Full Version: What is the main form of news/information radio or TV?
The wahington Post and similar are way to centrist to me, in fact from their listing of the board of directors I have posted are run by corportists. The only decent partisan liberal media in the entire USA is AAR. If you would listen to it for the amount of time I have listened to Rush you would understand what I am saying.
Speaking of AAR here is another media distortion that is typical of the right wing hit jobs on AAR. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/09/27...9_479_27_06.txt
I think he hits a good point that I bolded. As I have contended that is why terrorists that are right wing get their calling. they believe they are not represented and lash out and attack america like McVeigh and others like him.
I disagree with him that right wing took off during Clintons time, I believe it was in the middle 80s. It just got violent during Clintons time with right wing talk show hosts telling their listeners to shoot at the faces of ATF federal agents.
What is the purpose of this mainly trash talk article? As we know the station in NY went back to the black programming it had, its listeners asked the management to go back to black programming and its management listened, even though AAR was doing well in NY. I have no problem with that. Just because the signal strength is lower does that really mean you lose significant listenership? as the absolute prejudicial writer did infer. This is a writer who is in the media and knows that a low signal can cover 95% of the market yet he seems to be an ultra righty tooo stupid to be objective. and as far as the boys club the writer seems to omit the person who gave the loan was a righty and is on the run/lamb. righty Cohen should be brought up on charges by now. Something seems strange here that the DA has not gone after this righty. But it seems rightys nowadays have lots of get out of jail free cards, billions missing and that is just OK. Also from what I have read AAR posted something like a bond to cover the amount once the courts rule on what needs to be done, seems this reporter does not have the intelligence to to do any research. But that is typical of righty reporters as reported by former righty reporter who was big time in the righty leagues being paid big bucks by righty Rev Moons Washington times (remember where he got his money he had his cult followers, "moonies" pan handling in airports for your money.) And junk paper and being paid by another righty who owns a major pittsburgh paper who inherited all his money Richard Mellon Scaife big funder of National Review, Spectator and funded basically all of Paula Jones lawsuit including her nose job. Again former righty wrote the book "blinded by the right" where he spills the beans on the righty trash machines. Yep when he was being paid as a paid hit man without having to verify his facts his crap was being quoted by the righty wing radio trash talkers. read the book.
So I think I have proven that radio is and has been overwhelming right wing, some have said it isn't but even this article infers it to a tee. The ratings show radio talk is getting significant viewership. In fact I think Rush's numbers beats any form of media in the entire USA. Show me one liberal that gets complete partisan control of their partisan show for 3 hours a day close to his numbers. Again partisan. I know some will debate that Rush is not partisan, he is.
Speaking of AAR here is another media distortion that is typical of the right wing hit jobs on AAR. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/09/27...9_479_27_06.txt
QUOTE
Absolutely not, said Michael Harrison, editor and publisher of Talkers Magazine, an industry journal.
"The number of liberal hosts is growing now that liberals are concerned that they donít have their representation on talk radio," he said. "What works best on talk radio are people who feel they're not being served."
In the past, he said, "liberals had nothing to rally behind because they were happy." Indeed, it was during the Clinton administration that right-wing talk radio took off, becoming a major force in American politics.
"The number of liberal hosts is growing now that liberals are concerned that they donít have their representation on talk radio," he said. "What works best on talk radio are people who feel they're not being served."
In the past, he said, "liberals had nothing to rally behind because they were happy." Indeed, it was during the Clinton administration that right-wing talk radio took off, becoming a major force in American politics.
I think he hits a good point that I bolded. As I have contended that is why terrorists that are right wing get their calling. they believe they are not represented and lash out and attack america like McVeigh and others like him.
I disagree with him that right wing took off during Clintons time, I believe it was in the middle 80s. It just got violent during Clintons time with right wing talk show hosts telling their listeners to shoot at the faces of ATF federal agents.
What is the purpose of this mainly trash talk article? As we know the station in NY went back to the black programming it had, its listeners asked the management to go back to black programming and its management listened, even though AAR was doing well in NY. I have no problem with that. Just because the signal strength is lower does that really mean you lose significant listenership? as the absolute prejudicial writer did infer. This is a writer who is in the media and knows that a low signal can cover 95% of the market yet he seems to be an ultra righty tooo stupid to be objective. and as far as the boys club the writer seems to omit the person who gave the loan was a righty and is on the run/lamb. righty Cohen should be brought up on charges by now. Something seems strange here that the DA has not gone after this righty. But it seems rightys nowadays have lots of get out of jail free cards, billions missing and that is just OK. Also from what I have read AAR posted something like a bond to cover the amount once the courts rule on what needs to be done, seems this reporter does not have the intelligence to to do any research. But that is typical of righty reporters as reported by former righty reporter who was big time in the righty leagues being paid big bucks by righty Rev Moons Washington times (remember where he got his money he had his cult followers, "moonies" pan handling in airports for your money.) And junk paper and being paid by another righty who owns a major pittsburgh paper who inherited all his money Richard Mellon Scaife big funder of National Review, Spectator and funded basically all of Paula Jones lawsuit including her nose job. Again former righty wrote the book "blinded by the right" where he spills the beans on the righty trash machines. Yep when he was being paid as a paid hit man without having to verify his facts his crap was being quoted by the righty wing radio trash talkers. read the book.
So I think I have proven that radio is and has been overwhelming right wing, some have said it isn't but even this article infers it to a tee. The ratings show radio talk is getting significant viewership. In fact I think Rush's numbers beats any form of media in the entire USA. Show me one liberal that gets complete partisan control of their partisan show for 3 hours a day close to his numbers. Again partisan. I know some will debate that Rush is not partisan, he is.
It's like a drug. I just can't tear myself away from these media debates.
I think he hits a good point that I bolded. As I have contended that is why terrorists that are right wing get their calling. they believe they are not represented and lash out and attack america like McVeigh and others like him.So, you are saying that right wing terrorists 'get their calling' from talk radio (again providing no evidence). The internet is full of aryan nation, KKK, nazi and other anti-social material. Yet, you focus on 'right wing radio.' That makes sense.
I disagree with him that right wing took off during Clintons time, I believe it was in the middle 80s. It just got violent during Clintons time with right wing talk show hosts telling their listeners to shoot at the faces of ATF federal agents.Yes, we all remember this. Just the other day, I was cleaning my gun, listening to Hugh Hewitt, and I remember thinking "must ... shoot ... faces .... of ATF agents..." It was like a subconscious thing. If I hadn't accidentally seen Al Franken on TV and snapped out of it, I might have done something horrible.
What is the purpose of this mainly trash talk article? As we know the station in NY went back to the black programming it had, its listeners asked the management to go back to black programming and its management listened, even though AAR was doing well in NY.Other than AAR press releases, would you care to post evidence that AAR was doing well in NY? They had a 0.8 rating in the last book on WLIB, down from a 1.4. source - go to last page of PDF Al Franken was their highest-rated talk host, and his show was #12 for talkers in NYC. You continue to assert various untrue facts, and have not addressed them in your posts.
Just for reminder, here are some questions you neglected to address. Most relate to your assertions about extremists in the 80's finding their 'calling' on "right-wing" radio.
Perhaps you are going to name the groups, and name the shows they are "well-represented" on for us, yes? That would make for a better, fact-based debate.
And you are perhaps going to cite exit poll data that show his 50% was from 'conservatives'?
David Duke On Denver Talkradio April 19th, 2005
KHOW - 630am, Peter Boyles Show
QUOTE
David Duke On Denver Talkradio April 19th, 2005
KHOW - 630am, Peter Boyles Show
Well, I am surprised to see that none of your mp3 links work. Did you listen to the show? Were conservatives in Colorado supportive in their call-ins to David Duke?
Again, I'll ignore the rest of your post. Even if you have 'proven' that radio is largely conservative (duh!), that means that it is filling a need not found elsewhere in the news. Many more millions of people watch the big three networks, listen to non-talk or non-political radio. You have not proven your point, you just seem frustrated that non-radio professionals at AAR can't attract listeners, and obsessed with people like Timothy McVeigh, who is still dead. The only terrorist threat these days ain't coming from right-wing radio, buddy.
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 1 2006, 01:46 PM) 
I think he hits a good point that I bolded. As I have contended that is why terrorists that are right wing get their calling. they believe they are not represented and lash out and attack america like McVeigh and others like him.
QUOTE
I disagree with him that right wing took off during Clintons time, I believe it was in the middle 80s. It just got violent during Clintons time with right wing talk show hosts telling their listeners to shoot at the faces of ATF federal agents.
QUOTE
What is the purpose of this mainly trash talk article? As we know the station in NY went back to the black programming it had, its listeners asked the management to go back to black programming and its management listened, even though AAR was doing well in NY.
Just for reminder, here are some questions you neglected to address. Most relate to your assertions about extremists in the 80's finding their 'calling' on "right-wing" radio.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
QUOTE(inventor)
The hate groups are well represented with the hate righty talk shows all over.
Perhaps you are going to name the groups, and name the shows they are "well-represented" on for us, yes? That would make for a better, fact-based debate.
QUOTE(inventor)
As you notice McVeigh liked them. and so did the two people that wanted to threaten me. And yes racial hate groups are to the right. David Duke(didn't he have a radio show), a grand dragon and present day hater was able to get close to 50% of the conservative vote in a state.
And you are perhaps going to cite exit poll data that show his 50% was from 'conservatives'?
QUOTE(inventor)
David Duke On Denver Talkradio April 19th, 2005
KHOW - 630am, Peter Boyles Show
QUOTE
David Duke On Denver Talkradio April 19th, 2005
KHOW - 630am, Peter Boyles Show
Well, I am surprised to see that none of your mp3 links work. Did you listen to the show? Were conservatives in Colorado supportive in their call-ins to David Duke?
Again, I'll ignore the rest of your post. Even if you have 'proven' that radio is largely conservative (duh!), that means that it is filling a need not found elsewhere in the news. Many more millions of people watch the big three networks, listen to non-talk or non-political radio. You have not proven your point, you just seem frustrated that non-radio professionals at AAR can't attract listeners, and obsessed with people like Timothy McVeigh, who is still dead. The only terrorist threat these days ain't coming from right-wing radio, buddy.
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 1 2006, 01:46 PM)
So I think I have proven that radio is and has been overwhelming right wing, some have said it isn't but even this article infers it to a tee. The ratings show radio talk is getting significant viewership. In fact I think Rush's numbers beats any form of media in the entire USA. Show me one liberal that gets complete partisan control of their partisan show for 3 hours a day close to his numbers. Again partisan. I know some will debate that Rush is not partisan, he is.
Pass the pipe CW......
Wow Inventor....you've surpassed your own record for the number of times you included 'righty' in your post, congratulations.
Will you finally tell us who exactly has argued that talk radio doesn't have a majority of conservative hosts? You've alluded to this several times, and consistently fail to name said persons when asked.
And while you like to challenge others 'unsupportable statements', can you prove that Rush has numbers that beat any other form of American media? According to the Pew Research Center, that I have linked to before, talk radio holds roughly 17% of the media market. I assume your going to post Rush's ratings books to back your claim, right?
Since I would equate three hours of radio with one hour of TV in terms of viewership and effect, I might venture that Keith Olbermann might give Rush a run in comparative ratings. But I'll let you do the homework, since you made the claim.
CW, Cause and effect and deductions. seems another righty sent a white powder to a "liberal" recently. Seems to be a righty MO. Who sent it to the two highest ranking dems, the real thing? a liberal right?
Seems you missed 60 minutes tonight. The debate was some moron that made a stupid DVD called something like Bum Fights. Then they showed how kids and adults all over are beating and killing bums in the US and Canada now. 300,000 of the bum fights videos were sold. One of the kids convicted of killing and beating up bums has said it was watched by him about 300 times. IE he loved it and went to duplicate it when he was beating bums/homeless. They interviewed the film producer and asked if he felt responsible, he said NO and he like you are in denial of the obvious. Some just can not figure out cause and effect and you seem to fit that category. Just because you can not figure it out does not mean it is not true. And mark my words very clearly, telling people to shoot ATF agents on the radio without the rightys coming out and all telling the entire right wing fanatics out there he is wrong causes these morons like McVeigh to do as they do, just as a stupid movies about beating up bums sold at major or any retail stores.. Again just because you can not figure it out does not make it not what others of us can figure out.
