Long live Rush, that fat jackass!

your posts are starting to look like jim's.

Close, but I include source links.

He is doing the right thing with the inclusion of the entire article because the source could roll the thing into the archive and it would be no longer available.

After articles are rolled into the archive the source usually charges a fee to view the article in its entirety. This usually happens after 7-10 days.

Some sources have no archive and the article simply becomes unavailable.

Once we reproduce the article here -- with full attribution required by Fair Use -- there is a permanent archive at this site which can then be referenced by all members.

So keep up the good work and don't worry about whose posts yours resemble.
 
I'd like to know how many of the Rush haters have actually listened to him more than once or twice? He is entertaining. He's not a politician & is not worthy of all this discussion.
 
He's not a politician as in his job title...but he's a political pundit and being listened to as if he were a politician.
 
I'd like to know how many of the Rush haters have actually listened to him more than once or twice? He is entertaining. He's not a politician & is not worthy of all this discussion.

I listened to Rush every day for well over a year; fifteen years ago. It became apparent to me, he is filled with hate, is extremely biased, and after listening to several of his rants, decided to follow up on his information. Doing research was easy, and in many cases, number unknown but rest assured it was at least five or six, found Rush is liberal in taking things out of context in order to give credence to his extreme right wing opinion and knowing it is not as stated when delivered in this manner.
Limbaugh is not entertaining but is an entertainer. He is a blowhard, pompous, ego-centric, maniacal extremist to the point of fanaticism and self-idolatry.

BUT, you are right, Rush Limbaugh really is not worthy of any discussion. And neither is he worthy of being idolized by right wing republicans. But he is and they, the right wing neo-conservative republicans have placed him on that platform. That is one reason the republican party is losing its grip and beginning to smell like a fart in church.
 
YES! Long live Rush!

SOURCE

The mouth that roared
There’s nothing conservative about the boost to WABC radio from Rush Limbaugh’s resurgence


By Matthew Flamm

Rush Limbaugh likes to complain that President Obama is out to destroy the capitalist spirit in America. But so far, life under socialism has been pretty good for the confrontational talk radio star.

In the months since the Republican rout left Democrats in charge and conservatives on the run, the outspoken Mr. Limbaugh has become the de facto leader of the opposition—and the only radio personality who gets national attention on a daily basis.

Ratings for The Rush Limbaugh Show on its flagship station, WABC-AM, spiked by double digits in January over December, pushing the nationally syndicated program into third place from fifth in its afternoon slot in New York. The bigger audience has bucked up advertising sales for both the station and Premier Radio Networks, the Clear Channel Communications subsidiary that syndicates the show.

Mr. Limbaugh has become the one bright spot in an industry that was struggling to grow even before the recession pounded it. People may hate him for attacking a popular president in a time of crisis, but observers say that the more polarizing Mr. Limbaugh is, the better.

It’s great for the business of talk radio, it’s great for the stations that carry him, and it’s great for Rush Limbaugh,” says Michael Harrison, publisher of the trade magazine Talkers. “This will increase his ratings, which will increase his longevity.”

Of course, Mr. Limbaugh was hardly suffering before the Democrats won last November. Ever since Howard Stern left CBS Radio to join Sirius Satellite Radio in 2006, El Rushbo has had no competition for the role of biggest pitchman in the talk business. He can command such a premium from advertisers that last July Premier signed him to a new contract reportedly worth $400 million over eight years.

Mr. Limbaugh’s supporters say his appeal to audiences and advertisers goes beyond his politics.

“Even people who disagree with him listen,” says WABC Program Director Laurie Cantillo. “The bottom line is that his show is entertaining.” She adds that interest in the economy and the new administration has brought improved ratings and revenue to every show at the talk station, which has an almost exclusively conservative lineup.

A danger of alienating advertisers

But there are critics of Mr. Limbaugh who feel that he has lately become too much of a political campaigner, and that he is in danger of alienating advertisers who are looking for an entertainer.

For them, Mr. Limbaugh crossed the line with his recent nationally televised speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee’s annual meeting, where he almost appeared to be running for president.

“The issue is whether he has stepped into the role of politician and out of the role of talent,” says Jack Myers, editor of a media business newsletter who recently wrote a column critical of Mr. Limbaugh.

Over the years, Mr. Limbaugh’s talent for controversy has led many national advertisers to steer clear of him. Some media buyers say it’s possible that in the current economy, even more will stay away.

“It’s a tough economy, and clients don’t like complaining phone calls,” says Dennis McGuire, regional broadcast director for Carat USA.

But if advertisers are unhappy with Mr. Limbaugh, Premier insists it isn’t hearing from them.

