Writes the lefty Drudge Retort, noting that Limbaugh hasn't lost listeners (and has probably gained listeners, people who are "curious about what the fuss is all about").
Quoted by Professor Jacobson, who says: "[T]his never has been about those two words or even the three days. It’s an attempt to intimidate and silence conservative talk radio, so better safe than sorry."
Limbaugh is likely to make this controversy work for him. For years, he's been tweaking the media and using its pushback to generate interesting/funny/pithy material. This pushback may be a lot more than he wanted from that particular tweak, but if he's the master of radio that he purports to be, he'll get it working for him.
How many times have I heard Rush quote Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." (That's Rule 13, in case you're counting. Page 130 in the Vintage, Kindle Edition.)
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target’s vulnerability—where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, any target can always say, “Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?” When you “freeze the target,” you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all the others to blame. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the “others” come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target. The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...Rush knows he's the target they've picked and the game they are playing. Can he outplay them? With half his brain tied behind his back, just to make it fair?
Let nothing get you off your target. With this focus comes a polarization. As we have indicated before, all issues must be polarized if action is to follow. The classic statement on polarization comes from Christ: “He that is not with me is against me” (Luke 11:23). He allowed no middle ground to the money-changers in the Temple. One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other....
Posts
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225Willard:
Well, you know I’m surprised to hear that Denver’s thinking about him [Peyton Manning], they’re — I don’t want him in our neck of the woods, lets put it that way, I don’t want him to go to Miami or to the Jets. But I’ve got a lot of good friends, the owner Miami Dolphins, and the New York Jets — both owners are friends of mine. But let’s keep him away from New England, so that Tom Brady has a better shot of picking up a championship for us.
D'oh! :(
The sneering about Rush's audience done by Mahal only shows Mahal's ignorance - not for the first time.
Rush can't make up audience numbers for his advertisers, they have access to audience surveys by Arbitron.
What this episode shows is that the old tactics of the Left are obsolete. But the Left does not realize it. The Occupy Your Ass protests backfired, the attempt to boycott Rush backfires. And in November, we'll see a GOP sweep that Obama and the Democrats have earned with their incompetence, their corruption and their broken promises.
Also potentially discoverable here would be the identities of the various women whom Flake was supposedly testifying about, their stories, and possibly here own sexual history. After all, if she is called a sl**, and really is a sl**, then there is no falsity, and no defamation.
Then, after getting over the discovery hurdle, Flake would have to prove harm, actual damages, and likely actual malice (as defined by the courts), since she is most likely a public figure, due to her thrusting herself into the public spotlight, by volunteering to "testify" before all those cameras on such an important and newsworthy topic.
What were her actual damages? The extra money she can now make with interviews? The greater possibility that she could move in next door to Ann as a law professor?
BTW - some have argued per se defamation. Once that might have been true. But, most per se classes of defamation have been abolished by courts, and, even if this fell into one of those classes, I don't think that it would fly, because a woman testifying about the need for free birth control is impliedly unchaste. Which may be another reason to get into her sexual history during discovery.
The sneering about Rush's audience done by Mahal only shows Mahal's ignorance - not for the first time.
I'm just asking for the proof, I said I could be wrong. But that's the thing, I'm not sure there is proof available. Arbitron has never tried to measure Limbaugh's audience. The 20 million figure is from Limbaugh, first claimed in 1993.
Obese
Drug Addict
Blowhard
Pervert
Sounds like a perfect description of Ted Kennedy.
Does anyone remember that a 30-year old, single, sexual-politics-activist woman with an agenda (who's still attending Georgetown Law at $40,000 per year) got up in front of a fake house subcommittee hearing invented by Nancy Pelosi to move the argument from Obama's unconstitutional imperial decree forcing free people to provide free oral contraceptives to rich women so they can have sex whenever they want to?
As this started as a public debate over public tax monies paying for contraceptives so Sandra Fluke and loose women like her can have sex whenever she wants at college, I don't see how Rush was incorrect in anything he said.
You're the guy who didn't pay attention in school, right?
I'm the guy who got an education by ignoring liberal indoctrination, yes.
You apparently got a full dose of thought-limiting liberal indoctrination. My sympathies.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to actually think, instead of just repeating liberal nonsense over and over and over and over and over?
If not, well, I guess that's why you make such a gosh-darn great liberal!
For years, he's been tweaking the media and using its pushback to generate interesting/funny/pithy material.
Rush is none of these things
I'm just asking for the proof, I said I could be wrong. But that's the thing, I'm not sure there is proof available. Arbitron has never tried to measure Limbaugh's audience. The 20 million figure is from Limbaugh, first claimed in 1993.
And we just want proof that Democrats aren't illegally voting in the tens of thousands, if not millions, across the nation.
You go first. The validity of Democratic votes is actually in much greater dispute, and has a much greater impact on our nation.
Until/unless you provide proof that all Democrat votes cast since 1960 are 100% valid, you have no right to question a generally-accepted and easily verified statistic of Rush's listening audience.
I will say, I'm impressed by how quickly you memorize and regurgitate your Democrat/liberal "What to Believe Today" marching orders.
