Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.
This IlarMeilyr cat apparently takes trolling very seriously. I've never even interacted with this clown but here's a complete list of all the points he's made in this thread:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess it COULD (possibly, conceivably) be a different pogo.
The arrogance is quite familiar however.
Anyway, it sure does take itself seriously.
Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.
A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.
To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.
Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.
A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.
To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.
Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.
Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.
Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
You said:Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.
Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
Don't forget to post the video proof that she's a vampire.
(yes, the rw's really are that stupid.)
Its on You Tube, hysterically funny and well worth watching.
That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
Its never been that high. Its not 14 mil either. There have been articles about him padding his numbers. Doesn't really matter though. He has stated outright that he says what he's paid to say. Funny that one of the rw's posted that a D congress man makes only $175K as though bragging about lushbo being a paid shill is a good thing.
That's the diff between the right and left though.
Lushbo - jiggly fat, drug and alcohol addicted, drug smuggler, openly lying scum bag of the lowest order, just makes the left look that much better.
while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.
Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.
I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.
Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
Liberal!The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.
As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary,
he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good.
There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.
I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.
Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.
I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.
Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.
I disagree that he sensationalizes anything and he rants against sensationalization quite a bit. That is a sin he will call folks on almost every time.
As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary, he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good. There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.
I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days
, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.
Rush is not anybody's guru or leader. If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice, Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice. So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.
Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.
And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.
A writer writes, Foxy. A journalist reports news. A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel. I think that's Osomir's point. You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party". That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop. And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism? What is it, chopped liver?
...QED.
Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours". It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto. Liberalism founded this country.
Rush is not anybody's guru or leader. If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice, Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice. So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.
That makes no sense. You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.
And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience. Yelling "slut" sure does though.
Liberal!
December 20, 2007
RUSH: That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer. Don't take me seriously.
January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist. I think what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, "We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."
while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.
I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
