More Rush...why the left is envious...

[Foxfyre]

Neither compares. Franken doesn't have 40 million people behind him...and Maddow can't touch Limbaugh in terms of followers.

I repeat:

NPR has TWO daily news/commentary shows that get approximately the same size audience as Limbaugh.

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

NPR is decidedly left of center, but not extremely so. But I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience. Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron.

In any case it doesn't matter. It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

And as for those who are now including personal attacks on me as well as Rush, I am honored. When they start the ad hominem and personal insults, you KNOW you're on the right track with the lefties, are reporting what they can't refute, and they have nothing else.

 

[Pogo]

Well Rush is #1 in all markets. Hannity is not far behind at #2 in all markets. Radio stations who carry them are most likely to be #1 in their respective markets. Our #1 station gained that status by adding Rush to its line up back in the late 80's and has never lost it. It gained even more market share when it added Hannity to follow Rush.

We had only two of the three hours of Hannity for many years, but this past year the station dumped the local afternoon host and replaced him with the last hour of Hannity followed by a new local host who focuses on concepts and principles within the current events as Rush and Hannity do. And voila, their slipping late afternoon ratings were restored.

Having #1 market share is a guarantee to attract advertisers willing to pay top dollar for the time. So I don't think either Rush or Sean are going anywhere as long as they want to keep doing this.

But liberals said earlier this year these guys were toast by the fall. They were losing massive amounts of stations and listeners.

You mean the liberals have been lying...again?

Naw. They're just doing what they always have done - accepting the most destructive rhetoric, policies, concepts, and talking points as gospel and putting their faith on a hope that this time, it might actually work out. They seem incapable of learning from history, reality, or experience. And so far, not one that I have asked to defend a modern day American liberal principle or concept on which policy should be based has been able to do so. And when you ask them to defend it based on real evidence, they more often than not become verbally insulting, hateful, abusive, accusatory and try to focus on somebody else's 'evils'.

Just look at Pogo's non stop hateful rhetoric re Rush Limbaugh. He stated that all he does is criticize Rush's ethics. But when I ask him to name an example of Rush's ethics that are criticizable, he can't do it. He just steps up the hate rhetoric.

Foxy, I've been off the board for a few days -- has nothing to do with "can't do it". That's a cheap shot. I didn't even see that request until now, so this is dishonest.

Nor was I ever discussing Limblob's ethics themselves anyway; I merely made the point that IF someone wanted to criticize those ethics, THEN they had a right to do so -- which remains a fact, like it or not.

Declaring that one citizen has the right to criticize another has not the remotest relationship to "hateful rhetoric".

Completely dishonest, Foxy. I won't even dignify this post further until you've cleaned it up. Because what you've got here is complete contrived bullshit.

 

[Pogo]

All Things Considered and Morning Edition on NPR get approximately the same size audience as does Limbaugh.

The Rush Limbaugh Show Conservative talk Midday 14+
The Sean Hannity Show Conservative talk East Coast PM Drive 13.25+
Morning Edition Public news AM Drive 12.3[12]
All Things Considered Public news/talk PM Drive 11.8[12]
Marketplace Public news PM Drive 9+
Delilah Adult contemporary Evenings 8+


Approximately if 20 percent less is approximately

List of most-listened-to radio programs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of which is irrelevant. Especially if you're trying to pass off ratings numbers as "votes" on the program content, because that ain't what ratings is. Ratings measure attention -- that's it. Attention is neither assent nor dissent... it's attention. Limblob's numbers mean he gets a lot of attention -- regardless what anyone thinks of the points. Flukegate is a perfect example of that; when you're yelling "slut" over national radio for three days, you get attention. That was the whole point of doing it -- to boost sagging ratings. Same purpose that "feminazis" and "the White House dog" and "Barack the Magic Negro" serve -- ratings. Which means attention.

Ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Pogo]

I repeat:

NPR has TWO daily news/commentary shows that get approximately the same size audience as Limbaugh.

