Rush is back!

[Pogo]

Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
Limbaugh makes that possible for them

It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie, in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth. That was the point there.

Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.

Then YOU took it off topic. How DARE you accuse someone else who as you've said at one point hadn't contributed much substance to the thread.

It's on the record, like it or not (here) This was an exchange between myself and another poster. Doesn't concern you.

Are you employing a Liberal debate tactic you learned at some Progressive summer camp or are you just that devoid of intellectual honesty?

Linked above.

Don't EVER come to my thread, go off on a tangent and accuse someone else of spamming. EVER!

What, you own the fucking board now? Or just want to control what other people say?

Revealing, Ernie.

 

[Pogo]

Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.

But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them. George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely. But even he saw the handwriting on the wall. People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat. Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.

Ì know you are. Besides, as far as "last word" you know as well as I that when someone is wrong on the internet it's our duty to act

So again, since the same hosts are doing the same thing on the same stations years later, and only their syndicator has changed, that pretty much eliminates the content as the source of the failure.

Again, not that I place personally much faith at all in the format (never cared for it myself); just a simple exercise in logic.

Still, those leftward hosts' numbers do pale in comparison to Limblob's. Not failing, but not setting the world on fire either. I'd still love to explore the varying psychologies of right and left audiences and why one approach works with one but not with the other. I'd posit that while the attack dog model works better for the right, the humor model works better for the left (e.g. Stewart, Colbert, Maher).

I'd like to go there, but this is Ernie's thread and if I take it off course he'll bite me.

I'll bring that to a new one sooner or later.

Has anyone here, other than you insultingly altered a media personality's name? Has any Conservative mentioned Rachel Madcow or Al Frankenstein?

Cool the ugliness in your rhetoric and you might be treated more kindly.

Could you highlight this "ugliness" here? I don't see it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Desperation, Foxy. Doesn't suit you. Every pun is "rooted in history". Doesn't make it any less ad hominem. Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.

snip
...that Air America folded because of its internal business mismanagement. Even your "side" has had to admit that, yet you guys go on as if it was connected to the ideology

Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.

So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.

And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct. And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).

Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?

And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they? Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts. In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.

 

[Pogo]

If his ad revenue were back, Cumulous wouldn't be talking about dumping his ass from the top 40 markets.

The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.

And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust. The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station. Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.

Of course he does; he invented the format.

And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up. And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.

And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.

All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity. Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.

This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology. Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio or televison hosts. But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor. The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor. It's all relative.

Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:

mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress

long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types

Algore
Former Vice President Al Gore.

Breck Girl
John Edwards.

Dingy Harry
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Dung Heap Harkin
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Environmentalist wacko

Feminazi

Frenchurian Candidate, the
2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

NAGs (National Association of Gals)
National Organization for Women (NOW)

Nikita Dean
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Senator Dick Turban
Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).

Senator Helmet Head
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

Bite Me
VP Joe Biden

Conspicuous in its absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here. The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem. Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.

It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument. But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads. No question about that.

Notice how the plodding ploddo offers no acknowledgement of what Err Amerika had to offer?



For a self-described expert, he sure doesn't know shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.

And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust. The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station. Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.

Of course he does; he invented the format.

And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up. And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.

And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.

All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity. Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.

This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology. Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.

Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something. So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.

If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.

Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance. Rush provides the substance. Air America did not.

 

[Pogo]

Desperation, Foxy. Doesn't suit you. Every pun is "rooted in history". Doesn't make it any less ad hominem. Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.

Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.

So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.

And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct. And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).

Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?

And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they? Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts. In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.

It looks like again you're conflating "success" with commercial success. Again, the latter is naught but a wad of money (or ratings); it's got nothing to do with aesthetic (or educational) value. If it did Bruce Springsteen could never sell a record.

As for MSNBC, I thought we were talking about radio here. You don't want Ernie on your case...

 

[Pogo]

And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust. The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station. Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.

Of course he does; he invented the format.

And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up. And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.

And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.

All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity. Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.

This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology. Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.

Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something. So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.

I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general. I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.

If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.

Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance. Rush provides the substance. Air America did not.

Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV. Dog the Bounty Hunter? Jerry Springer? People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs? Fake wrestling?....

 

[Pogo]

For a self-described expert, he sure doesn't know shit.

Link?

How's that "dislike Rush" link from yesterday coming along btw?

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course he does; he invented the format.



All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity. Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.

This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology. Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.

Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something. So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.

I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general. I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.

If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.

Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance. Rush provides the substance. Air America did not.

Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV. Dog the Bounty Hunter? Jerry Springer? People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs? Fake wrestling?....

You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation? And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.

 

[edthecynic]

Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:

mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress

long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types

Algore
Former Vice President Al Gore.

Breck Girl
John Edwards.

Dingy Harry
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Dung Heap Harkin
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Environmentalist wacko

Feminazi

Frenchurian Candidate, the
2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

NAGs (National Association of Gals)
National Organization for Women (NOW)

Nikita Dean
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Senator Dick Turban
Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).

Senator Helmet Head
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

Bite Me
VP Joe Biden

Conspicuous in their absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here. The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem. Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.

It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument. But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads. No question about that.

You call that 'attack radio?' Please tell me you jest. If you want to equate that with 'attack radio' I have REAMS of material to paint your guys with a much blacker brush.

And I would bet a good grilled cheese sandwich that you don't know the history behind and could not correctly define any of the "Rushisms" or why he humorously uses the characterizations he does. And I can assure you that there is a defnition and/or valid history behind each one.

Did I find them all humorous? No. I don't appreciate anybody, left or right, who makes fun of physical characteristics of anybody and Rush can be as guilty of poor taste as anybody else in that regard. And I've let him know it too. But attacks? No, that is not attack.