As far as AAR doing well in NYC, again I like how you never list year for year quarters and comparisons of how say others ike O'Liely are doing in the same period. See in the real world of engineering we do not allow people to play these games we have what we call intelligence and when someone ever does this they are never respected by the industry, they are considered intellectually dishonest or in some cases just stupid and we move them to be techs. But with simple logic, they were picked up by another station. That says it all. and we know they are not rich like ruppy with his trash journalism of a Enquirer which makes bank, so they DID not buy the station with deep pockets funded by the kids who have inherited their money to buy media did they. And they did not get billion dollar tax giveaways from the government did they.
As far as listing the righty hate radio, even this person in the article of another media who was obviously a righty even states it as a matter of fact. I thought you agreed with that point earlier and again later, so you are just venting which is fine.
as far as filling a need you are saying rightys need to spew all that hate? They do not get enough of it on FOX TV a real partisan enterprise. Or the top two newspapers that are also the righty, WSJ and USA-today? where does the The Christian Science Monitor fall in?
again there is no real liberal media except for AAR. The rest of the media is corporatist and owned by partisans to the right, the liberals that are few that may own are not the far partisans, those on the right equate professional journalists with being partisan liberal. which is way wrong. And Carville or Begalla are the only two partisan liberals I ever see on the TV, and they do not have a show do they, and when they did they were ALWAYS offset with two equally partisans on the right. That is how I think it should be. Whereas that hanity colmbs charade is pathetic, colmes is not an equal, he has to play dead..
So I think I have proven that radio is and has been overwhelming right wing, some have said it isn't but even this article infers it to a tee. The ratings show radio talk is getting significant viewership. In fact I think Rush's numbers beats any form of media in the entire USA. Show me one liberal that gets complete partisan control of their partisan show for 3 hours a day close to his numbers. Again partisan. I know some will debate that Rush is not partisan, he is.
Pass the pipe CW......
Wow Inventor....you've surpassed your own record for the number of times you included 'righty' in your post, congratulations.
Will you finally tell us who exactly has argued that talk radio doesn't have a majority of conservative hosts? You've alluded to this several times, and consistently fail to name said persons when asked.
And while you like to challenge others 'unsupportable statements', can you prove that Rush has numbers that beat any other form of American media? According to the Pew Research Center, that I have linked to before, talk radio holds roughly 17% of the media market. I assume your going to post Rush's ratings books to back your claim, right?
Since I would equate three hours of radio with one hour of TV in terms of viewership and effect, I might venture that Keith Olbermann might give Rush a run in comparative ratings. But I'll let you do the homework, since you made the claim.
since you are off topic on my righty posting, I will bring it back into topic of media radio. since I parody the rightys like Rush who I actually call "Pig Boy" since I do not have 15 million listeners my calling of rightys vs his Libruuuls or feminizes does not quite have the effect. Maybe if I would be handing off thousands of dollars to my housekeeper for illegal drugs more would listen to me?
hot off the press
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/a...002fox1002.html
I love this quote for the challengers on this board who appear to be clueless.........
look even more trashing of AAR, gee the rightys just can not stop.... when I goggled it in the recent news there were a bunch trashing AAR from newspapers. Gosh did not know AAR was so important.
Failure & fairness
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA - Sep 24, 2006
Low ratings, rumors of bankruptcy and that nasty business of borrowing money from ... Over the years Rush Limbaugh accrued an audience of about 15 million listeners ...
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200609120003
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111793635...amp;s=h&p=0
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0906
here backing up my statement that the rightys just can not live without trashing AAR, some examples above. some actually doubted/had no faith in me here. Some just do not seem to be well informed.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/25/201900.php
Balderdash. Rush Limbaugh, the all-important King of Talk Radio, the darling of the conservative publicity machine, would be ahead of everybody else on the radio if he'd made an impact of greater than five total votes. [b]Air America Radio, the floundering liberal-talk outpost that conservatives love to trash (see above), had even less of an impact, of course. And guess what? Neither side's radio talking heads even have the potential to deliver any more votes for their candidate of choice.[/b]
thought you would never ask...Here is a list of mainly overt partisans I have gathered in all media but most in radio, some like ted Koppel I consider a professional same with Diane Sawyer who was a speechwriter for a republican president, so those two can be pulled from the overtly partisan; again this is not complete these are all just people I have listened to, this is an old list.
• Rush
• Mike wiener savage
• G Goron Liddy
• Ollie North
• O’Reilly
• Hanity
• McLauflin ford and Nixon speechwriter
• Paul Harvey
• Dr. Laura
• JC watts
• Mike Reagan
• Jack Kafferty
• Paula Zahn
• Lou Dobbs
• Larry King
• Rev Billy Gram
• Rev Pat Robertson
• Rev Jim and Tammy Faye Baker convicted
• Bob Jones with university
• Numerous religious stations, too many several in every market.
• Bill Kristol
• David Letterman
• Dennis Miller
• Bill Bennett
• Glen Beck
• Laura Ingram
• Michael Medved
• Matt Drudge
• Bob Brinker
• John Batchelor
• Mark Levine
• Tim Rusert NBC
• Brian Williams NBC
• Lou Rukeyser CNBC
• Don Imas
• John Mathews 20 years of hate now convicted child molester but did not have to do time)
• Armstrong Williams
• Neil Boortz
• Mike Galiger
• Hugh Hughit
• Bret Humme
• Howard Stern, supported on air republicans Pataki, Christi Todd Whitman, Julliani elected as well as full press for the war. He is just against censorship.
• Howie Carr
• Lyndon LaRouche
• NRA charlston heston
• Joe Scarburo
• Bob Dornon
• Alan Keys
• Bob Novak
• Tucker Carlson
• Ann Coulter
• Marilin Madilan
• Greg Jarrett
• George Will
• Buchanan both pat and Bay
• Bill Schneider
• Steve Forbes
• William Buckley
Seems you missed 60 minutes tonight. The debate was some moron that made a stupid DVD called something like Bum Fights. Then they showed how kids and adults all over are beating and killing bums in the US and Canada now. 300,000 of the bum fights videos were sold. One of the kids convicted of killing and beating up bums has said it was watched by him about 300 times. IE he loved it and went to duplicate it when he was beating bums/homeless. They interviewed the film producer and asked if he felt responsible, he said NO and he like you are in denial of the obvious. Some just can not figure out cause and effect and you seem to fit that category. Just because you can not figure it out does not mean it is not true. And mark my words very clearly, telling people to shoot ATF agents on the radio without the rightys coming out and all telling the entire right wing fanatics out there he is wrong causes these morons like McVeigh to do as they do, just as a stupid movies about beating up bums sold at major or any retail stores.. Again just because you can not figure it out does not make it not what others of us can figure out.
As far as AAR doing well in NYC, again I like how you never list year for year quarters and comparisons of how say others ike O'Liely are doing in the same period. See in the real world of engineering we do not allow people to play these games we have what we call intelligence and when someone ever does this they are never respected by the industry, they are considered intellectually dishonest or in some cases just stupid and we move them to be techs. But with simple logic, they were picked up by another station. That says it all. and we know they are not rich like ruppy with his trash journalism of a Enquirer which makes bank, so they DID not buy the station with deep pockets funded by the kids who have inherited their money to buy media did they. And they did not get billion dollar tax giveaways from the government did they.
As far as listing the righty hate radio, even this person in the article of another media who was obviously a righty even states it as a matter of fact. I thought you agreed with that point earlier and again later, so you are just venting which is fine.
as far as filling a need you are saying rightys need to spew all that hate? They do not get enough of it on FOX TV a real partisan enterprise. Or the top two newspapers that are also the righty, WSJ and USA-today? where does the The Christian Science Monitor fall in?
again there is no real liberal media except for AAR. The rest of the media is corporatist and owned by partisans to the right, the liberals that are few that may own are not the far partisans, those on the right equate professional journalists with being partisan liberal. which is way wrong. And Carville or Begalla are the only two partisan liberals I ever see on the TV, and they do not have a show do they, and when they did they were ALWAYS offset with two equally partisans on the right. That is how I think it should be. Whereas that hanity colmbs charade is pathetic, colmes is not an equal, he has to play dead..
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Oct 1 2006, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 1 2006, 01:46 PM)
So I think I have proven that radio is and has been overwhelming right wing, some have said it isn't but even this article infers it to a tee. The ratings show radio talk is getting significant viewership. In fact I think Rush's numbers beats any form of media in the entire USA. Show me one liberal that gets complete partisan control of their partisan show for 3 hours a day close to his numbers. Again partisan. I know some will debate that Rush is not partisan, he is.
Pass the pipe CW......
Wow Inventor....you've surpassed your own record for the number of times you included 'righty' in your post, congratulations.
Will you finally tell us who exactly has argued that talk radio doesn't have a majority of conservative hosts? You've alluded to this several times, and consistently fail to name said persons when asked.
And while you like to challenge others 'unsupportable statements', can you prove that Rush has numbers that beat any other form of American media? According to the Pew Research Center, that I have linked to before, talk radio holds roughly 17% of the media market. I assume your going to post Rush's ratings books to back your claim, right?
Since I would equate three hours of radio with one hour of TV in terms of viewership and effect, I might venture that Keith Olbermann might give Rush a run in comparative ratings. But I'll let you do the homework, since you made the claim.
since you are off topic on my righty posting, I will bring it back into topic of media radio. since I parody the rightys like Rush who I actually call "Pig Boy" since I do not have 15 million listeners my calling of rightys vs his Libruuuls or feminizes does not quite have the effect. Maybe if I would be handing off thousands of dollars to my housekeeper for illegal drugs more would listen to me?
hot off the press
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/a...002fox1002.html
I love this quote for the challengers on this board who appear to be clueless.........
QUOTE
Before Fox, many in the media scoffed at the notion of a liberal bias and figured only a handful of people really believed that, said Erik Sorenson, former MSNBC president.
QUOTE
Viewership over the first eight months of the year was down 5 percent compared with 2005, with a steeper 13 percent decline in prime time, according to Nielsen Media Research. For 12 straight months, Fox's prime-time audience has been smaller than the year before. Meanwhile, CNN viewership inched up 5 percent this year through August. On a typical day this year, Fox's audience has been 845,000 while CNN's has been 466,000.
Despite the slump, Ailes is quick to point out that Fox News still consistently beats all competitors throughout the day and evening.
those poor rightys who just do not have any media in their favor, ya righty...Despite the slump, Ailes is quick to point out that Fox News still consistently beats all competitors throughout the day and evening.
look even more trashing of AAR, gee the rightys just can not stop.... when I goggled it in the recent news there were a bunch trashing AAR from newspapers. Gosh did not know AAR was so important.
Failure & fairness
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA - Sep 24, 2006
Low ratings, rumors of bankruptcy and that nasty business of borrowing money from ... Over the years Rush Limbaugh accrued an audience of about 15 million listeners ...
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200609120003
QUOTE
So who appeared on the third night of "Free Speech"? Rush Limbaugh, the most listened-to pundit in America.
QUOTE
Couric's not the only newly minted network anchor to genuflect before Limbaugh, perhaps in search of a conservative seal of approval. Just weeks after he took over the NBC Nightly News anchor chair in late 2004, Brian Williams told a C-SPAN interviewer that he felt it was his duty to listen to Limbaugh every day and hoped that Limbaugh would get his "due" as a broadcaster. Williams made no mention of Limbaugh's outlandish brand of hate speech. But that look-the-other-way approach is something of a tradition at NBC, which in 2002 famously invited Limbaugh to be an on-air commentator for NBC's election night coverage.
why rush is on that liberal NBC election night?http://www.variety.com/article/VR111793635...amp;s=h&p=0
QUOTE
The slippage at ABC has created a close race for second with a resurgent CBS and allowed NBC to build a lead of more than 1.5 million viewers, compared to a lead of just 325,000 in the fall, when Charlie Gibson anchored the newscast three days a week.
NBC rang in 10.03 million viewers for the week ended Sunday compared to ABC's 8.89 million and CBS' 8.01 million, according to Nielsen.
Ratings shifts this TV season indicate hundreds of thousands of viewers are shopping among newscasts after the departure of Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather in the past 14 months.
NBC rang in 10.03 million viewers for the week ended Sunday compared to ABC's 8.89 million and CBS' 8.01 million, according to Nielsen.
Ratings shifts this TV season indicate hundreds of thousands of viewers are shopping among newscasts after the departure of Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather in the past 14 months.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0906
QUOTE
Q: How many outlets do you have for the show now?
Miller: We’re adding every week. I’m not even sure. I think we’re up to fifty-sixty stations. There are only about seventy-five or eighty commercial progressive stations in the whole country, as opposed to the 600 Rush Limbaugh is on. We’re still a really new format. And for as much as Bill O’Reilly can go and scream, “Oh, liberal talk isn’t working,” someone should ask him why Clear Channel and other huge companies are flipping a different station every week to progressive talk. Because they’re making money. They’re taking stations that are at almost zero ratings and getting ratings.
