Posted on 10/08/2005 6:50:27 AM PDT by SIRTRIS
Funny how all you Buchannite 3rd party people claim to be the base. Funny how you are always whining about an Administration you people have fought tooth and nail since day one. Frankly you folks have more in common with Moveon.org then with the Conservative base. Please do not insult our intelligence by pretending anything different. That is as obnoxious as the pretend Conservatives Movon.org send out. The only difference between the two groups is what they want Big Govt to do for them. You want a complete Govt imposed political, economic and social isolationism. They want a Govt imposed complete political, economic and social Marxism. You all are just different sides of the same coin.
While Rush is certainly the stronger talent, Hannity has been busting butt getting out in the public as well as his tv exposure. The extra exposure may assist him in overtaking Rush. In addition, Rush's personal life has taken a toll with some listeners. Hannity so far hasn't had any skeletons break out. With values folks, that could also make a difference.
There are some darn good local liberal hosts.
I don't mind listening to Big Eddy, but I turned off Combs half the time. Pretty much all of the liberal talk shows have been dropped here.
..."Liberals such as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Al Franken are carving out their own radio niche."
Oh yeah, They can be heard everywhere....NOT! Bwahahahahaha. Liberal Barbara Sizzerhands.
Sure Joe. That is why after hundreds of millions in free Dinosaur Media hype and promotion no radio station VOLUNTARIALY carries Liberal Talk Radio. They have to PAY for their air time. They have to pay for air time because they are SO "good".
Rush's personal life! Do you mean like this?
He is canoodling with the enemy!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498781/posts
"They're pretty much talking about the same thing every day," said Holland Cooke, a Cleveland-based radio industry consultant who said the hosts tend to talk about the same subjects and interview the same guests over and over."Last week, Sean Hannity had Newt Gingrich coming on. I've already heard that show. Then he said he had Ann Coulter coming on. I've already heard that show. It's a rerun. You already know what he's going to say."
Holland Cooke. Hmmm. Such a unique name. Is this the same Holland Cooke, radio consultant, who wrote this?
|
2003 GIFT-OF-THE-YEAR TO CBS RADIO AFFILIATES AND THEIR LISTENERS: DAN RATHER ANCHORING 5PM ET HOURLY NEWSCASTS |
"Gravitas"? Bwhaahaahaahaaaaaahaaaaaaa!! Why yes, it IS the same moron! What a shock (not).
Hey, Steven Thomma, let's play "spot-the-KnightRidder/Democrat/MSM bias", you dumbass. You guys are the Schadenfraude "Gift-Of-The-Year" that just keeps on giving...
Oh? In my market (I know the GM) the hosts don't pay for the air time. IT's barter. Carry the shows and the network spots, and get the show for free. Believe, Bennett, Hewitt, Ingram, Snow and others are doing the same thing. There are few hosts where stations pay for the syndicated guy and carry the spot load. Plus in my market, there's a station of local social conservative hosts, all pay for play.
But hannity doesn't compete head on with Rush. Also, Rush's pinacle was in the mid to late 90's, still the Clinton era. Still plent of conservative folks on the air then too. It was the mecca of conseravtive talk radio.
HOMERUN:
Ten years ago, Limbaugh was about the only game in town. Now, there are dozens of conservative talkers to choose from. People like variety. Try adding up the listenership for all the conservative shows and compare it with the total listenership for the leftist shows and then tell us which side is slipping.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said it. I'm a subscriber to Rush's 24/7 and Dennis Prager's Premium Access. In Los Angeles, they're on simultaneously but regardless, I work at UCLA and don't have the liberty to listen to either at work. So, I listen to Dennis on my Rio MP3 player on the way into work in the mornings and I listen to Rush in the evenings at home after listening to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home from work. The best thing about the podcasts is that I don't have to listen to commercials or news breaks and I can listen and re-listen to them at my convenience and in the weekends. I'm living in conservative talk radio heaven right now!!!
No doubt about it.
"Last week, Sean Hannity had Newt Gingrich coming on. I've already heard that show. Then he said he had Ann Coulter coming on. I've already heard that show. It's a rerun. You already know what he's going to say."
Hell, I could have written that.
The numbers are all scewed. If I listen to TS, then Rush, then Hannity or Medved, then Levin, then Savage, I am only 1 listener not 5. I'm sure listenership has gone up but it's also more spread out. JMO.
What I'm saying is that the market HAS absorbed more conservative talkers, and that has indeed drawn listeners from Chevy Limbaugh and Ford Hannity. To stay with your analogy, there are plenty of listeners (such as myself) who want luxury rides such as Rolls Royce Medved. My point is that to know whether there are more overall listeners on one side or the other, you have to look at all the entire spectrum of shows, not just one or two. To say only that Limbaugh has lost ground says nothing at all.
Listenrship is measured in quarterhour time segments. So if you listen to Rush between 12:00 to 12:15 and then the local farm report between 12:15 and 12:30, then each show gets a listener or a statistical number of listeners based on your response. So if you listen to Rush then to Hannity and then to Levin you count as 1 for each host, not one split among the hosts.
This is so easy to answer.
They went to Hannity, O'Reilly, and other CONSERVATIVE talk show hosts. They didn't disappear, just changed their preferences.
Remember, for the longest time and when Rush was touting his 20 million numbers, Rush was IT. I don't suppose people remember the days of such luminaries as Larry King up against Rush. Rush was it for a national conservative talk show host - Hannity was only on in New York, and O'Reilly wasn't even known yet.
It is only natural that people like Laura Inghram and others draw away some of Rush's listeners. There are only so many hours in the day. Here where I live O'Reilly is opposite Rush, thus I'm sure drew away some of Rush's listeners (Hannity is on after Rush, so doesn't draw away listeners, here.)
AirCommunism, though, can't get a foothold anywhere it seems. 1 million for a nationwide network is pathetic - and they are, since they have the potential of XM Satelite/Sirus people listening in that Rush does not have.
I understand that, I was saying that 14 mil for Rush and 13 mil for SH does not add up to 27 mil.
I love how the article is completely refuted in the last three paragraphs:
"Yet if the communications of politics is changing, it hasn't changed that much yet.
Limbaugh still has about 14.75 million listeners, according to Talkers Magazine. Hannity has about 13 million.
Even the most successful liberal hosts, such as Schultz, Miller and Franken, don't come close yet. None made the top 30 talk radio shows as ranked by Talkers Magazine."
So, what's the friggin' point of this article? Nobody listens to liberal talk radio - it's horrible.
A better point would be the gains of Michael Savage; perhaps Limbaugh and Hannity are moving to much to the center and people are slowly gravitating to Savage. Who knows.
I listen more on the 'net now than I did before...some attrition might have occurred, but not all of us are gone. We're just not on the radio. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.