, during the hours when most taxpayers are busy, and when the loafers are lonely because all of their friends are at work.
Now consider that most surveys are done on land lines probably during these same hours. Think about who has the time, or is bored enough, to respond to the ratings surveys.The unemployed, unemployable, shut-ins, drug & booze-troubled, the less-active retired. I think that's the Rush base.
Chris Matthews was having one of his occasional moments of lucidity tonight, describing Rush as a support group for older white guys who are in their cars during those hours, he used the example of a guy cold-calling stores to put Chiclets on their shelves. I think he hit on something there, the struggling, not quite-successful guy who needs somebody to tell him it's the illegal aliens and the government keeping him from climbing up into that top 5% income -wise.
The "market value" side is interesting , too. I listen to a lot of righty radio, and I don't consciously or deliberately boycott the products their advertising, I'm just 2-4 decades shy of the target market for Hoverrounds, dementia medicine and Geezer-panic items like Identity -theft deterrents and adult diapers.
Just as American Idol scores big with it's suggestible teen and dullard adult audience, I'm guessing that Rush talks to a lot of people who like being told what to buy as much as they like being told what to think.
Another thing, I realize that TBoneslickens was just going for a goofy answer, but he may have accidentally hit on something.
Of course ratings can't be measured by profits. If that were the case, if X number of people listened to Rush on MOnday and heard his LobsterGram ad, and a certain number bought that product the next day, and the market price of Lobster went down that same day, the number of people who listened to Rush thet day before would change. I know conservatives don't like math or the confines of reality, time and space in their reasoning, but that's just impossible to sane people.
BUT, while the ratings numbers may be misleading, the more important point, from the radio business angle, stands--Rush may have the most easily manipulated audience in radio, and advertisers like them.
Imagine how tough it is for sponsors of liberal media, trying to sell to people making rational, much less emotional decisions.
Not long after Limbaugh signed his new, mega-contract last year I listened to him one day in an exchange with his off-mike producer, to whom Limbaugh refers as Mr. Snerdley, in which Limbaugh said, seemingly in a slip of the tongue, that he learned during contract negotiations that a greater portion of his audience does not agree with him than was previously assumed. The reason I say it appeared Limbaugh let it slip is because Limbaugh made the remark in quick response to a suggestion by Mr. Snerdley that his audience was comprised only of people who agreed with him; and after Limbaugh made his remark he quickly shut up, or changed the subject. My impression at the time was that perhaps Limbaugh was aware that he should not have let this information slip as it might debunk the myth of his massive following. I have often wondered, and this is the point I'm getting at, how many of Limbaugh's listeners are people who disagree strongly with him but listen purely for entertainment purposes...or to get their hearts pumping. Heck, I listen to Limbaugh when I'm in my car more than I care to admit. This monumental number of alleged Limbaugh listers may very well be illusory in more than one respect.
Until a court sees fit to rule that this demented pervert's show violates principles of Schenk vs. United States, reaffirmed in Brandenburg vs. Ohio on the limits of free speech concerning inciting "imminent lawless action," a boycott of sponsors would be appropriate. Nothing would benefit this country more than to have the streets littered with luddites and phillistines expiring from dittohead withdrawel syndrome.
It's entirely possible that there are fifty million Americans out there who can listen to Rush Limbaugh for three hours a day. They must swallow a lot of bugs though, because their mouths are open the whole time.
If you look over at the car in the next lane and you see someone with their mouths hanging open and their heads wobbling like a hula girl on the dashboard, you can be pretty sure that you are experiencing a Dittohead sighting.
The Washington Post Ombudsman should issue an apology or tell Kurtz to do so.
His email: ombudsman@washpost.com
only if fox news, worldnetdaily, human events, thepowerline, townhall.com and others like them, issue apologies for lying about preisdent obama may be a muslim in disguise
when the right wing noise machine makes their apologies for all the hatefull things they have said about president obama.then i will agree about wapo and kurtz. but as we both know. that will never ever happen
can' stand rush but he has more listners, no matter how they are measured, than anyone els buy a LONG shot. left radio has almost nothing...sorry
OT, but JP Morgan received bailout money, right? Why is part of their recovery package outsourcing 20% of their IT jobs to India? Why is my tax money (that Bush acquired, BTW) paying for that?