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

... I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience.

^^ She's right.

Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron. In any case it doesn't matter.

^^She's wrong. Arbitron measures everybody, even if public radio may not buy Arbitron books since they have nothing to do with their purpose in broadcasting (see next point). But she's right that it doesn't matter.

It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

Because it's not a private enterprise; it belongs to we the people. Nor is it subsidized by "mega millions every year"; it's mostly subsidized by our voluntary donations. Moreover, the amount the government does contribute pales in comparison to what those of say Japan or Germany put into theirs (and they get far more in return).

There's a dramatic night-and-day difference between broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of public service and broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of selling an advertiser's product. In the latter the content is irrelevant and the only goal is attention, however it can be acquired. In the former the goal is excellence of content. And you don't achieve that through fake wrestling or dancing with the freaking stars or yelling "slut" for three days.

Night and day. And I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

 

[American_Jihad]

Might be I exposed a simple fallacy just by going and getting no answer.

I do that a lot. So sue me.

And what about what's happening in the coffee thread?

See, - here's the thing. I'm in a good mood. I don't know what mood you're in. I hate to be rude, but I honestly don't care. But when people start giving me shit over a simple 'thank you for praying for me?' I realize whatever problem they are having isn't actually about me.

If I call them friend, I will ask them what's up. If I don't, I just walk away. So I asked. If you're gonna pretend this is all same old, same old, then /shrug. Have at it. But I'm not gonna stand here and pretend you're not showing your ass a bit today.

I don't know what that means. I left the coffee thread as it seems you're trying to argue with me over there for agreeing with you, which pins my surreal meter. And you don't seem to get that, which tells me you're walking around with some kind of chip on your shoulder.

That has nothing to do with this thread though, so I'm leaving here too and I suggest you do the same instead of following me around snapping at my heels.

(/offtopic)

You can feel the liberal love...​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps we are all forgetting what happened to Juan Williams at NPR?

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps we are all forgetting what happened to Juan Williams at NPR?

You mean after being told repeatedly not to go over and shine Bill Krystol's shoes, he got fired?

Good.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, boop and joeb epitomize the racist values of the left.

Again.

And again.

And again.

 

[edthecynic]

MessiahRushie is nothing more than an Howard Stern wannabe!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Perhaps we are all forgetting what happened to Juan Williams at NPR?

You mean after being told repeatedly not to go over and shine Bill Krystol's shoes, he got fired?

Good.

Wow... so you're not even a closeted bigot.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

MessiahRushie is nothing more than an Howard Stern wannabe!

Hardly....

 

[BDBoop]

MessiahRushie is nothing more than an Howard Stern wannabe!

He'd need to double his IQ to be on a par with Mr. Stern.

 

[koshergrl]

Omg.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So lame. Yet so funny.

 

[Foxfyre]

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

... I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience.

^^ She's right.

Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron. In any case it doesn't matter.

^^She's wrong. Arbitron measures everybody, even if public radio may not buy Arbitron books since they have nothing to do with their purpose in broadcasting (see next point). But she's right that it doesn't matter.

It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

Because it's not a private enterprise; it belongs to we the people. Nor is it subsidized by "mega millions every year"; it's mostly subsidized by our voluntary donations. Moreover, the amount the government does contribute pales in comparison to what those of say Japan or Germany put into theirs (and they get far more in return).

There's a dramatic night-and-day difference between broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of public service and broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of selling an advertiser's product. In the latter the content is irrelevant and the only goal is attention, however it can be acquired. In the former the goal is excellence of content. And you don't achieve that through fake wrestling or dancing with the freaking stars or yelling "slut" for three days.

Night and day. And I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

You seem to be right that Arbitron does track NPR, so I stand corrected. My previous opinion was based on the second paragraph but I missed the preceding statement here:

While Arbitron does track public radio listenership, they do not include public radio in their published rankings of radio stations.