“Rush has tremendously loyal advertisers,” says Charlie Rahilly, president of Premier, noting that national ad inventory booked so far for 2009 is above 2008’s level. “In an otherwise challenging ad climate, we’re having a very positive response.”

Mr. Limbaugh’s longtime advertisers already know what to expect, says Mark Lefkowitz, media director at Furman Roth Advertising Inc., Some of them share Mr. Limbaugh’s views, he adds, and a good portion of the show’s inventory is sold to direct-response advertisers who aren’t worried about their corporate image.

The controversy around Mr. Limbaugh has at least shown that radio still can have an important place in the media universe. “It’s a sign that people are back, enjoying that kind of personality-driven radio,” says Peter Gusmano, U.S. director of client service at GroupM Matrix. “That could spark the radio marketplace.”

RATINGS RUSH
WABC-AM’s Rush Limbaugh Show has gotten a huge boost in listeners.

Share of audience, listeners age 12 and older.


December 4.7
January 5.9
Percent change +26%


Source: Arbitron
 
I'm glad Rush is getting a boost. That doesn't bode well for the republicans and their approval should continue to drop. :thumbup:

What's good for Rush Limbaugh is bad for Republicans
National Post ^ | David Frum

Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:48:49 PM by indcons

Gallup's latest polling reveals the continuing collapse of the Republican party's base vote. The news is so very bad that there will be only one possible response from GOP party leadership and our radio talkers: Ignore it.

--SNIP--

Instead, our congressmen talk to and about Rush Limbaugh like Old Bolsheviks praising Comrade Stalin at their show trials. Rush is right! We see eye to eye with Rush! There is no truth outside Rush!

Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly and Ann Coulter and the others have their place and their role. They spoke for an important section of public opinion, and it is a section our party needs. But it is only a section, and not the whole. The more the party allows them to become our public face, the more embattled and endangered the party becomes.

The relationship between these radio talkers and the larger Republican and conservative world has become parasitic and antagonistic. They flourish and profit to the extent they can polarize and radicalize. The GOP will recover only to the extent that it moderates and reaches out. They benefit from controversies that position them as the leaders and designated speakers for conservative America. But the more visible they become, the more our party is shoved to the margins and rendered unelectable. What is good for Rush is bad for the GOP, and what is good for the GOP is bad for Rush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2174770/posts
 
Interesting read jimpeel. But, the survey was conducted by Limbaugh staff members. Arbitron does not conduct listener surveys on individuals as they consider it time consuming and speculative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html?hpid=topnews

And note, the self-survey was conducted September, 2008, before the brouhaha from the Obama White House in 2009.

Also, consider this. There were 131 million votes cast in the 2008 presidential election; 59 million for the republican candidate. If Rush has 20 million viewers, he represents one third of republican voters. Not a very good percentage if you are to be influential. The republican tide is turning away from his rhetoric. But he's still making a comfortable living.:yawn:
 
Interesting read jimpeel. But, the survey was conducted by Limbaugh staff members. Arbitron does not conduct listener surveys on individuals as they consider it time consuming and speculative.

The numbers in the first article, from Limbaugh's site, were from Arbitron. How does this diminish the other numbers given that EIB's 1Q 2009 Revenues are up 13.5% over 1Q 2008?

If you read the second article, you will find that it was WABC-AM and not Limbaugh which ran these numbers. They seem quite pleased.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html?hpid=topnews

And note, the self-survey was conducted September, 2008, before the brouhaha from the Obama White House in 2009.

Conceded; but the numbers which are cited in the first article are more recent. Last week to be exact.

Also, consider this. There were 131 million votes cast in the 2008 presidential election; 59 million for the republican candidate. If Rush has 20 million viewers, he represents one third of republican voters. Not a very good percentage if you are to be influential. The republican tide is turning away from his rhetoric. But he's still making a comfortable living.:yawn:

I could be quite comfortable with a 50-million-dollars-a-year contract for eight years. One would have to be quite relevant to have such a contract offered, don't you think?
 
I could be quite comfortable with a 50-million-dollars-a-year contract for eight years. One would have to be quite controvertial to have such a contract offered, don't you think?
Fixed it for you.

Stern had signed a $500 million five-year contract that pays his salary and the costs of doing there, starting last January, what he did on free radio: entertain millions while offending millions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/60minutes/main1090737.shtml

Seems that Howard Stern is more relevant than Rush Limbaugh??! Maybe salary isn't based on relevance after all.
 
Fixed it for you.

I could be quite comfortable with a 50-million-dollars-a-year contract for eight years. One would have to be quite controversial to have such a contract offered, don't you think?

Nope. Fixed it for you.