Howard Kurtz on Feb. 10: (from WaPo chat)
Whoops, wrong again.
Slightly OT (though I won't be surprised if he's a Limbaugh fan too) but looks like we have another republican nazi sympathizer who actually had the material to build a dirty bomb! He was gonna blow it up because he hated Obama (color thing?). It's quite amazing how contrary to my little yapping dog that we keep finding these people in the right wing of american society!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Slain_white_supremacist_had_components_for_0309.html
Saw it, ugh! Another of those wonderful trustfund babies that so grace our national landscape.
Luck on the results from that interveiw.
Here's the dumbed-down math on this:
Hardcore American Republicans = approx. 20 million people.
Recent poll revealing Limbaugh's popularity among Republicans? = 60%.
That means around 60% of the aforementioned 20 million don't listen to Limbaugh.
Slice in half the around 9 million left who don't listen to Limbaugh because they have a job and/or a life, and you've got approx. 4.5 million people who listen to Limbaugh on a regular basis.
As long as Limbaugh's popularity is stuck @ 60% among Republicans, he doesn't have the math that gets him to 20 million "dedicated" listeners.
PLEASE apologize to Rush for questioning his numbers!!!!!!
How dare we question that fat idiot?
Pretend away, but you have no solid numbers according to you that he doesn't. I guess it is just a guess. But he is the number 1 most listened to. No one has disputed that. So Rush, have at it. Its good to be number 1, isn't it?
PLEASE apologize for calling Rush number one!!!!! He's sooooooo much more than a digit!!!!!
OK I will. Rush, you are bigger than a digit and MMFA. You are the voice of the Conservatives.
Yeah, DAVE And where is the conservative movement nowadays?. I say is in the toilet because of its failed polocies. Your hero SHEAR INNSANNITY says its in exile ( where it belongs.)
Failed policies? Hardly. IMO, the reason Conservative issues aren't getting enough attention is because they don't give anything away. BO's stance is give the counrty 3t and they will love you....may work, but its on the backs of the 2 percent who are somehow going to pay for it.
Ask not what you can do for your counrty, but ask what your counrty can do for you.
country....damn
Leave it you to make a program that stimulates the economy sound like they're handing out 300 million checks. The situation calls for it. It's not like the economy is fine and dandy and he's buying people's favor with 10K gifts.
I also wonder why "ask what you can do for your country" doesn't apply to the rich. Aren't they in the very best position to hold that philosophy, and therefore should have the least amount of trouble accepting a slightly higher tax burden? The way you twisted that phrase around would seem to apply quite well to the upper class in a supply-side scenario.
Actualy, the reason that CONSERVATIVE are't getting attention is because more and more people realize that they are failures.The difference is that LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES believe that GOVT should serve the people that elected it, while REPUBLICANS dont like GOVT at all and think it is evil, unless they are in power.And as far as I am concerned I believe that BUSH was a big faliure, one of the worst i've lived through.
Please. Your answer is 3 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and a Social Security plan in which your Social Security funds would be invested in the stock market. That is what Republicans on the budget committee are offering. You cannot be taken serious when all you offer is more of the same
Conservatism is a failed ideology.
Look at the Wall St. free fall. Where the hell would we be today if Bush had won on social security?
Thought you were a hard working rich guy, Dave? You're posting here alot, don't you have some working people to rape, or some actual work to do?
Just go away, dinosaur.
"but its on the backs of the 2 percent who are somehow going to pay for it."
Yeah, you guys are really paying your taxes. Sure. Like you don't have a stable of lawyers exploiting loopholes for you.
Anyway, you give yourself too much credit, you act like it's your money that is going to actually lay the brick and mortar. Nope. It's going to take actual laborers to get this done. In other words, it will take all of us, together, to get us out of this mess.
You can dig your heels in and cry like a baby, but we will drag you, kicking and screaming, into the future.
According to your graphic, Roundhouse, I paid more in federal taxes last year (percentage-wise) at 18.8 percent than the wealthy from this study paid.