And listen, everybody says, “Oh, the evil Clear Channel.” Let me tell you something: They will put anything on the air if it makes money. If someone pitched hippos farting for three hours, they would put it on the air if it makes money. That’s what it’s about. I keep trying to make that point: This is not a political movement, progressive talk. The minute we think it’s a political movement—about getting Democrats elected or whatever—we’re dead. It’s entertainment. We’ve got to get ratings.
Miller: We’re adding every week. I’m not even sure. I think we’re up to fifty-sixty stations. There are only about seventy-five or eighty commercial progressive stations in the whole country, as opposed to the 600 Rush Limbaugh is on. We’re still a really new format. And for as much as Bill O’Reilly can go and scream, “Oh, liberal talk isn’t working,” someone should ask him why Clear Channel and other huge companies are flipping a different station every week to progressive talk. Because they’re making money. They’re taking stations that are at almost zero ratings and getting ratings.
And listen, everybody says, “Oh, the evil Clear Channel.” Let me tell you something: They will put anything on the air if it makes money. If someone pitched hippos farting for three hours, they would put it on the air if it makes money. That’s what it’s about. I keep trying to make that point: This is not a political movement, progressive talk. The minute we think it’s a political movement—about getting Democrats elected or whatever—we’re dead. It’s entertainment. We’ve got to get ratings.
here backing up my statement that the rightys just can not live without trashing AAR, some examples above. some actually doubted/had no faith in me here. Some just do not seem to be well informed.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/25/201900.php
Balderdash. Rush Limbaugh, the all-important King of Talk Radio, the darling of the conservative publicity machine, would be ahead of everybody else on the radio if he'd made an impact of greater than five total votes. [b]Air America Radio, the floundering liberal-talk outpost that conservatives love to trash (see above), had even less of an impact, of course. And guess what? Neither side's radio talking heads even have the potential to deliver any more votes for their candidate of choice.[/b]
thought you would never ask...Here is a list of mainly overt partisans I have gathered in all media but most in radio, some like ted Koppel I consider a professional same with Diane Sawyer who was a speechwriter for a republican president, so those two can be pulled from the overtly partisan; again this is not complete these are all just people I have listened to, this is an old list.
• Rush
• Mike wiener savage
• G Goron Liddy
• Ollie North
• O’Reilly
• Hanity
• McLauflin ford and Nixon speechwriter
• Paul Harvey
• Dr. Laura
• JC watts
• Mike Reagan
• Jack Kafferty
• Paula Zahn
• Lou Dobbs
• Larry King
• Rev Billy Gram
• Rev Pat Robertson
• Rev Jim and Tammy Faye Baker convicted
• Bob Jones with university
• Numerous religious stations, too many several in every market.
• Bill Kristol
• David Letterman
• Dennis Miller
• Bill Bennett
• Glen Beck
• Laura Ingram
• Michael Medved
• Matt Drudge
• Bob Brinker
• John Batchelor
• Mark Levine
• Tim Rusert NBC
• Brian Williams NBC
• Lou Rukeyser CNBC
• Don Imas
• John Mathews 20 years of hate now convicted child molester but did not have to do time)
• Armstrong Williams
• Neil Boortz
• Mike Galiger
• Hugh Hughit
• Bret Humme
• Howard Stern, supported on air republicans Pataki, Christi Todd Whitman, Julliani elected as well as full press for the war. He is just against censorship.
• Howie Carr
• Lyndon LaRouche
• NRA charlston heston
• Joe Scarburo
• Bob Dornon
• Alan Keys
• Bob Novak
• Tucker Carlson
• Ann Coulter
• Marilin Madilan
• Greg Jarrett
• George Will
• Buchanan both pat and Bay
• Bill Schneider
• Steve Forbes
• William Buckley
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 2 2006, 02:07 AM)
CW, Cause and effect and deductions. seems another righty sent a white powder to a "liberal" recently. Seems to be a righty MO. Who sent it to the two highest ranking dems, the real thing? a liberal right?
As evidence, I note that a "right-wing-conservative" talk radio station had the same thing happen to them a week ago.
QUOTE
Santa Cruz Radio Station Evacuated Following White Powder Scare
LIVE OAK, Calif. -- A KSCO radio station placed under quarantine Monday after an employee opened an envelope containing a small amount of white powder remains closed today pending federal analysis of the substance, a Santa Cruz County Environmental Health representative said today.
County environmental health program manager Steven Schneider said that the department, along with the county's Hazardous Material Team and local law enforcement, responded to the incident around 2 p.m. and closed the building as a safety precaution until further notice.
The FBI took possession of the envelope and agents are conducting sample tests at the public health laboratory in Santa Clara, Schneider said, adding that test results are expected by the end Tuesday.
LIVE OAK, Calif. -- A KSCO radio station placed under quarantine Monday after an employee opened an envelope containing a small amount of white powder remains closed today pending federal analysis of the substance, a Santa Cruz County Environmental Health representative said today.
County environmental health program manager Steven Schneider said that the department, along with the county's Hazardous Material Team and local law enforcement, responded to the incident around 2 p.m. and closed the building as a safety precaution until further notice.
The FBI took possession of the envelope and agents are conducting sample tests at the public health laboratory in Santa Clara, Schneider said, adding that test results are expected by the end Tuesday.
I do not suppose that a "Lefty" sent it, because I don't know. I would assume it's someone with a problem with media, and that they are a criminal, and I don't care about their politics.
QUOTE(inventor)
Seems you missed 60 minutes tonight.
Yes I did. After I cleaned my gun and played Rush Limbaugh endlessly in my iPod, I went looking for ATF agents to shoot in the face. I didn't find any, so I beat up some bums. /sarcasm
QUOTE(inventor)
As far as AAR doing well in NYC, again I like how you never list year for year quarters and comparisons of how say others ike O'Liely are doing in the same period.
Again with the changing criteria. I have news for you. It doesn't matter what quarter you look at, a 0.8 is a crappy rating. For the record, though, here are their ratings for the past year.
QUOTE
Fall '05 - - - - -1.4
Winter '05 - - -1.2
Winter '06 - - -0.8
WLIB was in 25th place in New York radio. That's not "doing well." Even if they still had a 1.2 or a 1.4, that would put them around 20th place. Not "doing well." For comparison, conservative talk WABC has a 3.5, "The Fan" sports talk has a 2.2 and partly-conservative talk WOR has a 2.1.
Radio pays the bills by selling advertising. When you can't sell ads, because you can't attract liberal talk listeners in one of the most liberal cities in the country, you are not a very good radio station. Sorry, I know that you like the station, but AAR is not a well-conceived, well-run company.
QUOTE
See in the real world of engineering we do not allow people to play these games we have what we call intelligence and when someone ever does this they are never respected by the industry, they are considered intellectually dishonest or in some cases just stupid and we move them to be techs.
Uh Huh. So, are you going to start posting facts, instead of linking to left-wing opinion columns then? What if your engineer colleagues showed you blog posts by other engineers? Would you consider those to be facts, or would you prefer actual facts?
QUOTE
But with simple logic, they were picked up by another station. That says it all.
WWRL-AM had no measurable ratings. What did they have to lose? That says it all?
QUOTE(inventor)
and we know they are not rich like ruppy with his trash journalism of a Enquirer which makes bank, so they DID not buy the station with deep pockets funded by the kids who have inherited their money to buy media did they. And they did not get billion dollar tax giveaways from the government did they.
If your asking me to feel sorry for the founders of AAR...for people like Sheldon Drobny (got rich with hedge funds, see here for the kind of hate this guy spews), Evan Montvell Cohen (owned various advertising agencies), or Danny Goldberg (music industry mogul, used to manage Led Zeppelin and the Beastie Boys)...no thanks. QUOTE(inventor)
As far as listing the righty hate radio, even this person in the article of another media who was obviously a righty even states it as a matter of fact. I thought you agreed with that point earlier and again later, so you are just venting which is fine.
I don't understand your reply here. When are you going to list the "hate groups" that are "well represented" on right-wing talk radio? Other than 20-year old G Gordon Liddy stories that you keep repeating, I mean. Something current.QUOTE(inventor)
as far as filling a need you are saying rightys need to spew all that hate? They do not get enough of it on FOX TV a real partisan enterprise. Or the top two newspapers that are also the righty, WSJ and USA-today? where does the The Christian Science Monitor fall in?
Well, to start with Fox News TV wasn't around when talk radio became popular. Secondly, Fox News has millions less viewers than network news - ABC, NBC, ABC, PBS. The Christian Science Monitor is certainly liberal. Again, not responding to the juvenile name-calling, fact-free portions of your post.
PS - checked out your list of "overt partisans" - David Letterman and Tim Russert?
Howard Stern?
QUOTE(cnn)
"Clear Channel is very tied to the Bush administration" Stern said. "Clear Channel for years has been defending me...I criticize Bush and then I'm fired...They acted out of politics."
Stern lashed out against Bush administration's policies on everything from the environment, to stem cell research and the war in Iraq.
He said he was encouraging his listeners, whom he described as swing voters, to cast their ballots for John Kerry. (Edwards tops Kerry veep poll)
"John Kerry will receive more votes because of this. ... My audience will vote in a bloc," Stern said.
Stern lashed out against Bush administration's policies on everything from the environment, to stem cell research and the war in Iraq.
He said he was encouraging his listeners, whom he described as swing voters, to cast their ballots for John Kerry. (Edwards tops Kerry veep poll)
"John Kerry will receive more votes because of this. ... My audience will vote in a bloc," Stern said.
why thank you for the compliment I guess about my debating style. Hope it does not send you over the edge like a McVeigh or the guy shooting MDs for his religious cause, or the rightys convicted of sending hundreds of letter with threatening letters to womens clinics because you also believe the media is liberal and you are some how a victim. because you believe you are being persecuted by the media.
Do you realize with the Billions ruppy had to start with it took him 3 years to make a profit. And I have news for you, if it was so crappy as you say no one would have picked them up.... simple logic.... And as I said what is the big P thing going on with apparently you and all the right wing owned media about having one real liberal voice? I just do not get it, why the righty hate so much? if it was a liberal media why would these rightys be yelling about one small liberal station. Because it is obvious. it is a complete sham that there is a liberal media. Just one partisan liberal channel has the rightys gone wild making films to beat up bums...
As far as the founder/s of AAR Cohen is a republican. He is the one who took the money from the boys club as he was on the board. He has disappeared and I wish NY would indict him and try him. You do remember Guam don't you where Delay and abramoff got some big bucks and passed legislation....
http://lists.bostonradio.org/pipermail/bos...une/003224.html
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/Radio_Daze.htm
And why would a righty start such a venture we have gone over this many times, a righty will sell their mother if it makes money is their creed, money over liberty and money over everything. This issue of money over everything has been brought to the surface by almost all here on this thread saying market/business is the only thing that is important in whether we should have opposing views on the airwaves. They also back selling the mother over all. Whereas a liberal puts more value in family than money. And would rather see a single station with opposing viewpoints.
Do you realize with the Billions ruppy had to start with it took him 3 years to make a profit. And I have news for you, if it was so crappy as you say no one would have picked them up.... simple logic.... And as I said what is the big P thing going on with apparently you and all the right wing owned media about having one real liberal voice? I just do not get it, why the righty hate so much? if it was a liberal media why would these rightys be yelling about one small liberal station. Because it is obvious. it is a complete sham that there is a liberal media. Just one partisan liberal channel has the rightys gone wild making films to beat up bums...
As far as the founder/s of AAR Cohen is a republican. He is the one who took the money from the boys club as he was on the board. He has disappeared and I wish NY would indict him and try him. You do remember Guam don't you where Delay and abramoff got some big bucks and passed legislation....
http://lists.bostonradio.org/pipermail/bos...une/003224.html
QUOTE
Sure enough, the Chicago Tribune, reporting last April
when Evan Cohen moved to the top at AA, said, "He began his career as a
Republican operative in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for
Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a
pro-life Republican legislator." It certainly adds an element of
political intrigue to the whole story.
when Evan Cohen moved to the top at AA, said, "He began his career as a
Republican operative in his native Guam, serving as spokesman for
Guam's Republican Party and as chief of staff for Sen. Tommy Tanaka, a
pro-life Republican legislator." It certainly adds an element of
political intrigue to the whole story.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/Radio_Daze.htm
QUOTE
Mr. Visotcky wasn't the only insider in the dark about the company's problems. Many of Air America's investors and executives say they thought the network had raised more than $30 million, based on assurances from its owners, Guam-based entrepreneurs Evan M. Cohen and Rex Sorensen. In fact, Air America had raised only $6 million, Mr. Cohen concedes. Within six weeks of the launch, those funds had been spent and the company owed creditors more than $2 million.
