[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Talk Radio Watch Title: Pigboy stands by his Haiti remarks, tells critical caller she’s a ‘bigot’ with ‘tampons in her ears.’ Yesterday, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh controversially said that President Obama was going to try to use the devastating Haitian earthquake to boost his credibility with the “light-skinned and dark-skinned black community” in the United States. He also argued against government aid for the nation. Today, a woman named “April” from Paducah, KY called into Limbaugh’s show and asked where he got the “cojones” to make such statements. Limbaugh insisted that he never meant to discourage private donations to Haiti, but stood by his remarks that Obama will try to exploit the disaster for political gain: >> RUSH: No, I’m not evading it at all. If I said it I meant to say it, and I do believe that everything is political to this president. Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion. [...] >> CALLER: [A]re you implying that the Huffington Post as the one and only resource that I [read]? I even watch Fox News once in a while. >> RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. I’m not implying that. … What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead. What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a closed-minded bigot who is ill-informed. … And if you had listened to this program for a modicum of time you would know it. But instead you’re a blockhead. You’re mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read. [Snip] Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32. #2. To: Fred Mertz, Sherlock (#0) What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a closed-minded bigot who is ill-informed. … Irony of the Day...
#3. To: war (#2) What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a closed-minded bigot who is ill-informed. … Limbaugh has always had the most heavily screened show on radio. These people only get through because he wants them to, and only after he's been told exactly what they're going to say.
#11. To: Bickus Dickus (#3) Limbaugh has always had the most heavily screened show on radio. These people only get through because he wants them to, and only after he's been told exactly what they're going to say. Uh ... Uh ... Uh ... OMG, what an amazing revelation ... Do you REALLY think this is what happens? Wow ... thanks for letting us all know this. Do you think letting everyone know this will hurt Rush's ratings, his ratings are climbing. Wow, Rushh's ratings went up almost 100 percent between January and March … Rush first announced he hoped Obama failed. Given those numbers, it's clear that the most decisive economic stimulus produced by the Obama administration so far has been at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
#16. To: Tater (#11) Rushh's ratings went up almost 100 percent between January and March … He went from 14MM to 28MM listeners? Pfft...
#18. To: war (#16) Rushh's ratings went up almost 100 percent between January and March … He went from 14MM to 28MM listeners? Do the research ...
#20. To: Tater (#18) Do the research ... Suits me. Where?
#22. To: Bickus Dickus (#20) Do the research ... Try Google ... do you know how to use it?
#25. To: Tater (#22) Why don't we just pretend Rush Limbaugh has 50 million listeners? March 09, 2009 7:21 pm ET Call it The Washington Post's 766-word non-correction correction. It ran Saturday in the form of a Paul Farhi article about the dubious nature of trying to measure the size of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience. Farhi stressed that trying to determine the total number of weekly listeners represented an exercise "in guesswork, slippery methodology and suspect data." The article detailed how there aren't any hard ratings numbers within the radio industry regarding Limbaugh's audience size -- a topic of increased interest since the AM talker had emerged as the public face of the Republican Party under the Obama administration. Farhi helped put the ratings question issue in proper context, but the unspoken point of the piece seemed to be to walk back the previous day's Post article by Howard Kurtz, which boldly announced in the very first sentence that Limbaugh's ratings had "nearly doubled" since the recent controversy with Obama began in January. It was a pro-Limbaugh proclamation that went off like a firecracker, especially online, as conservatives cheered the news and mocked Democrats for padding Limbaugh's audience. But was it true? Reading Farhi's detailed ratings piece on Saturday, it was hard to see how Kurtz's claim of Limbaugh's audience doubling could withstand serious scrutiny. (A point I made the day the Post published Kurtz's piece.) In fact, on Saturday we found out the thin sourcing that Kurtz used for his claim was little more than a hunch, and the person who made the hunch didn't think the guesstimate of Limbaugh's size growth was scientific or that it represented a true ratings estimate. (More on that below.) Plus, even Limbaugh himself didn't think his ratings had doubled in recent weeks. The same day Kurtz's article appeared, Byron York at The Washington Examiner asked the turbo talker about his ratings. This was Limbaugh's response, in full: The latest