I guess that blows dave's theory (re: equal percentages for all) all to hell, doesn't it?
Well, if you could afford a staff of tax attorneys, you could cut the taxes you pay down to about 9%. It's not Dave's fault you can't afford to avoid paying your fair share.
Loser ;)
Were you paying attention for the last 8 years? What policies of Bush succeeded? According to our own intelligence agencies, he didn't make us safer. His budgets (remember, he refused to include the cost of the "war on terror" in his budgets, so they weren't accurate) increased our national debt to astronomical size. His "ownership society" lead us into the mortgage crisis.
tHE repukes ARE IN SUCH DISSARAY AND DENIAL now that they should be thinking of modify their mesage but with fools such as LIMBAUGH as their messangers , as uncomprosmising as they are, it wont happen.
Agreed. The GOP is a mess with Steele who acknowledged that he wants BO to succeed with the bailouts.....I meant spending package, that only the top 2% will pay for. But in case you haven't been listening, Rush has had some problems with Steele, who still is the CEO of the RNC. Modifying their message would be great, but Steele is not up to it.
The GOP is a mess with Steele who acknowledged that he wants BO to succeed with the bailouts.....I meant spending package, that only the top 2% will pay for. - dave
LIAR.
Can you be more disingenuous? Do you think that 98% of Americans aren't going to pay any taxes? Are you suggesting that only the 2% of the wealthiest Americans will be paying for the spending package, while everyone else pays nothing? That's what you're asserting.
The fact of the matter is that the top 2% will see a 4% tax increase. The rest of us will probably see some sort of tax cut. HOWEVER, we will still be paying taxes. Don't make it sound as though the rich will be paying for everything and that everyone else will have ZERO tax liability. It's just not true, you know it's not true, and saying it only reinforces the fact that you're a liar and that you will push any disingenuous argument to further the worthless conservative ideology.
OK, so while taxes for some are going down, mine are going to go up. And since folks in the tax bracket I'm already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, I'm being disingenuous? Did you expect me to be thrilled with it? I wish to keep my money, as does everyone. "The rest of us will probably see some sort of tax cut". Sounds to me as you guys getting the cut aren't doing your part to bail out the country. We should all be doing this equally. If taxes are going up on the top 2%, they shoulg up 2% on everyone....afterall, we're in this together, right?
You have more disposable income to contribute. It amazes me that grown people don't understand the concept that a rich person spending a percentage of their income is not the same as someone who makes much, much less spending that same percentage.
As for paying the overwhelming majority of taxes, boo-hoo. All that demonstrates is the degree of disparity between the classes. By your logic, if 1% of the population made 99% of the money, everyone should feel sorry for that 1% because they pay so much more in taxes than everyone else.
Do you have any concept how ridiculous you come off by complaining that your 250K in taxable income is going to be taxed more while so many people are losing their jobs and homes? Be grateful for what you have instead of being selfish.
Amen.
So where in your post did you address the point regarding the disingenuity of your argument, wherein you assert that the top 2% of the population will be paying all of the bills...
You dodged it. You dodged it because you knew that you were being disingenuous.
Yes, we are all in this together. You're right about that. But for you to claim that taxes are going up for you, while insinuating that others (like me) will not pay any taxes at all - well that's just BS - and you know it.
As I said before, the truth of the matter is that everyone is going to pay taxes. The upper 2% of us will see an increase in taxes, up 4%. People in my income bracket will probably receive a $13/week increase on the check after taxes. WOO HOO! I can buy that house I've always wanted!! Yeah right.
You, on the other hand, can afford CPA's and lawyers who can help you manoeuver the tax regulations and pay less in taxes than I did! How is that fair? In the end, my tax burden becomes (as a percentage) higher than yours. How is THAT fair?
Stop whining and pay up.
I'm in the top tax bracket and I am fine with my taxes going up. Not everyone has always wanted to keep all their money rather than see it spent on worthy government expenditures. "Greed is good" is a recent phenomenon in American history. And, I for one, am not taking part in it. I have not paid enough in taxes according to my income. That is a simple state of fact and I would be more than happy to pay more in order to keep bridges from collapsing, levies from breaking, and service running.
Amen to that!