And why would a righty start such a venture we have gone over this many times, a righty will sell their mother if it makes money is their creed, money over liberty and money over everything. This issue of money over everything has been brought to the surface by almost all here on this thread saying market/business is the only thing that is important in whether we should have opposing views on the airwaves. They also back selling the mother over all. Whereas a liberal puts more value in family than money. And would rather see a single station with opposing viewpoints.
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 2 2006, 11:17 AM)
why thank you for the compliment I guess about my debating style. Hope it does not send you over the edge like a McVeigh or the guy shooting MDs for his religious cause, or the rightys convicted of sending hundreds of letter with threatening letters to womens clinics because you also believe the media is liberal and you are some how a victim. because you believe you are being persecuted by the media.
So, is it safe to say that you are not going to name the "hate groups" that are "well represented" on talk radio? The "hate groups" from which "right wing terrorists get their calling?"
QUOTE
Do you realize with the Billions ruppy had to start with it took him 3 years to make a profit. And I have news for you, if it was so crappy as you say no one would have picked them up.... simple logic.... And as I said what is the big P thing going on with apparently you and all the right wing owned media about having one real liberal voice? I just do not get it, why the righty hate so much? if it was a liberal media why would these rightys be yelling about one small liberal station. Because it is obvious. it is a complete sham that there is a liberal media. Just one partisan liberal channel has the rightys gone wild making films to beat up bums...
Dude, I don't "hate" Air America and I'm not "yelling." Just so you know. I actually listen to it sometimes, which is why I know that it's not very good radio. I just point out that it's a failing business and has lousy ratings, which are facts. Indisputable.QUOTE(inventor)
As far as the founder/s of AAR Cohen is a republican. He is the one who took the money from the boys club as he was on the board. He has disappeared and I wish NY would indict him and try him. You do remember Guam don't you where Delay and abramoff got some big bucks and passed legislation....
I said "I don't feel sorry for the rich owners of AAR" - what do I care if he's a Republican? Who cares?By the way, the Drobny's are going to buy the network back in the next few weeks. I guess you're right about corporatists. Those two are the worst. Tax-cheating, fraud artists.
Anyway, do you plan on proving that (talk) radio is actually the main media source of the USA where people get their political/news information?
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 3 2006, 08:39 AM)
Anyway, do you plan on proving that (talk) radio is actually the main media source of the USA where people get their political/news information?
Ohhhhh we do have different styles here... I like to post data and assume people figure it out. Sorry, but that is how dyslexics work.
So here let me try to spell it out, from the data I submitted and my original analysis it is now absolutely supported by my post 54 which I thought was obvious.
Rush has 15 million listeners......... OK, and the next best of a network which is just news without a 100% full time political partisan is 10 million by NBC yes Rush has 5 million more listeners than the largest network. NO ONE IS CLOSE TO JUST ONE RIGHTY PARTISAN WHACKO!
Then as we know we have many more righty partisan wackos on the radio........ Then if you look at the network news spends time on sports, weather, local events for about half of their shows, the actual weighted political time is cut in half of the network for main media source for their political/news. Then add in people may actually listen to radio for more time than they do TV because they listen at work or on long work commutes.
Inventor, that makes absolutely no sense. ABC has 5 million less viewers than Rush, but ABC is not the only TV media source. So add in NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FNC, CNN, C-SPAN etc., etc. and they will have far more than "righty" [that's really annoying, btw] radio "wackos". So is there any actual fact that shows that conservative radio has more viewers than the entire news media on television?
CP
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 3 2006, 09:11 PM)
Inventor, that makes absolutely no sense. ABC has 5 million less viewers than Rush, but ABC is not the only TV media source. So add in NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FNC, CNN, C-SPAN etc., etc. and they will have far more than "righty" [that's really annoying, btw] radio "wackos". So is there any actual fact that shows that conservative radio has more viewers than the entire news media on television?
CP
BTW back at ya, I always found it annoying when druggie rush called activist females feminazis and liberals Liberuuuulssss. And I am not being broadcast to 15 million people. Actually I think his numbers have dropped but not worth checking out, I think his peak was about 20-30 million.
Next you missed two other points I was trying to make. One being weighted. We do this in Engineering all the time, ie we also call it filtering. The weighting that needs to be done here is the TV networks news gives time to sports, weather, local news, I am just guessing/estimating but about 50% of the time. (I will time it tonight and revise these numbers) So this is subtracted from what this thread is about getting political/news information as weather and sports and local stuff does not fit that. Rush is 99% partisan political no weather or sports. So we can pull away 50% of the network information. So if you look at the large networks from my post 54 they total about 27 million (if you look at Cnn and fox cable these numbers are very small) But multiplying 50% weighting into the networks you get a 13.5 weighting where as with rush you take his 15 million and weight it you end up with a 14 weight. Thus in just one right wing partisan you beat all the major networks.
Next there is a partisan factor to this. Rush is 100% partisan. The TV networks other than Fox are not 100% partisan. I believe they are corporatist leaning to the right. But as a whole I would weight their broadcasts and again pull away from the propaganda factor. But for the sake of debate here I will not add this weighting into this debate. But we can agree Rush is 100% overtly partisan and so is Fox.
Next the other point I may not have explained as well as some would like is Rush is not the only partisan righty on the radio, I gave a list and have challenged others to even give me one liberal who has been on the air for over three years nationally and to date not one has been given yet we have all these other right wing wackos like Keys to Ollie and so on. So add in their time/numbers to rushes and we can overwhelm the weighted numbers or absolute non-weighted numbers.
http://www.talkers.com/talkhosts.htm
QUOTE
Still at the top is Rush Limbaugh followed by Sean Hannity, who again moved toward narrowing the gap between the two. Michael Savage remains a powerful force and Dr. Laura Schlessinger shows amazing resilience considering many news-talk stations’ realignment toward more politics and less relationships programming during the past year. Limbaugh and Hannity –– the nation’s leading political talkers –– showed some overall erosion since the prior survey, but a study of news-talk radio trends over the past 15 years indicates that this is common in the ratings periods immediately following an election year. More recent indicators over the summer show that both hosts, as well as political talk in general, are moving back up to their prior positions.
Hosts on the upward path include Neal Boortz, Mike Gallagher, Bill O’Reilly, Doug Stephan, Jerry Doyle, Bill Bennett, Ed Schultz, Tony Snow, Michael Medved and Dave Ramsey.
Making their first appearance on the survey are Al Franken, Alan Colmes and Stephanie Miller.
Hosts on the upward path include Neal Boortz, Mike Gallagher, Bill O’Reilly, Doug Stephan, Jerry Doyle, Bill Bennett, Ed Schultz, Tony Snow, Michael Medved and Dave Ramsey.
Making their first appearance on the survey are Al Franken, Alan Colmes and Stephanie Miller.
note from this list on the reference I count about 75-85 million right wing partisan show listeners, to about 9 million partisan liberal show listeners and I give Dr Dean a liberal rating but he does not spend much time on politics but when he does it is liberal. I did not include all, only ones I have listened to.
Some may not like weighting or understand it but I work in the real world with numbers and we do it all the time.
Just watched the 11pm CBS news, I coded it to national news vs local. in the half hour there were 5 minutes of national news, the rest was local crime, sports, weather. So I was wrong my weighting factor of actual vs more like 20% is national where people get their political information, will see if the 7pm is any better tomorrow. Next we have what letterman another conservative.
Hot off the press...
http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1541986,00.html
QUOTE
CBS is putting a brave face on Katie Couric's ratings as the CBS Evening News slipped to third place last week.
The broadcast drew 7.5 million viewers last week, according to Nielsen's preliminary numbers, trailing NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams (8.2 million) for the second straight week and falling behind ABC's World News With Charles Gibson (7.6 million) for the first time since Couric took the CBS anchor chair on Sept. 5, USA Today reports.
The broadcast drew 7.5 million viewers last week, according to Nielsen's preliminary numbers, trailing NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams (8.2 million) for the second straight week and falling behind ABC's World News With Charles Gibson (7.6 million) for the first time since Couric took the CBS anchor chair on Sept. 5, USA Today reports.
Geee looks like the majors from TV draw 24 million a week add in the smaller players and maybe it is 30 million. And as I showed Rush right now is 15 million by his lonesome and add in the rest of the conservatives it is about 70-90 million. add in all radio and we are at about 100 million plus, as you notice the radio one I cited did not even add in the news stations on the radio. Just talking mouths. Again this is not taking into consideration any weighting which I believe is valid. Oh these poor righty victims of the media who cry all the time about the liberal media when first it is a corporate run media and second the majority of the political information is radio and that is 95% righty wing political partisan fanatics.
carlitoswhey looks like my case is made, what about these numbers do you not understand.
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 3 2006, 11:26 PM)
[carlitoswhey looks like my case is made, what about these numbers do you not understand.
OK, I’ll keep this simple since we are off on some tangents. According to Pew Research, only 17% are listening to the kind of radio you describe – news / talk. Not 4 in 10. You keep adding “news” into “talk” – they are different things. People listen to a music station in the morning, and they have news at the top of the hour. That’s the difference between the 17% and the 40%. 23% out of the 40% is people just getting regular old news from the radio.
state of the news media
QUOTE
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press's biennial news consumption survey found that "The percentage of Americans who listen to radio news has remained relatively stable in recent years. Four in ten say they listened to news on the radio yesterday. This is virtually unchanged from 2002 (41%) and down only marginally from 2000 (43%).
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
There is really no need to look into detail on other media types, watch and time local news, nothing. Just read the Pew surveys that you have cited here.
QUOTE
BTW back at ya, I always found it annoying when druggie rush called activist females feminazis and liberals Liberuuuulssss. And I am not being broadcast to 15 million people.
Oh, well if Limbaugh does it then I guess it's okay, my fault. QUOTE
Next you missed two other points I was trying to make. One being weighted. We do this in Engineering all the time, ie we also call it filtering. The weighting that needs to be done here is the TV networks news gives time to sports, weather, local news, I am just guessing/estimating but about 50% of the time. (I will time it tonight and revise these numbers) So this is subtracted from what this thread is about getting political/news information as weather and sports and local stuff does not fit that. Rush is 99% partisan political no weather or sports. So we can pull away 50% of the network information. So if you look at the large networks from my post 54 they total about 27 million (if you look at Cnn and fox cable these numbers are very small) But multiplying 50% weighting into the networks you get a 13.5 weighting where as with rush you take his 15 million and weight it you end up with a 14 weight. Thus in just one right wing partisan you beat all the major networks.
This sounds like the kind of estimating the "Big Dig" engineers here in Beantown did before they built the tunnles that just partially collapsed. I'm asking you for fact, Inventor, not estimation based on...what is that estimation based on anyway? First of all Fox News and the rest of the 24 hour news station doesn't not save 50% of its broadcasting for something other than news, it is almost entirely new-oriented, so that doesn't check out. Second, that doesn't have anything to do with the FACT that more people watch TV news than they listen to conservative talk radio. I understand that Rush has more listeners than ABC's NewDesk [or whatever the hell it's called] has viewers but again, add the 24 news networks in and it isn't even close. QUOTE
Next the other point I may not have explained as well as some would like is Rush is not the only partisan righty on the radio, I gave a list and have challenged others to even give me one liberal who has been on the air for over three years nationally and to date not one has been given yet we have all these other right wing wackos like Keys to Ollie and so on. So add in their time/numbers to rushes and we can overwhelm the weighted numbers or absolute non-weighted numbers.
Here's a whole station full of them, courtesy of Sirius Satellite Radio. How do these factor into you're equation? What's their "partisan factor"?
Again, inventor, and I know I sound like a broken record, but unless I see indisuputable and real facts that people listen to talk radio more than they watch news on TV as a whole, there is nothing to debate because this is simply a matter of fact or fiction.
CP
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 3 2006, 11:26 PM)
Next there is a partisan factor to this. Rush is 100% partisan. The TV networks other than Fox are not 100% partisan. I believe they are corporatist leaning to the right. But as a whole I would weight their broadcasts and again pull away from the propaganda factor. But for the sake of debate here I will not add this weighting into this debate. But we can agree Rush is 100% overtly partisan and so is Fox.