You sound just like your MessiahRushie defending calling Obama the derogatory "little squirrel." Here is his repeated use and denial and rationalization:

May 2, 2007
RUSH: I am not holding Obama up as an object of abuse.

October 1, 2008
RUSH: That's why blame's important, Obama, you little squirrel.* That's why these things cannot be fixed without attaching blame!

October 9, 2008
RUSH: I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.

October 13, 2008
RUSH: I'm not the one promising to raise your taxes; the little squirrel Obama is.

October 15, 2008
RUSH: What sharply personal attacks? All they are is people telling the truth about the little squirrel. What personal attacks? "Well, see, Rush, there you go, that's a personal attack right there." No, no, no, no. Not a personal attack

October 20, 2008
RUSH: Biden says the world is going to test Obama.* What's it going to be, China taking Taiwan?* China taking North Korea?* Russia taking over a bordering country or two?* Israel being wiped off the map?* All the above?* What is it?* Biden's guaranteeing something like this.* He says it's a fair price for electing an inexperienced squirrel who wants ACORN to run our elections and can't wait to surrender in Iraq.* And remember, folks, a squirrel is just a rat with better PR.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oh nozies.

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!

 

[Ernie S.]

Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.

But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them. George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely. But even he saw the handwriting on the wall. People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat. Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.

That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.

In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.

I don't know all the numbers but I've heard this comparison here and there too-- "Ed Schultz beats Rush Limbaugh in city X" ... but the larger anecdote is a ponderable point: as the purveyor of a new idea, AirAmerica would have had an uphill battle convincing stations to put them online with an untested format. The radio bidness, like bidness in general, is conservative and doesn't fall in easily with new ideas.

Of course once AA had its run and the attendant publicity, including that of its super-secret bankruptcy (no such thing as bad publicity), the idea was more proven and syndicators like Dial Global and Premiere took on the same hosts as clients. Obviously they wouldn't have done that if the format itself, rather than the specific business, had failed.

There is a limited market for some of the former Air America hosts, but how many stations does Randy Rhode's show air on? 32 plus XM.
Rush?About 1,000 if we include AFRN (unmonitored by Arbitron)
Arbitron estimates 3.6 million are listening to Limbaugh in any 15 minute period.
Rhodes' audience is probably closer to 100,000.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh nozies.

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!

Well Ed has had the hots for Rush for years now and loves to go to the most vile hate sites to pluck stuff off of to copy and paste. He has yet to provide a single link to a source or put a single comment into its full context. We can all go to hate sites where we can find almost anybody sayng anything about anybody and we can copy and paste them til the cows come home.

The Left especially likes to do that with somebody like Rush. You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.

Of course it wrecks threads and there is rarely a grain of truth to any of the mostly manufactured stuff they post, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.

 

[Pogo]

Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something. So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.

I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general. I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.

If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.

Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance. Rush provides the substance. Air America did not.

Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV. Dog the Bounty Hunter? Jerry Springer? People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs? Fake wrestling?....

You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation? And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.

I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works. Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis. It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased. IOW it's opinion, not fact. Damn right that's subjective. And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.

How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.

Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?

Really?

Really?

Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.

He's costing them money, so he has to go.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie, in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth. That was the point there.

Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.

Then YOU took it off topic. How DARE you accuse someone else who as you've said at one point hadn't contributed much substance to the thread.

It's on the record, like it or not (here) This was an exchange between myself and another poster. Doesn't concern you.

Are you employing a Liberal debate tactic you learned at some Progressive summer camp or are you just that devoid of intellectual honesty?

Linked above.

Don't EVER come to my thread, go off on a tangent and accuse someone else of spamming. EVER!

What, you own the fucking board now? Or just want to control what other people say?

Revealing, Ernie.

Not at all! I never want to be associated with the words that tumble out of empty heads.
My problem is with someone who has the balls to take a conversation off topic and then accuse someone else of going off topic.
I rather enjoyed the diversion, but I recognize that it was, in fact a diversion.

 

[Pogo]

That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.

In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.

I don't know all the numbers but I've heard this comparison here and there too-- "Ed Schultz beats Rush Limbaugh in city X" ... but the larger anecdote is a ponderable point: as the purveyor of a new idea, AirAmerica would have had an uphill battle convincing stations to put them online with an untested format. The radio bidness, like bidness in general, is conservative and doesn't fall in easily with new ideas.

Of course once AA had its run and the attendant publicity, including that of its super-secret bankruptcy (no such thing as bad publicity), the idea was more proven and syndicators like Dial Global and Premiere took on the same hosts as clients. Obviously they wouldn't have done that if the format itself, rather than the specific business, had failed.

There is a limited market for some of the former Air America hosts, but how many stations does Randy Rhode's show air on? 32 plus XM.
Rush?About 1,000 if we include AFRN (unmonitored by Arbitron)
Arbitron estimates 3.6 million are listening to Limbaugh in any 15 minute period.
Rhodes' audience is probably closer to 100,000.

Exactly 587 last time I counted, not including AFRN (A-farts has four hundred radio stations?)

Where are we going with this point?

 

[Ernie S.]

Desperation, Foxy. Doesn't suit you. Every pun is "rooted in history". Doesn't make it any less ad hominem. Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.




And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct. And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).

Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?

And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they? Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts. In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.

It looks like again you're conflating "success" with commercial success. Again, the latter is naught but a wad of money (or ratings); it's got nothing to do with aesthetic (or educational) value. If it did Bruce Springsteen could never sell a record.

As for MSNBC, I thought we were talking about radio here. You don't want Ernie on your case...

Are you going to accuse Foxfire of going off topic here, Possum?

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh nozies.

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!

He did unwittingly post the reason behind Limbaugh calling obama "squirrel".

an inexperienced squirrel who wants ACORN to run our elections