I see you agree with me: if you want to live in a civilized nation, you have to pay for it.
Righties don't see that when you help pull others up, it eventually pulls us all up.
Example: I live in San Francisco. I pay what I would consider to be a higher percentage of local tax than most do (in other cities, comparatively). I'm fine with this - and this is why: my little brother, who lives with me, works full time at a restaurant and he goes to college. He's 26. He makes $11/hour. He cannot afford health insurance on his own or through his job, and his job does not provide it outright. No subsidies there. However, when he is ill, he can go to the free clinic, see a doctor for free, get a prescription, go to the Wal-Greens, get it filled and pay nothing. My taxes pay for my little brother to be able to have health care pretty much on demand. I'm fine with this. In fact, I'm more than fine with this. My higher tax burden helps ensure that those who need health care but cannot afford it are able to get it.
And before any of you righties ask about my health care plan, mine is subsidized through my job. My partner is also insured through my job. Yes, I pay (partially) for my partner's insurance. My job is nice enough to pay for mine and part of his. So yes, I pay for my health care - and my partner's. Since we have health care through my job and I can afford to pay for it, I'm not eligible for the city plan. Again, I'm fine with that. But those who are less fortunate, who work hard and are trying to make something of themselves, deserve a little help too. Helping them will help you - and our futures.
Thought you might get a kick about Sean Hannity's well-informed minions who are getting excited because they heard that Rush Limbaugh's ratings have nearly doubled... ;>)
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1358581
For years, ratings for LimBob have been determined by a very precise measuring device...
The device measured the sulphuric content emanating from Rush's pie hole... excuse me, his bum.
An increase in this rating invariably signaled an upswing in ditto-head listeners. The corporate equation was simple, yet powerful...
BS = Limbaugh (squared), or, more simply...
Filth = corporate media
I don't like this story. I'm a huge fan of MMFA and they do what they do well. I've always thought they should stick to that and feared what would happen if or when they veered into producing commentary.
MMFA is or was about facts. Those can't be disputed. This type of thing can.
I don't trust Limbaugh or his people at all. That being said, I learned a long time ago that you don't wander into another man's expertise and try to debate him on those terms. You lose and look foolish when you do that.
Limbaugh is a big, fat lying compost heap of the worst sort, but I bet he knows a lot more about AM radio ratings than the author of this piece ever will. I hope the author of this piece did enough research and homework to back up these critiques. It would really be embarrassing to get taken down on the facts by a lying schill like Rush.
I hope I am wrong in this case, but I know better than to be a dilettante taking on a proffesional in his area of expertise. It doesn't matter if it's talk radio or plumbing or law or medicine. People know what they do for a living and you don't if you don't do it.
Good luck Eric. I don't like Rush either.
I think that within the next couple of years Rush Limbaugh's "voice" will increasingly diminish and that possibly he might be gone. Two reasons:
1. The last iteration of American conservatism is dead. Surely it will be replaced, probably by a more rational and less religious version, but conservatism as we knew it the past 15 years is done. People have become wise to the fact that the conservative movement was just promises and incompetent governance. The rich continued to get richer and everyone else was left sucking air. In the meantime the nation has been dumbed down by yahooism and religious zealotry. The old conservatism is history. The Republicans have now lost two national elections in a row because of conservatism.
Rush Limbaugh, for all the attention he is presently attracting is hurting the Republican Party. And the secret is out; polling numbers show that Limbaugh is not a well-liked man. We can yank Republican chains all day by saying that Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, but he's not. More and more it becomes clear that he represents only an increasingly marginalized faction. Michael Steele may have been afraid to take him on but Newt Gingrich is not. David Frum's upcoming article in Newsweek blasts Limbaugh as well for the damage he's doing to the Republican Party. I smell blood in the water. The big money people in the Republican Party aren't going to tolerate Limbaugh hurting the GOP and they'll throw him under the bus if they have to.