NPR station generally does not subscribe to the Arbitron rating service and are not ncluded in published ratings and rankings like Radio & Records. This market data is provided by Radio Research Consortium, a non-profit corporation which subscribes to the Aribtron service and distributes the data to NPR and other non-commercial stations and on it's website.
http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=113996

NPR and PBS split roughly $500 million federal dollars each and every year which figures out to roughly $400,000 for each station. And President Obama has asked to increase that in 2014.

They belong to all of us? Then why is it that they so seldom express my point of view about much of anything? And do you think NPR listeners would be thrilled if it added Rush Limbaugh to its programming?

But setting that aside, the argument is made on this thread that NPR is comparable to Rush Limbaugh in popularity. If so, Rush stations make money hand over fist running his show and not one of them receives a penny in any kind of local, state, or federal subsidies. Wouldn't it follow that public radio that belongs to all of us could and should also pay its own way through voluntary contributions or via advertising instead of via tax dollars? It makes money hand over fist selling Big Bird paraphenalia alone.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I repeat:

NPR has TWO daily news/commentary shows that get approximately the same size audience as Limbaugh.

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

NPR is decidedly left of center, but not extremely so. But I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience. Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron.

In any case it doesn't matter. It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

And as for those who are now including personal attacks on me as well as Rush, I am honored. When they start the ad hominem and personal insults, you KNOW you're on the right track with the lefties, are reporting what they can't refute, and they have nothing else.

Because private enterprise is only interested in content that makes money. Throughout history governments of all types (monarchies, democracies, tyrants, etc ,etc) have always sponsored the arts and culture. They do this because it is a valuable aspect of our society. Do you believe that a public library would work if it was privatized? Do you believe that public parks would work if they were privatized? Some of the things we do as a society we do for the good of society rather than because it is profitable.

I was listening to NPR during my home bound commute and Terry Gross was interviewing Graham Nash about his new book. I heard the story behind the song Our House. To me this was enlightening. If I had been listening to Limbaugh I would not have been enlightened at all because he doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I don't need someone on the radio trying to stroke my ego. I want to be informed and find out what drove a pair of doctors to find a treatment of Progeria. NPR is never boring. I can't say the same for Limbaugh.

Finally the couple of dollars that NPR might cost me in taxes (if it is even that much) is money well spent in my opinion. I donate more because I appreciate what I am receiving.

 

[Mustang]

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

... I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience.

^^ She's right.

Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron. In any case it doesn't matter.

^^She's wrong. Arbitron measures everybody, even if public radio may not buy Arbitron books since they have nothing to do with their purpose in broadcasting (see next point). But she's right that it doesn't matter.

It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

Because it's not a private enterprise; it belongs to we the people. Nor is it subsidized by "mega millions every year"; it's mostly subsidized by our voluntary donations. Moreover, the amount the government does contribute pales in comparison to what those of say Japan or Germany put into theirs (and they get far more in return).

There's a dramatic night-and-day difference between broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of public service and broadcasting that is assembled for the purpose of selling an advertiser's product. In the latter the content is irrelevant and the only goal is attention, however it can be acquired. In the former the goal is excellence of content. And you don't achieve that through fake wrestling or dancing with the freaking stars or yelling "slut" for three days.

Night and day. And I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.

Below is an excerpt from Wiki about NPR funding:

In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[19][30] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[19] During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. Now more money to fund the NPR network is raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed] According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB.[31]
​

My understanding is that federal funding doesn't really subsidize NPR in the cities which have PLENTY of listeners who support the programming. The federal funding mostly subsidizes NPR in more rural areas.

Now, keep in mind that an estimated 80% of NPR listeners are white.

Below is another excerpt regarding underwriting spots versus commercials.