Fox is overtly partisan??? Seriously. Please step away from the rhetoric. No facts back that up, and debate after debate on AD we prove that it's more moderate or Centrist if anything. It's just not liberal... which is a change from some other News sources.
QUOTE
Next you missed two other points I was trying to make. One being weighted. We do this in Engineering all the time, ie we also call it filtering. The weighting that needs to be done here is the TV networks news gives time to sports, weather, local news, I am just guessing/estimating but about 50% of the time. (I will time it tonight and revise these numbers) So this is subtracted from what this thread is about getting political/news information as weather and sports and local stuff does not fit that. Rush is 99% partisan political no weather or sports. So we can pull away 50% of the network information. So if you look at the large networks from my post 54 they total about 27 million (if you look at Cnn and fox cable these numbers are very small) But multiplying 50% weighting into the networks you get a 13.5 weighting where as with rush you take his 15 million and weight it you end up with a 14 weight. Thus in just one right wing partisan you beat all the major networks.
Rush, according to Newsmax (here) has 12 million daily listeners and 20 Million weekly listeners.
Also, this article shows that 41% of talk radio listeners are republicans, and 28% democrats, with NPR numbers being completely the opposite.
According to American Demographics...
QUOTE
Currently, talk radio listeners are mainly white men over the age of 35, many of whom consider themselves conservative - but not all. A full 11 percent of talk show listeners say they're either "liberal" or "ultra liberal" and 21 percent say they're "fiscal conservative/social liberal," according to a study done by Talkers, a talk radio trade magazine in Springfield, Mass.
From Pew:
QUOTE
But the same survey found that more people, roughly a quarter of respondents, said they got their news on national and international issues from cable outlets like CNN (24%) or Fox News’s cable channel (22%). The Big Three broadcast networks were cited to a lesser degree: ABC (16%), NBC (16%) and CBS (12%).3 Cable viewers said what they liked was the up-to-the-minute news that, in addition, could be tuned in anytime...
Meanwhile, “CBS Evening News” with the interim anchor Bob Schieffer crept up by some 100,000 viewers, moving from 7.7 million to 7.8 million....
In November 2005, “Today” averaged 6 million, down 5% from 6.3 million in 2004. Perhaps more worrisome for NBC, it was the second straight year of decline.
At ABC, meanwhile, “Good Morning America” averaged 5.3 million viewers, down 2% from 5.4 million in 2004. The “Early Show” averaged 2.7 million, down 7% from 2.9 million in November 2004.
What does all of this mean??
The point to be made is that a large portion of the US gets its news and current events from local and morning/nightly news, of which is dominated by the Major Networks (which are at best left-leaning at times). Talk radio, specifically conservative talk radio, only harkens to one demographic of the whole US, and only a portion of that...
I would be very surprised if you could prove that ANY conservative talk radio show garners more viewers than morning/nightly news on the major networks. It's just highly unlikely.
Right now, your numbers don't jive...
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 4 2006, 09:22 AM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 3 2006, 11:26 PM)
[carlitoswhey looks like my case is made, what about these numbers do you not understand.
OK, I’ll keep this simple since we are off on some tangents. According to Pew Research, only 17% are listening to the kind of radio you describe – news / talk. Not 4 in 10. You keep adding “news” into “talk” – they are different things. People listen to a music station in the morning, and they have news at the top of the hour. That’s the difference between the 17% and the 40%. 23% out of the 40% is people just getting regular old news from the radio.
state of the news media
QUOTE
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press's biennial news consumption survey found that "The percentage of Americans who listen to radio news has remained relatively stable in recent years. Four in ten say they listened to news on the radio yesterday. This is virtually unchanged from 2002 (41%) and down only marginally from 2000 (43%).
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
There is really no need to look into detail on other media types, watch and time local news, nothing. Just read the Pew surveys that you have cited here.
I would suggest you read the source by Aevans176 it says the following which shows you are absolutely wrong in you understanding, it shows they consider talk/news as I have said. Your math was a almost nice try.. Sad that you say you were in this industry and do not know the following.
QUOTE
But how much of radio listening is listening to news?
Average quarter hour (AQH) listenership figures for news/talk/information-formatted stations continue to lead in Arbitron's annual Radio Today summary report, holding at 16%.2
According to Arbitron's breakdown of audience numbers for the individual formats which make up the broad news/talk/information category (news/talk, all news, sports, and talk/personality) shows that news/talk stations make up 10.8% of the news/talk/information AQH share. This is a higher AQH than the total percentage of listenership for the popular formats of contemporary hit or urban radio.3
Average quarter hour (AQH) listenership figures for news/talk/information-formatted stations continue to lead in Arbitron's annual Radio Today summary report, holding at 16%.2
According to Arbitron's breakdown of audience numbers for the individual formats which make up the broad news/talk/information category (news/talk, all news, sports, and talk/personality) shows that news/talk stations make up 10.8% of the news/talk/information AQH share. This is a higher AQH than the total percentage of listenership for the popular formats of contemporary hit or urban radio.3
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Oct 4 2006, 09:46 AM)
QUOTE
BTW back at ya, I always found it annoying when druggie rush called activist females feminazis and liberals Liberuuuulssss. And I am not being broadcast to 15 million people.
Oh, well if Limbaugh does it then I guess it's okay, my fault. QUOTE
Next you missed two other points I was trying to make. One being weighted. We do this in Engineering all the time, ie we also call it filtering. The weighting that needs to be done here is the TV networks news gives time to sports, weather, local news, I am just guessing/estimating but about 50% of the time. (I will time it tonight and revise these numbers) So this is subtracted from what this thread is about getting political/news information as weather and sports and local stuff does not fit that. Rush is 99% partisan political no weather or sports. So we can pull away 50% of the network information. So if you look at the large networks from my post 54 they total about 27 million (if you look at Cnn and fox cable these numbers are very small) But multiplying 50% weighting into the networks you get a 13.5 weighting where as with rush you take his 15 million and weight it you end up with a 14 weight. Thus in just one right wing partisan you beat all the major networks.
This sounds like the kind of estimating the "Big Dig" engineers here in Beantown did before they built the tunnles that just partially collapsed. I'm asking you for fact, Inventor, not estimation based on...what is that estimation based on anyway? First of all Fox News and the rest of the 24 hour news station doesn't not save 50% of its broadcasting for something other than news, it is almost entirely new-oriented, so that doesn't check out. Second, that doesn't have anything to do with the FACT that more people watch TV news than they listen to conservative talk radio. I understand that Rush has more listeners than ABC's NewDesk [or whatever the hell it's called] has viewers but again, add the 24 news networks in and it isn't even close. QUOTE
Next the other point I may not have explained as well as some would like is Rush is not the only partisan righty on the radio, I gave a list and have challenged others to even give me one liberal who has been on the air for over three years nationally and to date not one has been given yet we have all these other right wing wackos like Keys to Ollie and so on. So add in their time/numbers to rushes and we can overwhelm the weighted numbers or absolute non-weighted numbers.
Here's a whole station full of them, courtesy of Sirius Satellite Radio. How do these factor into you're equation? What's their "partisan factor"?
Again, inventor, and I know I sound like a broken record, but unless I see indisuputable and real facts that people listen to talk radio more than they watch news on TV as a whole, there is nothing to debate because this is simply a matter of fact or fiction.
CP
you said "Oh, well if Limbaugh does it then I guess it's okay, my fault." did you or any of the people on the right ever send him mass emails to ask him to stop it or do you just complain to liberals? His rating show those on the right liked his public behavior and rewarded him for it. dittoheads? I am a firm believer if you can dish it you should be able to take it and the one who casts the first stone deserves what they get. I also believe that the righty party is big on revenge eye for an eye, so if that is what you believe in I give what you believe in. If you preach no drugs and then do them I believe the full weight of the law should be brought down on you.
Read the link where I listed the talk show it itemizes the individual talkers all the way down to the ones with a million per week or so like Franken. That was 2005. It was at at about 70 plus million to 100 million a week with news added. It is funny you believe the cable channels are bigger than the major networks... take the numbers I listed for the major networks and give them a 100 percent weight because I did code one today for the national 5:30ish national news and also I listed the daily for cable like fox and CNN (these are way below the major network) and then take the weighted of the other non national news shows like I gave you an example of 11pm network being 5 minutes of national news in 30 minutes. There just is no way this is going to just equal the talkers on radio time with the pure nes stations on the radio. Plus the talkers on the radio are highly partisan. Not on the fence but highly partisan. Plain and simple I gave you very good sources. This is about the news/information and it is given out on the radio overwhelmingly. Yes you posted some numbers that were different like rush giving him even higher numbers but those were not.
as far as sirus have they had a liberal on for 3 years nationally yet? NO... thanks for proving my point again. If you look at the numbers only Ed Schultz, former republican has 2 million listeners so he is now at the national level. but he just got there last year... not 3 years ago.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 4 2006, 11:38 AM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 3 2006, 11:26 PM)
Next there is a partisan factor to this. Rush is 100% partisan. The TV networks other than Fox are not 100% partisan. I believe they are corporatist leaning to the right. But as a whole I would weight their broadcasts and again pull away from the propaganda factor. But for the sake of debate here I will not add this weighting into this debate. But we can agree Rush is 100% overtly partisan and so is Fox.
Fox is overtly partisan??? Seriously. Please step away from the rhetoric. No facts back that up, and debate after debate on AD we prove that it's more moderate or Centrist if anything. It's just not liberal... which is a change from some other News sources.
QUOTE
Next you missed two other points I was trying to make. One being weighted. We do this in Engineering all the time, ie we also call it filtering. The weighting that needs to be done here is the TV networks news gives time to sports, weather, local news, I am just guessing/estimating but about 50% of the time. (I will time it tonight and revise these numbers) So this is subtracted from what this thread is about getting political/news information as weather and sports and local stuff does not fit that. Rush is 99% partisan political no weather or sports. So we can pull away 50% of the network information. So if you look at the large networks from my post 54 they total about 27 million (if you look at Cnn and fox cable these numbers are very small) But multiplying 50% weighting into the networks you get a 13.5 weighting where as with rush you take his 15 million and weight it you end up with a 14 weight. Thus in just one right wing partisan you beat all the major networks.
Rush, according to Newsmax (here) has 12 million daily listeners and 20 Million weekly listeners.
Also, this article shows that 41% of talk radio listeners are republicans, and 28% democrats, with NPR numbers being completely the opposite.
According to American Demographics...
QUOTE
Currently, talk radio listeners are mainly white men over the age of 35, many of whom consider themselves conservative - but not all. A full 11 percent of talk show listeners say they're either "liberal" or "ultra liberal" and 21 percent say they're "fiscal conservative/social liberal," according to a study done by Talkers, a talk radio trade magazine in Springfield, Mass.
From Pew:
QUOTE
But the same survey found that more people, roughly a quarter of respondents, said they got their news on national and international issues from cable outlets like CNN (24%) or Fox News’s cable channel (22%). The Big Three broadcast networks were cited to a lesser degree: ABC (16%), NBC (16%) and CBS (12%).3 Cable viewers said what they liked was the up-to-the-minute news that, in addition, could be tuned in anytime...
Meanwhile, “CBS Evening News” with the interim anchor Bob Schieffer crept up by some 100,000 viewers, moving from 7.7 million to 7.8 million....
In November 2005, “Today” averaged 6 million, down 5% from 6.3 million in 2004. Perhaps more worrisome for NBC, it was the second straight year of decline.
At ABC, meanwhile, “Good Morning America” averaged 5.3 million viewers, down 2% from 5.4 million in 2004. The “Early Show” averaged 2.7 million, down 7% from 2.9 million in November 2004.
What does all of this mean??
The point to be made is that a large portion of the US gets its news and current events from local and morning/nightly news, of which is dominated by the Major Networks (which are at best left-leaning at times). Talk radio, specifically conservative talk radio, only harkens to one demographic of the whole US, and only a portion of that...
I would be very surprised if you could prove that ANY conservative talk radio show garners more viewers than morning/nightly news on the major networks. It's just highly unlikely.
Right now, your numbers don't jive...
You cited a 2003 ratings of Rush, if you notice I thought and posted from what I remember Rush in the past had been 20-30 million in the past. Thanks for proving I am very accurate. But we are talking about now. If you read the source I listed he has some competition that are just a couple million less now, those certainly have taken some of his market share. I cited the 15 million as being now and the other one the year before.
From your source (thanks for backing my point up with another poster with this source) this also is telling for CP who is in denial thinking the cable shows are significant.
QUOTE
His 12 million daily listenership is as big as any top-rated TV show on a broadcast network and dwarfs any show delivered on cable.