2. Limbaugh's health. Did you take a good look at Limbaugh at the CPAC convention? He does not look well. He is nearing 60; he's grossly overweight; and he has a history of serious narcotics addiction. Consider how long Limbaugh will be able to physically continue every day with his hyperventilating, bombastic rants. Consider whether he wants to. Remember after the 2006 elections when he declared he would no longer be the water carrier for the Republican Party? He sounded tired and ready to quit then. We tend to forget that we're talking about a human being and not just a product called Rush Limbaugh. I don't wish the man harm but I would be surprised if he does not walk away for health reasons at some point.
If the Republicans lose again in 2010 there will be a serious remaking of the Republican Party and I don't think Rush Limbaugh is going to be a part of that.
YOU ARE ON CRACK IF YOU THINK THAT CONSERVATISM IS DEAD! IT HAS NOT EVEN BLOOMED TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL! ALL CONSERVATISM NEEDED WAS OBAMA! HE IS ANTI-CONSERVATISM.
KILLS UNBORN CHILDREN AND SPENDS MONEY LIKE WE ARE IN AN ECONOMY BOOM...
No, I think you are in denial. And read my post more carefully. What I said was the "last iteration of conservatism id dead" and the "old conservatism is history." Conservatism will be around and reinvented in another form, surely...but the one you are clinging to is a gone pecan. Except for a few diehards, people ain't buying it anymore. Let me know how things work out on the lunatic fringe...
How rational.
Cracking Rush would be easy. Some enterprising young journalist needs to pull off an investigation confirming the long-held suspicion that Rush is a major league con artist, and that his 700 radio stations are pulling in 120,000 listeners a day, and that his whole network is a right wing fluff gig, financed by big Republican Money. There's a lot of big money behind a, what, a 250 million dollar contract. Who has that kind of money? If they can pony up that much, it would take a little bit more to buy a basketful of radio stations and generate the look of a cash flow. I mean, we're talking real money here.
Reports said about 8,000 people attended CPAC with Rush Limbaugh as the Keynote Speaker, right?
Well, if 20 million (or 50 million) people listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio but only about 8,000 people attended an event (where Rush was the Keynote Speaker), makes me wonder why someone used "fuzzy" math for Rush's radio listeners. Hmmm... why didn't more people (like a million or so) want to see Rush in person? Again, this "fuzzy" math is confusing me...hmmm.
You can only fit so many people in a circus freak show tent. ;>)
Events of the last few weeks have proven what I've felt about Tush Dumplaughd since his first expellation of gas over the airwaves years ago:
He's a shock jock, no more, no less, cut from the very same bolt of fabric as Howard Stern.
He will say or do anything to get more listeners (=more money)
He could give a rat's patootie about "core values", "morality", or "what's best for America"; he's merely an entertainer/attention junkie. He would take a dump on the microphone if he thought drive up ratings.
I sincerely doubt he believes any of the stuff he broadcasts- I wouldn't be surprised if he's having a good laugh over the fact that anybody takes him seriously.
My six-year-old has trouble distinguishing between "good attention" and "bad attention"; as long he's in the spotlight, he's happy.
Sound familiar?
I am pleading with all responsible adults: just ignore him.
Starve him of that thing he craves the most (no, not Vicodin...but good guess!)-
Attention.
Rush's '20 million' listeners kinda reminds me of Andrew "Dice" Clay's claim that he's the 'biggest stand up comic of all time.' Something and someone I'd thankfully forgotten until they started running ads for that idiotic Celebrity Apprentice show.
Who cares how many listeners he has?
It doesn't tell you what the nature of those listeners is. I tend to catch five minutes or so of his show driving around each day, just to hear his broken logic and lack of wisdom on whatever matter he's harping on that day. It's a good exercise, because it reinforces my correct stances on the issues at hand.
Also, if you listen for five minutes, you get ALL the talking points that any Warpublican you run into that day will try to use in any political argument. It's their day-to-day playbook, since they are brainwashed and unable to think for themselves.
Limbaugh's logic is pretty funny too: A=B, B=C, therefore A ALWAYS = Z and there are no shades of grey. I mean, he'll be like "I heard Osama bin Laden ate a carrot last week. Obama ate a carrot. THIS IS PROOF OBAMA IS A TERRORIST."