In contrast with commercial broadcasting, NPR does not carry traditional radio commercials, but has advertising in the form of brief statements from major donors. These statements are called underwriting spots and, unlike commercials, are governed by specific FCC restrictions in addition to truth in advertising laws; they cannot advocate a product or "promote the goods and services" of for-profit entities.[32]
​

Now how many people listen to commercial sponsored talk radio? I do, and I can tell you that I don't believe most of their ads are honest representations of their products. That makes me question the content of the shows even more. But I don't hear those kinds of spots on NPR.

Now, commercial-sponsored talk radio is not going away in rural areas because it's driven by profit. It offers a "sensational end product" (the shows which are sponsored by sensational commercials). NPR offers an dispassionate product (news and public information) which is NOT sensationalized. And in rural areas, there really is nowhere else to get that. So, I completely understand why conservatives would find it to be a threat to the propaganda that goes out over the commercial airwaves. The point is that large numbers of rural voters in red states would be able to tune in to get news and information which is meant to elucidate and educate as opposed to commercial radio which primarily offers opinion-based shows which are meant to sensationalize and propagandize current events. That's why they want to cut the funding to NPR.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So in other words you're admitting NPR is liberal talk radio.

NPR is decidedly left of center, but not extremely so. But I don't believe NPR's most popular programs run opposite Rush or Hannity which would be necessary to do an honest evaluation of whether they could draw the same audience. Also I don't believe Arbitron includes NPR in its rating service, so whatever numbers are being reported are likely not from Arbitron.

In any case it doesn't matter. It does raise the question though that if public radio is so popular, why is it necessary for we taxpayers to subsidize it via mega millions every year? Why can't it stand on its own as a private enterprise?

And as for those who are now including personal attacks on me as well as Rush, I am honored. When they start the ad hominem and personal insults, you KNOW you're on the right track with the lefties, are reporting what they can't refute, and they have nothing else.

Because private enterprise is only interested in content that makes money. Throughout history governments of all types (monarchies, democracies, tyrants, etc ,etc) have always sponsored the arts and culture. They do this because it is a valuable aspect of our society. Do you believe that a public library would work if it was privatized? Do you believe that public parks would work if they were privatized? Some of the things we do as a society we do for the good of society rather than because it is profitable.

I was listening to NPR during my home bound commute and Terry Gross was interviewing Graham Nash about his new book. I heard the story behind the song Our House. To me this was enlightening. If I had been listening to Limbaugh I would not have been enlightened at all because he doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I don't need someone on the radio trying to stroke my ego. I want to be informed and find out what drove a pair of doctors to find a treatment of Progeria. NPR is never boring. I can't say the same for Limbaugh.

Finally the couple of dollars that NPR might cost me in taxes (if it is even that much) is money well spent in my opinion. I donate more because I appreciate what I am receiving.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"They ... resent the very existence of a program that’s been wildly successful for 24 years and spawned a powerful conservative talk industry which reaches an overall weekly audience of more than 40 million and which more than 1 in 8 Americans describe as “very credible.”

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy."

"Rather than continuing to compete in the open marketplace, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts."

"The logic seems to suggest that since we’re suffering at the moment then at least we can make you suffer too; we may not be able to help the poor but we can certainly hurt the rich.
"This reflects the similarly resentful attitude toward powerful voices in radio. There, the left argues that since we can’t get our own messages out to millions of enthusiastic fans, then the least we can do is to stop Limbaugh and colleagues from imparting their dangerous messages to an immense and eager audience. At this point, the critics of the conservative talk medium seem far more concerned with shutting up right-wing voices than with raising left-wing voices as a constructive alternative."

Rush Limbaugh: Why the Left Is Envious - The Daily Beast

Rush playing the victim again? Too funny

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

MessiahRushie is nothing more than an Howard Stern wannabe!

He'd need to double his IQ to be on a par with Mr. Stern.

Yup

 

[Lumpy 1]

Liberals like having the "Taxpayer Funded" political advantages of NPR and PBS.

Liberals have no intention of being "Fair and Balanced"

Freeze the budget and let it die a natural death or rise like the "Phoenix".