He's heard on 600 radio stations in every market in the U.S. Only ABC's Paul Harvey, who broadcasts a mere 15 minutes daily, comes close to equaling these numbers.
Rush is the single most influential media personality in America.
He's heard on 600 radio stations in every market in the U.S. Only ABC's Paul Harvey, who broadcasts a mere 15 minutes daily, comes close to equaling these numbers.
Rush is the single most influential media personality in America.
So you think good morning america is a 100% news show?
Lastly if you do not believe Fox is partisan, I have to begin laughing here, it reminds me of the days of when I use to listen to Rush and a caller would call in and accuse rush of being a liberal. And some on this board who believe talk radio is not way slanted overboard to the right. There are just some people that just believe there is no such thing as science or have zero math ability and there is no debating them they just do not have the wherewith-all if you can not agree that there is such a thing as science. Kinda like your tunnel example, that was way out there in nowhere applicable. Gee the government contractors never could have used bad materials or not done it correctly ha?
to summarize I posted about 70-100 million listeners then add in the one that was not listed NPR of 16% more people on the radio and at best TV has maybe 60 million for news. So my case is that radio is the major source for news/information. And it is overwhelmingly partisan righty...
QUOTE
you said "Oh, well if Limbaugh does it then I guess it's okay, my fault." did you or any of the people on the right ever send him mass emails to ask him to stop it or do you just complain to liberals? His rating show those on the right liked his public behavior and rewarded him for it. dittoheads? I am a firm believer if you can dish it you should be able to take it and the one who casts the first stone deserves what they get. I also believe that the righty party is big on revenge eye for an eye, so if that is what you believe in I give what you believe in. If you preach no drugs and then do them I believe the full weight of the law should be brought down on you.
So it's wrong that Rush called people feminazis, but since "us righties" didn't e-mail him about it and since he's a hypocrite it's perfectly acceptable for you to lable everyone that listens to him and those who disagree with you righties. These are the times when I wish there was a "screaming into a pillow smiley". I don't and never have listened to Limbaugh reguarly, so calling into his show or e-mailing him, much like the line of reasoning that you use to justify blanket statements about conservatives, makes no sense.
QUOTE
Read the link where I listed the talk show it itemizes the individual talkers all the way down to the ones with a million per week or so like Franken. That was 2005. It was at at about 70 plus million to 100 million a week with news added. It is funny you believe the cable channels are bigger than the major networks... take the numbers I listed for the major networks and give them a 100 percent weight because I did code one today for the national 5:30ish national news and also I listed the daily for cable like fox and CNN (these are way below the major network) and then take the weighted of the other non national news shows like I gave you an example of 11pm network being 5 minutes of national news in 30 minutes. There just is no way this is going to just equal the talkers on radio time with the pure nes stations on the radio. Plus the talkers on the radio are highly partisan. Not on the fence but highly partisan. Plain and simple I gave you very good sources. This is about the news/information and it is given out on the radio overwhelmingly. Yes you posted some numbers that were different like rush giving him even higher numbers but those were not.
Okay, if you're going to invent formulas and equations, it would be helpful if you can completely spell them out, because right now, I think you're the only one who understands it.QUOTE
as far as sirus have they had a liberal on for 3 years nationally yet? NO... thanks for proving my point again. If you look at the numbers only Ed Schultz, former republican has 2 million listeners so he is now at the national level. but he just got there last year... not 3 years ago.
Well, you've been asking us about liberal talk show hosts for a good while now, if you think the existance of an entire station of liberal talk show hosts helps you're point...well, you'll need to help me out in understanding that. The whole argument you're making is that conservatives dominate talk radio, which you claim dominates television [not that this has been, you know, proven at all], so if I give you an entire station dedicated to liberal talk, it hurts your point, it doesn't help it. How long Ed Schultz has been around for is irrelevant.On edit:
QUOTE
From your source (thanks for backing my point up with another poster with this source) this also is telling for CP who is in denial thinking the cable shows are significant.
Yeah, let's talk about denial. Show me where I have denied that Rush's show is more popular than most, if not all single shows on TV. You can't, because that isn't what I'm saying. However, if you add up all of the shows on television that are news related then wouldn't you think that number will be greater than Rush's? So what am I in denial of? You still haven't posted any fact, other than Rush's listenership[which I don't dispute] and that his show has more listeners than other news shows have viewers [which I also don't dispute]. So if you're going to say that I'm in denial, you should probably know what I'm actually denying, don't you think? You know what, I'll say it again, just because it's so fun...I know Rush Limbaugh's radio show has more listeners than most single shows on TV have viewers. However, most single shows do not alone constitute TV, add up all of those single shows and then you will see that all together they are more popular than Limbaugh. I would do that right now so I can end this ridiculous debate, but I have to go to class shortly, however, if I find the numbers soon I will post them.More on edit: By the way, according to Arbitron, Limbaugh has 13.5 million viewers PER WEEK, not daily. So let's add up all the viewers of the all of the 24 hour cable news networks' shows and we'll see if it doesn't add up to 13.5 million in one week. Still think I'm in denial?
And finally: This courtesty of Journalism.org.
QUOTE
Cable Audiences Grew, Gradually
Overall viewership of cable news grew 2.8% in 2005 over 2004. That figure, new in this report, refers to the total number of people watching cable news, i.e., the sum of all viewers watching either daytime news or prime time news — or both — through the year.1
When viewership is divided into the two important segments of the day, prime time and daytime, the numbers reveal more significant growth in the evening, when the channels are oriented to producing “programs” rather than tracking the news of the day.
In prime time ( 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. ), there was a 4% growth in median audience of the three main cable news channels. The number of viewers watching cable news during prime time was 2.7 million, up from 2.6 million in 2004. This builds on the 3% improvement in 2003, but falls short of the 6% growth seen in 2004. And it is a long way off from the dramatic surge in prime time median audiences in 2001 and 2002.
Cable News Prime Time Median Audience
1998 - 2005, Channels Combined
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
The overall growth of daytime viewership ( 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. ) was similarly modest. In 2005, daytime median audience grew by three percent, from 1.56 million to 1.60 million viewers. That was down from the 5% growth rate in 2004 (from 1.48 million to 1.56 million).
Cable News Daytime Median Audience
1998 - 2005, Channels Combined
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Only Fox News Is Growing
The overall prime time and daytime numbers, however, are deceiving, since all of the growth in viewership at the three main cable news operations was due to Fox News channel. The other channels actually saw declines in their median audience.
In prime time, Fox News’s median viewership rose by 9%. CNN and MSNBC had losses of 11% and 2% respectively.
Cable News Prime Time Median Audience by Channel
1998 - 2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
In daytime, too, Fox News was responsible for most of the growth in cable; its viewership rose by 5%, while CNN recorded a loss of 7%. MSNBC also had good daytime performance, ending the year with a gain of 3%.
Introduced as a rival to CNN in 1996, Fox News barely competed with the cable news giant in its initial years. Between late 2000 and 2003, however, Fox News made dramatic gains to overtake not just MSNBC, but CNN as well. It emerged as the leader in the ratings race in April 2003. Since then, Fox News’s ratings success shows little sign of wearing off (see Previous Reports).
[note: the graphs didn't come through] So, the news channels have an average of 2.9 million viewers per day. Okay, so 2.9 times seven is just under 21 million, which, what do you know, dwarfs Rush's 13.5 million. More to come, but I've got to run to class now.Overall viewership of cable news grew 2.8% in 2005 over 2004. That figure, new in this report, refers to the total number of people watching cable news, i.e., the sum of all viewers watching either daytime news or prime time news — or both — through the year.1
When viewership is divided into the two important segments of the day, prime time and daytime, the numbers reveal more significant growth in the evening, when the channels are oriented to producing “programs” rather than tracking the news of the day.
In prime time ( 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. ), there was a 4% growth in median audience of the three main cable news channels. The number of viewers watching cable news during prime time was 2.7 million, up from 2.6 million in 2004. This builds on the 3% improvement in 2003, but falls short of the 6% growth seen in 2004. And it is a long way off from the dramatic surge in prime time median audiences in 2001 and 2002.
Cable News Prime Time Median Audience
1998 - 2005, Channels Combined
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
The overall growth of daytime viewership ( 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. ) was similarly modest. In 2005, daytime median audience grew by three percent, from 1.56 million to 1.60 million viewers. That was down from the 5% growth rate in 2004 (from 1.48 million to 1.56 million).
Cable News Daytime Median Audience
1998 - 2005, Channels Combined
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Only Fox News Is Growing
The overall prime time and daytime numbers, however, are deceiving, since all of the growth in viewership at the three main cable news operations was due to Fox News channel. The other channels actually saw declines in their median audience.
In prime time, Fox News’s median viewership rose by 9%. CNN and MSNBC had losses of 11% and 2% respectively.
Cable News Prime Time Median Audience by Channel
1998 - 2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
In daytime, too, Fox News was responsible for most of the growth in cable; its viewership rose by 5%, while CNN recorded a loss of 7%. MSNBC also had good daytime performance, ending the year with a gain of 3%.
Introduced as a rival to CNN in 1996, Fox News barely competed with the cable news giant in its initial years. Between late 2000 and 2003, however, Fox News made dramatic gains to overtake not just MSNBC, but CNN as well. It emerged as the leader in the ratings race in April 2003. Since then, Fox News’s ratings success shows little sign of wearing off (see Previous Reports).
CP
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 5 2006, 12:36 AM)
I would suggest you read the source by Aevans176 it says the following which shows you are absolutely wrong in you understanding, it shows they consider talk/news as I have said. Your math was a almost nice try.. Sad that you say you were in this industry and do not know the following.
QUOTE
But how much of radio listening is listening to news?
Average quarter hour (AQH) listenership figures for news/talk/information-formatted stations continue to lead in Arbitron's annual Radio Today summary report, holding at 16%2.
According to Arbitron's breakdown of audience numbers for the individual formats which make up the broad news/talk/information category (news/talk, all news, sports, and talk/personality) shows that news/talk stations make up 10.8% of the news/talk/information AQH share. This is a higher AQH than the total percentage of listenership for the popular formats of contemporary hit or urban radio.3
Average quarter hour (AQH) listenership figures for news/talk/information-formatted stations continue to lead in Arbitron's annual Radio Today summary report, holding at 16%2.
According to Arbitron's breakdown of audience numbers for the individual formats which make up the broad news/talk/information category (news/talk, all news, sports, and talk/personality) shows that news/talk stations make up 10.8% of the news/talk/information AQH share. This is a higher AQH than the total percentage of listenership for the popular formats of contemporary hit or urban radio.3
Are you trying to correct me here? By saying 16% instead of 17%? You're kidding, right?
Here is what I posted.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Oct 4 2006, 09:22 AM)
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 3 2006, 11:26 PM)
[carlitoswhey looks like my case is made, what about these numbers do you not understand.
OK, I’ll keep this simple since we are off on some tangents. According to Pew Research, only 17% are listening to the kind of radio you describe – news / talk. Not 4 in 10. You keep adding “news” into “talk” – they are different things. People listen to a music station in the morning, and they have news at the top of the hour. That’s the difference between the 17% and the 40%. 23% out of the 40% is people just getting regular old news from the radio.
state of the news media
QUOTE
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press's biennial news consumption survey found that "The percentage of Americans who listen to radio news has remained relatively stable in recent years. Four in ten say they listened to news on the radio yesterday. This is virtually unchanged from 2002 (41%) and down only marginally from 2000 (43%).
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
"Talk radio is holding onto its corner of the media market – 17% of the public regularly listens to radio shows that invite listeners to call into discuss current events, public issues and politics …[and] National Public Radio's audience is holding steady as well: 16% of Americans regularly listen to NPR."4Again, if we look only at data and statistics, the picture of radio's audience is steady and fairly unremarkable. Even the age profile of those listening to news-talk-information programming remains static from previous years, with negligible teenage listenership and the bulk of its audience in the 65 and older age range.
There is really no need to look into detail on other media types, watch and time local news, nothing. Just read the Pew surveys that you have cited here.
QUOTE(inventor)
to summarize I posted about 70-100 million listeners then add in the one that was not listed NPR of 16% more people on the radio and at best TV has maybe 60 million for news. So my case is that radio is the major source for news/information. And it is overwhelmingly partisan righty...
There. Are. Not. 100 million people who listen to talk radio! You keep making this assertion, based on bad math. It's mind-numbing.
Here are some facts. Not opinions, not formulas, facts.