He does it every day- I get a great laugh out of it with my Mensa discussion group.
great post Eric! There is a big difference between running on stations that REACH 20 million listeners and actually DELIVERING 20 million every week. I work in TV, where until recently our ratings were based on a meter/diary system. Now that most major markets use LPM (local people meters) we receive both household ratings and demographics on a daily basis with a larger overall sample. In many ways, radio still operates in the last century in terms of technology and ratings methodology.
For radio as an industry, 20 million is a pretty unbelievable number. And any comments he makes about revenue are purely speculation as well. It's in his best interest as owner of the show to talk up the demand for advertising because it will only help him to keep rates high.
Could you guys just GIVE me a job? You guys aren't affiliated to the government at all? Well, if you ARE then I am entitled to some general welfare here! That's "cheddah" if you would like me to interpret the go-getters intention that wrote the constitution.
It's funny. Charles Darwin was a nutjob and during the same time period he wrote about "natural selection". So, in a pack of gazelles, the lion waits and picks off the weakest one.
This society where wussies/moochers are becoming politically cool (amongst the left anyway) needs some lions around.
Your too funny! NoT!
Darwin was a nutjob? How so? Even if he was plenty of real nutjobs have been creative genius: Vincent Van Gogh come to mind. Isaac Newton spent part of his adult life chasing alchemy, and suffered at least one nervous breakdown.
Another thing, we are men not beasts. If in a society the strong do not protect the weak, then that society is not considered civilized. The strong protecting the weak is the basic foundation of civilization. What you are longing for, where the strongest prey on the weak and slow is called unregulated free market capitalism.
Lieb,
Nice to see you know how to turn off the caps lock key. Kepp it up and you may be sufficiently employable to survive to pass along your genetic traits to another generation....who will grow up liberal.
Someone's doing a Limbaugh imitation.
Not at all. The gutless ways of liberalism is appalling to a throwback like me. Man up and get a life.
Limbaugh is radio's school yard bully, I shutter to think the type of people who listen to him, AM radio what a joke!
RUN OUT OF TOWN:
http://alice.bigbig.com/
Why don't we just pretend that EVERY American is required to listen to Limbaugh every day for 3 hours, because el Rushbo has commanded us to do so. Wouldn't that be a perfect world?
IF that were ever mandated, I would make sure I were completely and irretrievably deaf before I were forced to listen to the first episode.
The strong already supported the weak. I have gone down when I was broke/poor and I got a wisdom tooth pulled for free. (Public Service found) The point is that there ARE services there in place; right this very minute that if many of you did the legwork and made some phonecalls you could take advantage of if it were needed.
How many of the supposed 46 million folks that have no health care are hypochondriacs would you imagine? (THAT might be a tad expensive, huh?) 1/5th of ALL Americans have a disability. Would you not think that number is staggering when you put into context the 303 million citizens we have total? True. The census does not have an idea on the illegal trespassers of our great sovereignty w/o a green card(was that sensitive enough?), but we know there are at least 10 million. When I look around where I live, nowhere near Texas or California, I cannot help but to think that number is very conservative.
As we speak, we have illegals walking in front of lawmakers asking for amnesty from the new "Ship Em Home" program. Again, my backdrop of putting all of this madness in real context is by making all of the current day idiotic politicians disappear. Instead let's imagine with the same vigor that "general welfare of the people" could mean open the coffers and take care of anyone that raises their hand for it. All of the great founders of this country being in place there in Congress and the White House instead. I would just enjoy looking at the looks on their faces while hearing your argument of the intent they had when they founded this great country. I would love to see the expressions when they see how you all fight for illegals just for more votes when it all boils down to it.
Pick one. Choose an argument. The list has to shrink here! Should we support all that we have here that wants it and everyone that SHOWS UP too? Someone that cannot help themself at all is the exception. There are far too many that use that guise. Let's drug test anyone on unemployment once and for all. If anything around you says Olde English 800, unless you are an employee, you're fired from our plan. Where does it all end? There is always something else that you need...
What are you talking about? You think because there are some social services left that haven't been completely gutted by the profit over people conservative lunatics, that things are good enough? That we can't progress further in opening opportunity and broad prosperity for more hard working Americans? Hard working Americans whom, by the way, you callously place below the dirt on your hallowed feet by disparaging their work ethic as ''weak."