numbers I have are for January, well before this kerfuffle began, and they are through the roof -- six shares in NY, for example. There are d aily ratings taken now in about the top 15 markets but I have not seen them yet. All I can tell you is that as of January, we booked 80 percent of all our 2008 revenue and we'll be over 2008 by the end of this month. Limbaugh hadn't seen ratings more recent than January. Yet the Post on Friday claimed Limbaugh's ratings had nearly doubled since January. During his Monday broadcast, Limbaugh reiterated that he had no idea if his ratings had recently increased twofold. Have Limbaugh's numbers spiked in recent weeks? I'd be shocked if they hadn't given the extraordinary publicity he's received. But doubled? There's simply no proof, regardless of what the Post claimed on Friday. Kurtz's sloppy reporting highlighted the media's perpetual soft spot for Limbaugh's ratings. As Farhi noted, nobody has specific numbers about what the talker's audience is and "Limbaugh himself has muddied the water with the claim that he reaches 20 million people a week, although there's no independent support for that figure." Yet, for years, news consumers have been told 20 million people listen each week. It's a statistic that has become absolutely synonymous with Limbaugh. But where did that ginormous number come from? From Limbaugh, of course. The first reported reference I could find came from the July 31, 1993, issue of the radio bible, Billboard magazine, which reported "Li mbaugh's show is now heard on 610 stations and reaches approximately 20 million listeners, according to [Kit] Carson," Limbaugh's "chief of staff." According to Limbaugh's right-hand person, the talker had 20 million listeners. Was there any way to confirm that? Not really, but no matter: The media loved the nice round number, and soon it began to appear everywhere -- but often without the acknowledgement that the stat came from Limbaugh's camp. The following month, in August 1993, U.S. News & World Report announced: "Welcome, one and all, to Rush World, the one-man media theme park of the '90s. Over here, the Radio Show, reaching 20 million listeners a week on 616 stations." And the month after that, conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote that Limbaugh "is heard on more than 600 mostly AM radio stations with an audience estimated at 20 million listeners per week, is a phenomenon unseen in modern times." A check of Nexis today finds more than 800 news references to that mythical Limbaugh number throughout the years. Despite the fact nobody knows if it's accurate, the figure has been codified: Limbaugh attracts 20 million listeners each week. Wow. But what other type of media reporting do journalists gladly repeat ratings numbers based on nothing more than a feel-good estimate provided by broadcasters? (Why stop at 20? Why not claim Limbaugh has 50 million listeners each week?) And how amazing is this: Limbaugh in 1993 claimed he had 20 million listeners, and in 2009 the press is still mouthing the same statistic. Meaning that, until recently, Limbaugh's audience hadn't budged -- not up, not down -- in 16 years.. Obviously that doesn't pass any kind of smell test. Why is it so difficult to pinpoint the number? First, much of radio's ratings methodology remains stuck in the 1960s, and it takes months to generate nationwide audience figures -- unlike TV ratings, which can often be measured within 24 hours. And second, because Limbaugh appears on a patchwork of stations all over the country, it's tough to add up all the numbers for an accurate reading. As Farhi noted, Arbitron, the overseer of U.S. radio ratings, has never tried to measure Limbaugh's audience. And it has no plans to since, as its spokesman told the newspaper, "There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis." Obviously radio syndicators have ratings numbers off of which they sell advertising, but those figures are closely held -- unlike Arbitron data, which is more widely avail able. So, basically, it's up to the syndicator to dole out the ratings numbers to the press; like last year, when Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, claimed 20 million listeners tuned into Limbaugh's show each week. Also keep in mind that eight-digit number is what's known in radio as the "cume" (short for cumulative). It in no way reflects the actual audience size like the way television shows are measured minute by minute or half-hour by half-hour. Instead, the cume number represents a very large -- and generous -- umbrella covering the number of people who, in theory, tune into a program at any time during the week, even if it's for just two minutes.
#32. To: war (#25) And how amazing is this: Limbaugh in 1993 claimed he had 20 million listeners, and in 2009 the press is still mouthing the same statistic. You'll still come across people saying Limbaugh has 20 million daily listeners. If that were true, his weekly total would be nearly 100 million, or around half of the adult population of the US. Ratings are more accurate for large markets where the money is, and not much more than a seat of the pants guess everywhere else.
Replies to Comment # 32. There are no replies to Comment # 32.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|