- At most, 150 million people in the US are listening to radio at any one time. source
- News/talk radio has around a 17% share (see above)
- Therefore, only 20 or 25 million people over age 12 can possibly be listening to talk radio at once. (17% times 150 million = 25 million)
- Even Limbaugh only gets 15 million listeners a week, which bears this out. (less people listen to radio mid-day vs. morning / evening, so he probably has a higher "share" of less radios)
- Therefore, if the cumulative listenership for talk radio in a week is 100 million, that means that some people listen to more than one talk show. A simple, elegant truth.
Before you go through hoops to rebut this, think about it. Do you listen to more than one radio show? I think you do. Are you more than one person?
CP, As I told you none have been national for 3 years... your Sirius example did not make the challenge below you will see how many righty wing broadcasters there are and they have been there for years, Rush 1984ish. I have not said AAR is not out there. The debate is Radio is the major source of viewers for news political. Then second to that that radio is predominately Right wing. The list below shows that radio is predominately right wing, the best a partisan liberal gets is Ed Schultz. 95% are righty wing partisans.
And again you could call into Rush'rs show and complain about his name calling, the phone is righty in front of you. So if you are going to be so moral above us give him a call or be a typical hypocrite and cry victim to the liberal for dishing it back. I also do not feel my name calling is as bad as what the vice president said on the house floor or when the president of the united states gave a high school kid the finger for holding a protest sign. Also feminazis, environmental wackos, is very degrading. I use rightys not to degrade but as a shortcut to ultra conservatives, I also see all over the media calling democrats as liberals or left or lefties. i hope you begin your crusade of moral authority on name calling and contact each and every one of these in the right wing owned run, and such media.
If you read your source it backs up what I posted to the cable networks, all you needed to do is multiply by 7 and I did and included them in my estimate. All cable news and as you reported the total for all cable news is 21 million which I accept. and add that to the networks including their other partial news/information and we have at best 50-70 million more for a total of cable plus TV of 70-90 million.
From your source
boy more of that liberal media.... in a rightys mind having twice as many viewers watching a very partisan right wing channel FOX show the media is liberal.
what about this chart from talkers magazine can you prove they have wrong
so I did the math for the challenged posters here. Lets try math
http://www.talkers.com/talkhosts.htm
Rush 13.5
hanity 12.5
savage 8.25
Dr Laura 7.75
Stern 7.75
Ingram 5
Boortz 3.75
Gallagher 3.75
Bohannon 3.25
Calrk howard 3.25
O’Rielly 3.25
Stephan 3.25
Beck 2.75
Joy Browne 2.75
Doyle 2.75
Noory 2.75
Bennett 2.25
Imus 2.25
Komando 2.25
Medved 2.25
Ramey 2.25
Rome 2.25
Ed shultz 2.25
Brinker 1.75
Lykis 1.75
Liddy 1.5
Frankin 1.5
Snow 1,5
Crammer 1.25
Colmes 1.25
Mancow 1.25
Rhodes 1.25
Dr. Dean 1.0
Hendrie 1.0
Hewit 1.0
Humphries 1.0
Larson 1.0
Lionel 1.0
Miller 1.0
Total 122 million weekly but remove ones like stern and Komando ones because they are not that political or news. This shows the almost total; add in all the pure news stations, and add in NPR. which I do not have the numbers for radio news stations or PBS. not needed because the race is not close yet.
So that is the number for radio for political/news information. These are weighted at 100%
Then for the tv I posted the network shows that blow away the cable shows. These totals were at best 70-90 million total.
thanks for showing/backing up how low the cable news numbers are, hopefully that closes that part of the debate.
It is amazing how some can not understand mutually exclusive data and mutually inclusive.
carlitoswhey
Again your data of one any one time listening to radio is amazing, but we are looking at weekly ratings is what the talkers magazine criteria and the industry data I have been reporting.
From your source if you look at cume persons, (interesting how you only used time slot of 6am to midnight m-sun. And you conveniently forgot the midnight to 6am. Guess there are only 18 hours in your world? So here I used 24 hours because there are 24 hours in a day. From your listed source radio cume M-S 6 am to midnight is 147 million. Add in midnight to 6 am cume M-Su and there are 40 million more. Wow you discounted in your post a full 25%. That is so unproductive to debating when you can not post the entire facts. So the Cume total from your source is 187 million.
http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/ndbradio2.asp
Now do you know the difference between 16% of the population daily and how that can be mutually exclusive data? To get higher numbers of total listeners in a week? Are you saying talkers magazine does not know what they are talking about?
For CP weighting, this can be applied to two different areas, one, to remove local news from the mix and things like sports and weather. These are not the information for humans political awareness. This is simple and strange you could not figure this out as I gave an example, a news show had 5 minutes of national news and the rest was local, local crime, sports, weather. You take this and give it 5/20 for the total of 20 minutes without commercials. Multiply this into the numbers of listeners and we get a weighted number. Also a second one I would do but the rightys would never agree to this is add a political partisans to it.
Partisan ness would be a Liddy or Rush to the far right. A doctor Dean or Stern a non political, and general just news a coding of where it lies. In general I rate the TV networks as being corporatist to the right with their news. I have seen similar coding attempted by some conservatives but using their system puts reporting on Monica over a week as being somehow liberal. As we know no liberal would have run Monica past one week in any form of media. Just as the supposed affair Bush Sr had was only reported for one week. If it would have been a liberal media we would have stretched that out to today... So that would be the second weighting, showing crime constantly is a conservative thing. Not going after the top media person Rush day in day out is a conservative bias. If you listen to AAR, anything on there show as put by them is a liberal bias.
Gee we have proven cable is overly righty and radio is very overtly righty. Shall we work on the newspapers next, number one wall street journal, USA-Today, readers digest. Can we find a top paper where it has a liberal board of directors? That would be a nice thread. Find waldo, ie one paper where they have a liberal board of directors, is there such a thing or is it extinct.
And again you could call into Rush'rs show and complain about his name calling, the phone is righty in front of you. So if you are going to be so moral above us give him a call or be a typical hypocrite and cry victim to the liberal for dishing it back. I also do not feel my name calling is as bad as what the vice president said on the house floor or when the president of the united states gave a high school kid the finger for holding a protest sign. Also feminazis, environmental wackos, is very degrading. I use rightys not to degrade but as a shortcut to ultra conservatives, I also see all over the media calling democrats as liberals or left or lefties. i hope you begin your crusade of moral authority on name calling and contact each and every one of these in the right wing owned run, and such media.
If you read your source it backs up what I posted to the cable networks, all you needed to do is multiply by 7 and I did and included them in my estimate. All cable news and as you reported the total for all cable news is 21 million which I accept. and add that to the networks including their other partial news/information and we have at best 50-70 million more for a total of cable plus TV of 70-90 million.
From your source
QUOTE
During the day, 901,500 people watched Fox News at any given moment. The median audience of CNN was less than half that number, at 448,500. Roughly half that number again watched MSNBC— 229,500 (an increase for the channel from 224,000 a year earlier).
boy more of that liberal media.... in a rightys mind having twice as many viewers watching a very partisan right wing channel FOX show the media is liberal.
what about this chart from talkers magazine can you prove they have wrong
so I did the math for the challenged posters here. Lets try math
http://www.talkers.com/talkhosts.htm
Rush 13.5
hanity 12.5
savage 8.25
Dr Laura 7.75
Stern 7.75
Ingram 5
Boortz 3.75
Gallagher 3.75
Bohannon 3.25
Calrk howard 3.25
O’Rielly 3.25
Stephan 3.25
Beck 2.75
Joy Browne 2.75
Doyle 2.75
Noory 2.75
Bennett 2.25
Imus 2.25
Komando 2.25
Medved 2.25
Ramey 2.25
Rome 2.25
Ed shultz 2.25
Brinker 1.75
Lykis 1.75
Liddy 1.5
Frankin 1.5
Snow 1,5
Crammer 1.25
Colmes 1.25
Mancow 1.25
Rhodes 1.25
Dr. Dean 1.0
Hendrie 1.0
Hewit 1.0
Humphries 1.0
Larson 1.0
Lionel 1.0
Miller 1.0
Total 122 million weekly but remove ones like stern and Komando ones because they are not that political or news. This shows the almost total; add in all the pure news stations, and add in NPR. which I do not have the numbers for radio news stations or PBS. not needed because the race is not close yet.
So that is the number for radio for political/news information. These are weighted at 100%
Then for the tv I posted the network shows that blow away the cable shows. These totals were at best 70-90 million total.
thanks for showing/backing up how low the cable news numbers are, hopefully that closes that part of the debate.
It is amazing how some can not understand mutually exclusive data and mutually inclusive.
carlitoswhey
Again your data of one any one time listening to radio is amazing, but we are looking at weekly ratings is what the talkers magazine criteria and the industry data I have been reporting.
From your source if you look at cume persons, (interesting how you only used time slot of 6am to midnight m-sun. And you conveniently forgot the midnight to 6am. Guess there are only 18 hours in your world? So here I used 24 hours because there are 24 hours in a day. From your listed source radio cume M-S 6 am to midnight is 147 million. Add in midnight to 6 am cume M-Su and there are 40 million more. Wow you discounted in your post a full 25%. That is so unproductive to debating when you can not post the entire facts. So the Cume total from your source is 187 million.
http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/ndbradio2.asp
Now do you know the difference between 16% of the population daily and how that can be mutually exclusive data? To get higher numbers of total listeners in a week? Are you saying talkers magazine does not know what they are talking about?
For CP weighting, this can be applied to two different areas, one, to remove local news from the mix and things like sports and weather. These are not the information for humans political awareness. This is simple and strange you could not figure this out as I gave an example, a news show had 5 minutes of national news and the rest was local, local crime, sports, weather. You take this and give it 5/20 for the total of 20 minutes without commercials. Multiply this into the numbers of listeners and we get a weighted number. Also a second one I would do but the rightys would never agree to this is add a political partisans to it.
Partisan ness would be a Liddy or Rush to the far right. A doctor Dean or Stern a non political, and general just news a coding of where it lies. In general I rate the TV networks as being corporatist to the right with their news. I have seen similar coding attempted by some conservatives but using their system puts reporting on Monica over a week as being somehow liberal. As we know no liberal would have run Monica past one week in any form of media. Just as the supposed affair Bush Sr had was only reported for one week. If it would have been a liberal media we would have stretched that out to today... So that would be the second weighting, showing crime constantly is a conservative thing. Not going after the top media person Rush day in day out is a conservative bias. If you listen to AAR, anything on there show as put by them is a liberal bias.
Gee we have proven cable is overly righty and radio is very overtly righty. Shall we work on the newspapers next, number one wall street journal, USA-Today, readers digest. Can we find a top paper where it has a liberal board of directors? That would be a nice thread. Find waldo, ie one paper where they have a liberal board of directors, is there such a thing or is it extinct.
QUOTE
CP, As I told you none have been national for 3 years... your Sirius example did not make the challenge below you will see how many righty wing broadcasters there are and they have been there for years, Rush 1984ish. I have not said AAR is not out there. The debate is Radio is the major source of viewers for news political. Then second to that that radio is predominately Right wing. The list below shows that radio is predominately right wing, the best a partisan liberal gets is Ed Schultz. 95% are righty wing partisans.
Read what you just said. You just said the debate is whether radio is the major source of poliitcal news and whether it is right wing...HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD? That is an artificial time period that you constructed for reasons you haven't made clear, and that, frankly, I don't careabout. QUOTE
And again you could call into Rush'rs show and complain about his name calling, the phone is righty in front of you. So if you are going to be so moral above us give him a call or be a typical hypocrite and cry victim to the liberal for dishing it back.
Listen to me very carefully inventor...I never called anyone a feminazi, I never called anyone a lefty, or a loony or anything stupid like that...Hypocrite would imply that I called liberals a bad name and then complained you did it back...But that isn't true since I never called liberals a bad name. I'll say this again, because you're not understanding me...Not all people you deem to be "righties" are represented by Rush Limbaugh...Just because he calls feminists feminazis doesn't make me a hypocrite for saying that calling people you disagree with "righties" is pointless and immature. I can't be anymore clear than that.QUOTE
i hope you begin your crusade of moral authority on name calling and contact each and every one of these in the right wing owned run, and such media.
