From the June 4 edition of CNN's New Day:
Loading the player reg...
From the June 2 edition of CNN's CNN Tonight:
Loading the player reg...
A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck's talk radio shows are more distrusted than trusted among three generations surveyed by Pew.
Pew surveyed millennials, Generation Xers, and baby boomers on political news sources and how each generation trusted them. The study published on June 1 found that "Four sources are distrusted more than trusted by all three: The Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, and BuzzFeed." From Pew Research Center:
Rush Limbaugh's Boston radio affiliate WRKO has announced it is dropping Limbaugh's talk show from its lineup. Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere, confirmed the news in a statement, which reads in part: "We were unable to reach agreeable terms for The Rush Limbaugh Show to continue on WRKO. A final broadcast date will be announced in the near future."
WRKO has now become the second major radio station in recent weeks to drop Limbaugh's program. Limbaugh's longtime Indianapolis affiliate WIBC severed ties with him in April. WIBC's parent company noted that Limbaugh's absence could actually improve its advertiser prospects.
The commercial viability of Rush Limbaugh's show has suffered since 2012, when advertisers began fleeing the program in the wake of Limbaugh's prolonged attack on then-law student Sandra Fluke. The Wall Street Journal has reported on the millions of dollars in advertising revenue stations who carry Limbaugh's show lose, as well as the industry-wide damage resulting from Limbaugh's toxicity to advertisers. Notably, according to the report, the exodus of national advertisers has played a significant part in reducing talk radio advertising rates to about half of what it costs to run ads on music stations, even though the two formats have "comparable audience metrics."
WRKO dropping Limbaugh from its lineup is just the latest reminder that Rush Limbaugh is bad for business.
Advertisers continue to leave and stay away thanks to a dedicated group of independent organizers in the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities. Their participation matters and is having a big effect.
Indianapolis' WIBC has broadcast Rush Limbaugh's show for 22 years. Despite this long history, parent company Emmis Communications announced April 13 that they are dropping Limbaugh's show from WIBC's lineup.
Charlie Morgan, an executive for Emmis, indicated that the decision to drop Limbaugh was about the "long-term direction of the station," but also acknowledged that there was a "business element to the decision." Underscoring the business considerations, Morgan explained to the Indianapolis Business Journal that the absence of Limbaugh could actually help WIBC's advertiser prospects:
While Morgan expects some WIBC listeners to be "hugely disappointed" by the change, he said losing Limbaugh could open up the station to more advertising opportunities.
There are some--primarily national--advertisers that refuse to air commercials during Limbaugh's show, Morgan explained. Emmis officials began notifying its advertisers of the change Monday.
"We believe this could open us up to a new group of advertisers," he said.
Limbaugh's show has been plagued with woes ever since advertisers began fleeing in the wake of Limbaugh's multi-day attack on then-law student Sandra Fluke. Thousands of local and regional businesses refuse to advertise on Limbaugh's show and the bulk of national advertisers are now reportedly boycotting his program. The cumulative effect of Limbaugh's advertiser difficulties has created a problem so substantial that it has actually spilled over and is hurting conservative talk radio as a whole.
The Wall Street Journal recently confirmed the industry-wide damage resulting from Limbaugh's beleaguered program. According to the report, the exodus of national advertisers has played a significant part in reducing talk radio advertising rates to about half of what it costs to run ads on music stations, even though the two formats have "comparable audience metrics."
Further, the report also provides a look at the millions of dollars individual stations have lost. The chart below, which was taken from the Journal report, gives a before and after look at the advertising revenue of talker stations in some of the largest markets. Notably, three of the stations that carried Limbaugh originally (KFI, WSB, and WBAP) experienced the greatest losses:
What is happening at the stations identified in the chart is happening at other talk stations, especially those that carry Limbaugh's program. While it was already reported that major radio companies were hemorrhaging millions of dollars due to Limbaugh's toxicity, the Journal's analysis of the effect at the local station level was revealing and may offer some additional insight into WIBC's decision to drop Limbaugh.
WIBC is just the latest in a string of reminders that Rush Limbaugh is bad for business.
The Journal report also confirmed that advertisers continue to leave and stay away thanks to a dedicated group of independent organizers in the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities. Their participation matters and is having a tremendous effect.
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
The Hill legitimized Republican claims that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to delay its vote on net neutrality to give the public time to review the idea, ignoring the fact that the agency received nearly 4 million comments -- which overwhelmingly favored net neutrality -- during an open-comment period in 2014.
The New York Times legitimized a discredited study from the Progressive Policy Institute claiming that net neutrality could cost American consumers up to $15 billion annually -- a claim that has been widely debunked for relying on "fuzzy math" and "significant factual error[s]."
In a February 20 Bits blog, The New York Times reported that a bipartisan group of senators "presented legislation that would permanently ban taxes on high-speed Internet service to American homes," under the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998.
The Times blog cited research from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) to claim that implementing the stricter net neutrality rules proposed by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to protect consumers from paid prioritization of Internet access would cost "$15 billion a year," and the recently presented bipartisan legislation would lower the cost to $11 billion.