Sasha and Malia would not approve of this thread.
But I bet their Dad hopes this leads to more contributions from those who value civility
So... Michelle is appearing on Letterman?
OH, Fat Man...we love you...we really, really love you!!
The Althouse Gang.
P.S. WE LOVE YOU!!!
Back in 2009, The Washington Post did report that the constant republishing of this huge number (15-20 million) — a number apparently unchanged since 1993 — was based on a guess.
This is because (unlike how TV viewership numbers are calculated), radio listenership figures are still based on the rather ancient method of diaries and numbers include anyone who listens, even if only for a minute, during a week. The numbers also come from those with a self-interest in big numbers rather than some independent measurement body.
The Post found that Arbitron, the overseer of U.S. radio ratings, has never tried to measure Limbaugh’s audience.
Arbitron told The Post: “There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis.”
That eight-digit number [20 million] is what’s known in radio as the “cume” (short for cumulative). It in no way reflects the actual audience size like the way television shows are measured minute by minute or half-hour by half-hour. Instead, the cume number represents a very large — and generous — umbrella covering the number of people who, in theory, tune into a program at any time during the week, even if it’s for just two minutes.
Limbaugh’s rating becomes 1.4 million, which is roughly the same size audience that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann get each night on cable TV.
One number which we know is a fact is that Limbaugh is America’s least popular ‘news personality’ according to a recent Harris Poll. Nearly half of all Americans rank him their ‘least favorite,’ twice the number of CNN’s Nancy Grace. Even a quarter of Republicans don’t like him.
I'm the guy who got an education by ignoring liberal indoctrination, yes.
Or, as you more accurately described it elsewhere, you failed to pay attention in school.
On the other hand, I was attentive in school, in college and in grad school.
Thanks, though, for the lecture on holding oneself to high standards. With a touch of humor, your posts would almost qualify as decent trolling. Keep striving for those high standards, Mr. Alexander!
"Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig."
The Democrats used to use black people to scare white women voters. Now they use Rush.
SO, what is it?
Rush is the leader of the GOP!!!
or
No one listens to Rush!!
Of course "news" articles issued from the leftwing propaganda mills supporting the Democrat Party and Obamas re-election that attack Rush Limbaugh are always accurate and NEVER politically driven.
"Rush is the leader of the GOP!!!"
Yes, and a small % of bigoted conservatives, including Althouse, joyfully listen to Limbo to get their racist fix for the day.
Asked and answered! :)
Hey, everyone has a routine, much like Althouse's addicted/supportive lemmings ...
Can't quite figure this out. AL tells us that Rush is the leader of the Republican Party, while Love tells us that Rachel Madcow and Keith Olbermann have as many viewers as he does. Does this mean that the two of them are the leaders of the Democratic Party? But, that can't be right, because then Hannity would probably be the leader of the Republicans (with O'Reilly I think still maintaining neutrality).
Though, I will say that under those criteria, Madcow is a lot more of a Democratic Party leader than is Olbermann. Looking at last weeks ratings, she appears to have the best non-FNC ratings of any show host, approaching those of Greta, beating former Democratic Party operatives Crissy Mathews and Laurence O'Donnell. Olbermann, well, can't really find him in the prime time ratings. Maybe after midnight? Apparently, he was fired last year by PMSNBC, and so is no longer a party leader.
But, under this criteria, Bob Beckel is probably the biggest Democratic Party leader, far surpassing either Madcow or Olbermann, based on the ratings of FNC's The Five. Not sure though where he falls in relationship to President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader Pelosi, or DNC chair Debby whats-her-name. Yeh, the ditzy one with the weird hair and aggravating voice.
Which is, I guess, why these two assertions seem to be in contradiction. If party leadership is based on viewer or listener-ship, then Bectel might be the Democrat party leader, with Madcow close behind, but if such leadership is based on some sort of elections and organizations, then for the Republicans, it would be the RNC chair, Senate Minority Leader, House Speaker, mainstream Presidential candidates (i.e. excluding Ron Paul), candidates in the last election (i.e. McCain and Palin), etc.
"Can't quite figure this out."
Life can be confusing! :D
And brucie boy, don't hang your hat on anything Billo er fixednoise says as it may be quite embarrassing.
ok, Althouse's flock embarrasses themselves daily, so not to worry. :)
And brucie boy, don't hang your hat on anything Billo er fixednoise says as it may be quite embarrassing.
Not sure who either of those are, but pretty sure that I don't hang my hat on what either says.
Not sure though what else there you were trying to say, except to maybe illustrate that you prefer arguing through personal insult than through the use of logic.
Speaking of "logic" brucie boy, if you didn't understand, why did you reply ?!? :D Rhetorical.
take care, blessings and keep listening to the falafel-guy. :)
Carnifex: I like using Alinsky as an improper noun, but I already had a definition for "Obama: (n) a fresh pile of dog sh!t.". To "Soros" is the act of leaving an Obama. Example: "I was walking the dog when he Sorosed the neighbor's lawn, and I was out of plastic bags.
Post a Comment