I'm in awe. Awe...I-...Here's the deal, I think that when you call conservatives "righties" or any other of these ridiculous names, it makes you look silly and it's personally very annoying because I'd rather not get hung up on labeling people. That doesn't mean that I have the obligation to call everyone in the media to tell them to stop calling liberal left-wing. Now, you've never actually defended your use of the term righties or ultra-conservative, instead you've given me this ridiculous theory that because I'm saying that you're doing something annoying, that I now have to tell everyone else on the planet who does that same thing to stop...As I said, I'm in awe.QUOTE
what about this chart from talkers magazine can you prove they have wrong
so I did the math for the challenged posters here. Lets try math
http://www.talkers.com/talkhosts.htm
Rush 13.5
hanity 12.5
savage 8.25
Dr Laura 7.75
Stern 7.75
Ingram 5
Boortz 3.75
Gallagher 3.75
Bohannon 3.25
Calrk howard 3.25
O’Rielly 3.25
Stephan 3.25
Beck 2.75
Joy Browne 2.75
Doyle 2.75
Noory 2.75
Bennett 2.25
Imus 2.25
Komando 2.25
Medved 2.25
Ramey 2.25
Rome 2.25
Ed shultz 2.25
Brinker 1.75
Lykis 1.75
Liddy 1.5
Frankin 1.5
Snow 1,5
Crammer 1.25
Colmes 1.25
Mancow 1.25
Rhodes 1.25
Dr. Dean 1.0
Hendrie 1.0
Hewit 1.0
Humphries 1.0
Larson 1.0
Lionel 1.0
Miller 1.0
Total 122 million weekly but remove ones like stern and Komando ones because they are not that political or news. This shows the almost total; add in all the pure news stations. which I do not have the numbers for radio news stations.
so I did the math for the challenged posters here. Lets try math
http://www.talkers.com/talkhosts.htm
Rush 13.5
hanity 12.5
savage 8.25
Dr Laura 7.75
Stern 7.75
Ingram 5
Boortz 3.75
Gallagher 3.75
Bohannon 3.25
Calrk howard 3.25
O’Rielly 3.25
Stephan 3.25
Beck 2.75
Joy Browne 2.75
Doyle 2.75
Noory 2.75
Bennett 2.25
Imus 2.25
Komando 2.25
Medved 2.25
Ramey 2.25
Rome 2.25
Ed shultz 2.25
Brinker 1.75
Lykis 1.75
Liddy 1.5
Frankin 1.5
Snow 1,5
Crammer 1.25
Colmes 1.25
Mancow 1.25
Rhodes 1.25
Dr. Dean 1.0
Hendrie 1.0
Hewit 1.0
Humphries 1.0
Larson 1.0
Lionel 1.0
Miller 1.0
Total 122 million weekly but remove ones like stern and Komando ones because they are not that political or news. This shows the almost total; add in all the pure news stations. which I do not have the numbers for radio news stations.
Okay, either you didn't read that list, or you're trying to sneak one buy us. You do realize that Don Imus is on that list right? And Alex Bennet? Neither of whom are conservatives, I've never heard of several of the others so am therefore not sure if they too are conservative. Second of all, what unit of measure are those numbers in? It looks like millions of viewers per week right? Okay, so get rid of Rhodes, Imus, Bennet and all the other liberals on that list and keep all of the conservatives. So why don't we re-do you're little equation here with just conservatives so we can actually do the correct math, okay?
QUOTE
It is amazing how some can not understand mutually exclusive data and mutually inclusive.
It's amazing that you can give me a list of radio personalities, included in whom are non-conservatives, which you then try to pass off as fact, and then you tell ME that YOU are amazed that some people just can't understand mutually exclusive data. Pardon me for being such a knuckle dragging idiot.
I've also noticed that you've given up on saying that Rush has more listeners than the cable news stations have viewers, that's nice to see.
QUOTE
Gee we have proven cable is overly righty and radio is very overtly righty. Shall we work on the newspapers next, number one wall street journal, USA-Today, readers digest. Can we find a top paper where it has a liberal board of directors? That would be a nice thread. Find waldo, ie one paper where they have a liberal board of directors, is there such a thing or is it extinct.
Have "we" now? We haven't proven anything because we still haven't presented data that shows that cable news is "righty" or that "righty" radio is more popular than television. On edit: When I add up all of the nationally syndicated conservatives on that list I get 51.25 million listeners a week, by the way, which is significantly less than FNC+CNN+C-SPAN+CBS+NBC+CBS+MSBNC, etc.
CP
QUOTE(inventor @ Oct 5 2006, 12:19 PM)
carlitoswhey
Again your data of one any one time listening to radio is amazing, but we are looking at weekly ratings is what the talkers magazine criteria and the industry data I have been reporting.
From your source if you look at cume persons, (interesting how you only used time slot of 6am to midnight m-sun. And you conveniently forgot the midnight to 6am. Guess there are only 18 hours in your world? So here I used 24 hours because there are 24 hours in a day. From your listed source radio cume M-S 6 am to midnight is 147 million. Add in midnight to 6 am cume M-Su and there are 40 million more. Wow you discounted in your post a full 25%. That is so unproductive to debating when you can not post the entire facts. So the Cume total from your source is 187 million.
http://wargod.arbitron.com/scripts/ndb/ndbradio2.asp
Except that You can't add the 40 million overnight listeners to the equation, because like your other example, many of them are the same person. Believe me, if arbitron had a measure like the one you tried to create, it would only be a few percent higher. Overnight ratings are extremely low.
Monday - Sunday 6A - Midnight is just a standard industry measure. No conspiracy. You notice that the arbitron tool doesn't even offer a 24-hour measure. That's because the Monday-Sunday 6A - Mid is the most inclusive measure of how many people are listening cumulatively to the radio.
QUOTE(inventor)
Now do you know the difference between 16% of the population daily and how that can be mutually exclusive data? To get higher numbers of total listeners in a week? Are you saying talkers magazine does not know what they are talking about?
No, I'm saying that lots of people listen to 2 or 3 or 5 radio shows in a week. If 40 million people watch CSI, and 50 million people watch Cold Case, and 20 million people watch the CBS Evening News, that doesn't mean that CBS has 110 million people watching, it's just the cumulative number of viewers. You can't do the type of math you are doing to these numbers. Otherwise, if you extrapolate, you would soon have a population of billions in the USA.
CP as far as you understanding the methods here let me spell a few things out. First the challenge was a demonstration to show the radio media is obviously not dominated by liberals if one can not show one liberal who has been on nationally for more than 1 hour a day for more than three years. It shows a disparity when we can name many on the right. But now I/we have a much better way to show it in the listenership weekly numbers from talking mag. Again I have had people tell me that radio is not righty oriented. Including on this thread. The numbers are overwhelming to one side. It shows how out of touch the people on the right are when they claim including the radio is liberal. This data speaks for itself if one has a brain, and have not seen anyone here dispute this new method of weekly. Even if one says imas is not a conservative which he is, his numbers are immaterial.
But you missed the bigger point of the listing and including liberals and conservatives. Understand the thread and you will understand we add all the hours to determine if Radio is actually larger or the main form of news/information. You want to pull the liberals out which their numbers are so small it would not matter in this case but you miss the entire point by your question. It is news information total on radio vs news information total on TV.
Then as a second subset of the bias if radio is the major source which I have shown it is by the talkers mag numbers vs what we have found for weekly TV including your 21 million for cable news. and now that radio is the larger then I state very correctly as evidenced by the talkers mag numbers that the radio is overwhelmingly righty slanted. for that yes we pull out the liberals which are only a few at the bottom vs the conservatives and as I said about 95% slanted to the right and far right as the norm.
Thus rightys cry and moan and play victim all the time about the liberal media when it has been a righty media in the radio for ever, as I mentioned there has not been a liberal with a national presence for 3 years to date. so this is just not today or yesterday it has been this way since I began listening to Rush on the radio in the late 80s.
And it was important while some wanted to go to other modes of data they did not post anything that shows talker mag or the TV/cable date is wrong.
I will also tell you what CP as far as me calling people rightys and you saying it weakens the post somehow, ask me if I care next. I really don't. And can you tell me how that critique has anything to do with the subject?
carlitoswhey I was dealing with the cume ratings because it "reflects the percentage of the population that listened at least once to the radio during the week for any given daypart" ie where do people get their news/information from. and found you going to these numbers of total to difficult to move to anything relevant to what the talkers mag data said, as you elude to in this post we can not pull anything out of either for this topic presently.
http://www.arbitron.com/home/arlt_faqs.asp
But you missed the bigger point of the listing and including liberals and conservatives. Understand the thread and you will understand we add all the hours to determine if Radio is actually larger or the main form of news/information. You want to pull the liberals out which their numbers are so small it would not matter in this case but you miss the entire point by your question. It is news information total on radio vs news information total on TV.
Then as a second subset of the bias if radio is the major source which I have shown it is by the talkers mag numbers vs what we have found for weekly TV including your 21 million for cable news. and now that radio is the larger then I state very correctly as evidenced by the talkers mag numbers that the radio is overwhelmingly righty slanted. for that yes we pull out the liberals which are only a few at the bottom vs the conservatives and as I said about 95% slanted to the right and far right as the norm.
Thus rightys cry and moan and play victim all the time about the liberal media when it has been a righty media in the radio for ever, as I mentioned there has not been a liberal with a national presence for 3 years to date. so this is just not today or yesterday it has been this way since I began listening to Rush on the radio in the late 80s.
And it was important while some wanted to go to other modes of data they did not post anything that shows talker mag or the TV/cable date is wrong.
I will also tell you what CP as far as me calling people rightys and you saying it weakens the post somehow, ask me if I care next. I really don't. And can you tell me how that critique has anything to do with the subject?
carlitoswhey I was dealing with the cume ratings because it "reflects the percentage of the population that listened at least once to the radio during the week for any given daypart" ie where do people get their news/information from. and found you going to these numbers of total to difficult to move to anything relevant to what the talkers mag data said, as you elude to in this post we can not pull anything out of either for this topic presently.
http://www.arbitron.com/home/arlt_faqs.asp
QUOTE
What is the difference between Cume Rating and AQH Rating in the Persons Using Radio report?
Cume Rating in the Persons Using Radio report reflects the percentage of the population that listened at least once to the radio during the week for any given daypart. In contrast, the AQH Rating will show the percentage of the population that is listening during any average quarter hour for the selected daypart. For example, 95% of the people may listen to radio during the week (Cume Rating), while an average of 16% are listening during any average quarter hour during the week (AQH Rating).
Cume Rating in the Persons Using Radio report reflects the percentage of the population that listened at least once to the radio during the week for any given daypart. In contrast, the AQH Rating will show the percentage of the population that is listening during any average quarter hour for the selected daypart. For example, 95% of the people may listen to radio during the week (Cume Rating), while an average of 16% are listening during any average quarter hour during the week (AQH Rating).
QUOTE
I will also tell you what CP as far as me calling people rightys and you saying it weakens the post somehow, ask me if I care next. I really don't. And can you tell me how that critique has anything to do with the subject?
I'm sure you don't....However, I just though it'd be pertinent given the fact that it's in the Survival Guide.
QUOTE
CP as far as you understanding the methods here let me spell a few things out. First the challenge was a demonstration to show the radio media is obviously not dominated by liberals if one can not show one liberal who has been on nationally for more than 1 hour a day for more than three years. It shows a disparity when we can name many on the right. But now I/we have a much better way to show it in the listenership weekly numbers from talking mag. Again I have had people tell me that radio is not righty oriented. Including on this thread. The numbers are overwhelming to one side. It shows how out of touch the people on the right are when they claim including the radio is liberal. This data speaks for itself if one has a brain, and have not seen anyone here dispute this new method of weekly. Even if one says imas is not a conservative which he is, his numbers are immaterial.
Well, that was me who said Imus wasn't conservative, due, in most part because he isn't. He isn't a liberal, but he certainly isn't a conservative. I won't speak for Carlito, but I don't believe that I've ever said talk radio isn't conservative...What I have said and proven with statistics [which you haven't responded to for some reason
] it is easy to see that all of the cable news networks have a larger viewership than conservative talk radio hosts who are nationally syndicated. I still maintain that this three years issue you have is a completely arbitrary number.QUOTE
You want to pull the liberals out which their numbers are so small it would not matter in this case but you miss the entire point by your question. It is news information total on radio vs news information total on TV.
Actually liberals and non-political types represent a fairly large number of the listeners on that list, if I'm not mistaken Stern alone is in third place in terms of listenership. Also, I think you're attempting to revise what you've been saying for the past few posts, the issue is not total news on radio v. total news on tv, it's total viewership on tv vs. total listenership on radio, which, as Carlito and I have all but proven are overwhelmingly in favor of televison.Again inventor, add up the ratings/viewership for all of those networks who cover the news and you'll see that that 52 million plus that makes up the "righty" radio listenership is a fraction of the number that watches TV news.
CP