Buried in a single paragraph at the bottom of the blog, the Times noted that FCC spokesperson Kim Hart has asserted Wheeler's plan "'does not raise taxes or fees. Period.'" Left unsaid was the fact that PPI's net neutrality cost estimate has been thoroughly discredited. In a January 16 blog, The Washington Post's Fact Checker shattered PPI's net neutrality cost estimate, awarding the claim that utility-style net neutrality regulation could cost $15 billion "Three Pinnochios," for what it called "significant factual error[s] and/or obvious contradictions." And as the nonpartisan Internet advocacy group Free Press pointed out, PPI's claim is based on a critically flawed methodology that overstates the worst-case scenario tax burden by nearly 75 percent.
Furthermore, Congress passed a moratorium last year banning states from imposing new taxes on internet access through October 2015, regardless of any new FCC regulations.
Fox News' Special Report falsely claimed that the public won't have a say in the upcoming Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Open Internet rule, ignoring reports that the record number of public comments on the rulemaking were overwhelmingly positive and polls that show the public greatly supports net neutrality regulations.
On February 26, the FCC will vote on a proposal that will subject Internet providers to utility-like regulation. During the February 11 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier told his viewers that "you may have absolutely no say in the matter."
Contrary to Baier's claim, in May 2014, the FCC requested public comments on "how best to protect and promote an open Internet" as part of the rulemaking process. While correspondent Shannon Bream did acknowledge this and mentioned that the FCC received a record 3.7 million public comments, she failed to report that the vast majority of these favored net neutrality. The Sunlight Foundation found that fewer than 1 percent of the first 800,000 public comments were opposed to net neutrality enforcement.
In fact, recent polls indicate widespread bipartisan support for net neutrality:
In a new survey, the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication found that support for neutrality is strong and widespread -- regardless of gender, age, race and level of education. About 81 percent of Americans oppose allowing Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon to charge Web sites and services more if they want to reach customers more quickly, that is, allowing what are often called "Internet fast lanes."
MSNBC's Harold Ford, Jr. used air time to push net neutrality myths without disclosing his relationship to the telecom industry, which has contributed millions of dollars to lobbying against net neutrality regulations.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to vote February 26 on a proposal for stronger net neutrality regulations drafted by chairman Tom Wheeler and detailed in a February 4 op-ed on Wired's website. According to The New York Times, Wheeler's proposed net neutrality rules "will give the commission strong legal authority to ensure that no content is blocked and that the internet is not divided into pay-to-play fast lanes for internet and media companies that can afford it and slow lanes for everyone else. Those prohibitions are hallmarks of the net neutrality concept."
On the February 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, political analyst Harold Ford, Jr. raised the issue of net neutrality, claiming that the proposed FCC plan to regulate internet service as a utility would "stifle investment."
FORD: Whatever your thoughts about what Obama said in his State of the Union message -- some of it I liked, a lot of it I didn't like -- but one take away that both parties should take from it is that he talked about empowering the middle class. Now if you're about raising wages and creating jobs you ought to do those things.
I think what's happening in Washington today -- you saw that F.C.C. Chair come out and say we've got to regulate the internet like a utility. That's not going to create higher paying jobs, it will actually stifle investment. You talk about wanting to reduce taxes on small businesspeople, Republicans want to reduce the corporate tax, Democrats want an infrastructure plan -- government, I'm old-fashioned, I think you are, too. We believe government can work. You've got to come together and compromise if you want it to happen.
Neither Ford nor MSNBC disclosed that the analyst is an "honorary co-chair" of Broadband for America, an industry-funded group whose members have included major national broadband providers like Comcast (a parent company of MSNBC), Cox Communications, and Verizon. Among its members, Broadband for America received a $2 million donation from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which has spent millions of dollars to lobby against net neutrality regulations.
Media outlets covering the fight against greater competition in the broadband market should note the role that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) played in blocking competition in 19 states. The media has a history of ignoring ALEC's role in pushing model legislation.
Across the country, Fox News Channel's conservative misinformation is being broadcast to millions of viewers through local television stations, which are owned and operated by the network's parent company, often without the knowledge of the station's viewers.
Local news stations fall into two categories: "owned and operated stations" whose content is controlled by a network or larger parent company, and "affiliate" stations that are not owned by a central network, and thus do not have to use the network's content. So a local "Fox" station might be entirely independent, or it might be controlled by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox -- and they do not have to tell viewers which they're watching.
By owning these local stations, Murdoch and 21st Century Fox can push narratives of their choosing onto large local audiences, often running the same news packages and hosting the same personalities that appear on the Fox News cable channel. According to federal communications law, a single company can own any number of local stations so long as they collectively reach "no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households."
21st Century Fox recently expanded into the San Francisco market, broadening their reach to 37 percent of U.S. television homes. They now own 28 stations in 17 markets.
With 71 percent of Americans getting their news from local channels -- almost double that of cable news networks -- Fox's expansion means that more households will be subject to Fox News' conservative misinformation even if they don't watch the cable news network.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano branded the principle of net neutrality as "Orwellian" after President Obama spoke out in favor of an open internet for consumers.
On Monday, President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt the "strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," emphasizing that "[a]n open internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life."
But according to Fox's legal analyst Napolitano on the November 10 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co, Obama just "wants to take the choice of buyers and sellers out of the market." After host Stuart Varney accused the president of seeking "to regulate the internet," Napolitano concluded that the entire principle of net neutrality "is Orwellian."
From the November 9 edition of Fox News' Media Buzz:
A Media Matters study on the coverage of key policy issues in nightly news' midterm election broadcasts finds that 65 percent of network news segments that dealt with the midterm elections failed to discuss the policy issues most important to the American people.