No, your answer is we're doing good enough. More of the same. Hail the status quo.
Screw that. At the heart of the American experiment is the ethic of a constant progression toward the formation of a more perfect union.
Your real fear is that Obama will fix the economy. You know that conservatism has failed us and now you can't take responsibility for an ideology that exists only to cut taxes for corporations and rich people. You can't take responsibility for an ideology that seeks only to transfer our common wealth to corrupt, inept, profit happy corporatists. You can't take responsibility for an ideology that has left people in the cold because they cannot afford to have a price tag attached to every aspect of their lives.
But your crapola is nothing new. The fact is liberalism has brought us the best America has to offer. From safe water to drink, to rural electrification, to civil rights, to going to the moon, to public education it has been liberals going forth bravely in the face resentful conservatives screaming, "SOCIALISTS!"
Whatever. Liberals stood their ground, fought hard against the corporate authoritarians and still business thrived while the liberal value of mutual responsibility oversaw the greatest expansion of the middle class the world has ever seen.
Go away dinosaur and stop saying, "no you can't," to those of us who are going forward.
Succinctly, I would make that this period of time will infuriate the American people watching the moral degredation of this country into action.
What action? You sound eerily similar to those hate group loonies from the 90's. Seems as though your conservative bs has been repudiated so you make a return to the language of Clinton era militias and domestic terrorists.
Talk about weak.
You got nothin' if it ain't already scripted for ya.
Go away, phony.
I have gone down when I was broke/poor and I got a wisdom tooth pulled for free.(Liebuster)
You Lewinsky-ed a dentist?
Harr. I noticed that, too.
Eric, thank you so much for addressing this. I first asked the question when the Savage devotee in my office started sayin that he had 11 million listeners.
I thought that figurfe was highly questionable, but these people parrot everything they hear.
If it's doubtful that Limbaugh's numbers have doubled in the past several weeks, and we know that there's no proof that it has, we can also surmise that Limbaugh's so-called "base rating" of 20 million a week is grossly overestimated. Who knows? Maybe it's at 400,000 and he has to hire people to call in!
It wouldn't take much research to find out that Limbaugh is perhaps a scam artist in Madoff's league, that he really hasn't any listeners, and it's all just a right wing fluff program. All of those Iraq billions that disappeared had to go somewhere. And what about all of the billions that are flowing out the big banks after the bailout? Who knows whether it's going to pay off the CDSs, or whether it's going to fake contracts for CDSs? With no regulation, no oversight, it's cowboy country. Right, George W?
This is why George W. Bush was placed in office. It was so he could pull the deregulation strings that would allow his friends could rob big time. Pretty simple, really. And it's a very old con game at that.
The more distant the time when Bush was at his peak of power, the easier it is to see him for what he was and is. The recent announcement from the UN about international war crimes investigations brings an odd sigh of relief to some of us. We know that it could never happen here. Bush is too close to the international cartel of the super rich. Those currently in political power, Obama and Holder, will never touch this baby.
We know Obama by what he does. And he's done a lot. We also know that Obama is a strategic thinker and he doesn't want to be the fool. Right now, he'd suffer by going after the Bush Crime Family. He's relying on the UN to make the first moves. He wants to hear an international and then a domestic consensus. The leaders of European and Latin American countries have it in their internal political interests to prosecute Bush. The anti-Bush sentiment is strong in both regions.
Also, by prosecuting Bush, foreign leaders are signaling a change of perspective with the current Administration. Some want to do business and want their backers to feel good about doing business with the US.
Get them off of their laurels and get into the voting booth to stop the bleeding economy. Read about communism and marxism and you will see all of the similiarities with what is going on now. This is scary stuff for millions of us.
Opening the coffers WIDE open and just throwing a bucket of paint at the problem. I have not seen the scapel that Obama proportedly has.
I wrote a letter to the president of Arbitron
I asked him to do the country a favor and tell us what Rush Limbaugh's national audience size is and if his audience size has recently doubled.
Contrary to what the WAPO article says, it is NOT too complicated for Arbitron to figure this out. This is their core business. Hasn't the WAPO heard of computers?