Seems that Howard Stern is more relevant than Rush Limbaugh??! Maybe salary isn't based on relevance after all.

No. Stern sold his shtick based on sexual innuendo and scantily clad whores, talking about their fetishes and breast size, frequenting his studio. I doubt we will be hearing Rush talking anytime soon about how he "six packs" his wife.

He appealed to the least common denominator, most of which helped to put Obama in the White House; because they failed to follow politics in favor of hedonistic auditory pleasures.

That doesn't make Stern more relevant -- only more titillating.

Sex sells. Always has. Always will.
 
While Rush's numbers are skyrocketing, the Liberal radio stations are folding their tents.

SOURCE

What Conspiracy? Talk Radio's Roar, From Right & Left

Bill Press is a smart and thoughtful liberal who has had a long and successful career in the TV and radio punditry biz. Yet there he was in Sunday's Post bemoaning the loss of "Obama 1260," the left-leaning Washington talk radio station that morphed into an all-financial advice outlet this week.

The way Press tells it, the loss of that format on WWRC, which had so few listeners it sometimes didn't register at all in the Arbitron ratings, amounts to an unfair allocation of the public airwaves, even a conspiracy to silence voices from the left.

Press is so exercised about this--his syndicated show was, after all, the morning drivetime programming on the station--that he's even calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, the long-discarded regulatory scheme by which the federal government prevented radio and TV stations from airing much in the way of controversial political programming.

Despite the passionate desire of some Democrats to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh silenced through regulatory trickery, the fact is that no one is going to restore a set of rules that made no sense when they were erased in 1987 and would be downright absurd in the digital age. More on that in a moment, but first, just a couple of facts:

Much as Press may lament the loss of his Washington outlet, it's simply not even close to true that, as he puts it, with the demise of Obama 1260, "our nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air."

Yes, the #8-rated station in the market, WMAL (630 AM), airs non-stop conservative talk hosts of the Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Mark Levin ilk. And another right-wing talk station, WTNT (570 AM), the corporate sister of Obama 1260, will remain on the air despite scoring ratings every bit as anemic as the liberal talkers received.

But Press conveniently left out a plethora of liberal talkers heard every day in this market, from the market's #1 station, WHUR (96.3 FM), which features the Michael Baisden Show, which was a nonstop Obama campaign machine throughout the fall, to the #3 station in the market, Majic 102.3, where the morning host is Tom Joyner, a reliably liberal voice whose lovesong to Obama is currently featured on the station's home page. The liberal lineup includes another all-talk station, WOL (1450 AM), where hosts such as Joe Madison and Al Sharpton dish out just as partisan and powerful a menu of provocative talk as do the yakkers of the right.

Why didn't Press include any of these shows or stations in his rant against the purported domination of the airwaves by conservative voices? Might it be because all of the above hosts are black and their shows air on stations that are black-run and oriented toward a black audience? Blacks are the most devoted radio listeners in this or any other U.S. market. Why are they ignored in the liberal argument that radio is an all-right-wing zone?

[more]
 
The numbers in the first article, from Limbaugh's site, were from Arbitron.


Did you read the website posted in the response as it explains the scenario of the reported survey, when it was run and by whom.


If you read the second article, you will find that it was WABC-AM and not Limbaugh which ran these numbers. They seem quite pleased.

Right you are. That is the New York listening audience and there is no way they can determine these listeners are all listening to Rush Limbaugh neither is it indicative of listeners nationwide. Read the article referenced in my previous post.

Conceded; but the numbers which are cited in the first article are more recent. Last week to be exact.

Read the web link for full details. It negates everything you are defending.
Right, for an overall listening audience and not just the Rush Limbaugh show.
All you loyal Rush Limbaugh listeners take note. This is a perfect example of why I no longer listen to this buffoon nor pay attention to Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity or the two blondes. They manipulate information to suit their need.
Just for poops and twitters, giving Rush the benefit of the doubt on the ratings he stipulates, once the excitement dies down, the spike (if there really is one) will quiet down and Rush will not rush to tell the media.


I'll even go one better. According to an interview last week on MSNBC with the media editor of Vanity Fair, he stated (no, I do not have a link you'll have to trust me on this one) ratings can be off as much as 25% for a nationwide show and that Rush's statement of 20 million really means it is about 14 to 15 million a week, not a day. This puts him the same rating bracket with O'Reilly but those numbers are O'Reilly's numbers, not the gentleman from Vanity Fair.

I could be quite comfortable with a 50-million-dollars-a-year contract for eight years. One would have to be quite relevant to have such a contract offered, don't you think?

I agree he is well rewarded.
:)
 
Back
Top