Rush is back!

[Osomir]

In short I'd rather see him rely on the quality of his content rather than on the generation of a personality cult following, or on emotive sensationalism. Journalists who have to rely on that aren't very good / high quality journalists.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.

This IlarMeilyr cat apparently takes trolling very seriously. I've never even interacted with this clown but here's a complete list of all the points he's made in this thread:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I guess it COULD (possibly, conceivably) be a different pogo.

The arrogance is quite familiar however.

Anyway, it sure does take itself seriously.

What, you think I'm somebody else?
No, never been anybody else, and I've never used this handle before here.

In any case, you've made no points on the topic, you've just tried to poison my well, on your word alone with no evidence.
BOR-ing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.

Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016. Nobody has ever been able to touch his ratings though his viewing audience is somewhat reduced because he paved the way for dozens of others to prosper in consevative talk radio and those others naturally siphon off some of the audience. Conservative talk radio audience, however, continues to grow.

His books were long running best sellers, he has won more awards than probably any other media personality--he is one of only two to have won the prestigious Marconi Award four times. I believe his television show would have eventually won a permanent prime time slot, but he really didn't like doing television. He's a radio guy.

He raises mega millions every year for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundations and is known to give much in charitable and philanthropic contributions from his sizable fortune.

Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh; however much the Left wants him to be destroyed, taken down, to fail; however much you hate his pespective, however much you repeat the hateful insults and downright falsehoods from the many hate sites out there, he is the most successful person in his field that has ever lived. I suspect that will be a record that will stand for a very long time.

 

[Pogo]

Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.

I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.

A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.

To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.

Beautifully expressed.

Limblob has (this is my theory) been more than anyone else responsible for the polarization of political discourse in the last two decades. The continual demonization, the one-track "we're good and they're evil" mentality, is not a healthy thing. It is not a conservative value, and to the extent he gives the world that impression, he does his own side a gross disservice.

It does make money though. As H.L. Mencken noted, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

Bill Buckley did conservative discourse proud; Limblob makes it a joke.

 

[Ernie S.]

Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.

I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.

A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.

To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.

Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?

 

[Osomir]

Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.

I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.

Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.

Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.


The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

I suppose that isn't really a problem, the problem is that many of his viewers depend on him as a journalist instead of simply seeing him as an entertainer.

 

[Osomir]

Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?

I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.

Rush Limbaugh 14 million

That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.

Its never been that high. Its not 14 mil either. There have been articles about him padding his numbers. Doesn't really matter though. He has stated outright that he says what he's paid to say. Funny that one of the rw's posted that a D congress man makes only $175K as though bragging about lushbo being a paid shill is a good thing.

That's the diff between the right and left though.

Lushbo - jiggly fat, drug and alcohol addicted, drug smuggler, openly lying scum bag of the lowest order, just makes the left look that much better.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?

I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.

Don't forget to post the video proof that she's a vampire.

(yes, the rw's really are that stupid.)

Its on You Tube, hysterically funny and well worth watching.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?

I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.

You said:

He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.

while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?

I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.

Don't forget to post the video proof that she's a vampire.

(yes, the rw's really are that stupid.)

Its on You Tube, hysterically funny and well worth watching.

This message is hidden because you have your dumbshit filter on.

 

[Papageorgio]

The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.

Rush Limbaugh 14 million

That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.

Its never been that high. Its not 14 mil either. There have been articles about him padding his numbers. Doesn't really matter though. He has stated outright that he says what he's paid to say. Funny that one of the rw's posted that a D congress man makes only $175K as though bragging about lushbo being a paid shill is a good thing.

That's the diff between the right and left though.

Lushbo - jiggly fat, drug and alcohol addicted, drug smuggler, openly lying scum bag of the lowest order, just makes the left look that much better.

So Arbitron lies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

 

[Osomir]

while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.

Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).

Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.

I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.

I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.

Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.

Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.


The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.

I disagree that he sensationalizes anything and he rants against sensationalization quite a bit. That is a sin he will call folks on almost every time.

As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary, he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good. There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.

I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.

Rush is not anybody's guru or leader. If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice, Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice. So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.

Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.

And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

Liberal!

December 20, 2007
RUSH: That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer. Don't take me seriously.

January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist. I think what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, "We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."

 

[Osomir]

Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.

I agree that he does that very well. The problem for me is that that's really his end game. He does that well, but he doesn't offer intellectual honesty, level headed discourse, quality information, nor does he promote critical thought.

In short, he is an entertainer, not a quality media journalist. Which is fine, the problem comes from how he attempts to brand himself (as a quality media journalist) and how he is relied upon by many of his viewers as a legitimate source of media which he isn't.

As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary,

That doesn't make it quality.

he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good.

And there I would disagree, he tends to have a poor record of research which leads him into making highly emotive and provocative comments on a multitude of subjects that he pretends to have expert knowledge of, but really doesn't. His stance on the LRA comes to mind and his claim that Obama was sending troops to Africa to fight Christians. He was defending perhaps one of the best known international terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly one of the most brutal. Now of course everyone makes mistakes, but I have never listened to a show of his where he hasn't either gotten something wrong, over exaggerated something, or sensationalized it to the point of intellectual dishonesty. That's no way to disseminate information. I've seen entire countries fall to personalities like him. Luckily the rest of our society is strong enough to withstand him.

There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.

The largest problem for me is his delivery, his emotiveness, his reliance on angry discourse and sensationalism and his habit of telling his viewers exactly what they should think (though his own discourse). That's not what journalists are supposed to do. He's a mockery to the institution.

I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.

I may come across as being a little hard on him, but I am hard on media in general given my background in it and given how important I feel the institution is. He isn't the only one that I dislike for his journalistic techniques. MSNBC, Fox News channel, Pretty much most mainstream tv news outlets, I don't particularly care for any of them. 60 minutes is alright, I think that Fareed Zakaria's GPS is excellent and more what media journalism should be like. Pretty much anyone who is a "personality" though I can't stand.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left. He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market. Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot. Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's. They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.

I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.

Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.

Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.


The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.

A writer writes, Foxy. A journalist reports news. A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.

Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel. I think that's Osomir's point. You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party". That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop. And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.

I disagree that he sensationalizes anything and he rants against sensationalization quite a bit. That is a sin he will call folks on almost every time.

"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism? What is it, chopped liver?

As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that. In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary, he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good. There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right. Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare. And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.

I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days

...QED.

, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles. There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste. But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.

Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours". It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto. Liberalism founded this country.

Rush is not anybody's guru or leader. If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice, Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice. So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.

That makes no sense. You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?

If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?

Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.

And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.

Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience. Yelling "slut" sure does though.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.



Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.


The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining. His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in. He knows how to do that very well.

A writer writes, Foxy. A journalist reports news. A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.

Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel. I think that's Osomir's point. You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party". That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop. And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.



"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism? What is it, chopped liver?



...QED.



Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours". It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto. Liberalism founded this country.

Rush is not anybody's guru or leader. If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice, Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice. So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.

That makes no sense. You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?

If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?

Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience. He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated. And there are a whole lot of us.

And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.

Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience. Yelling "slut" sure does though.

Holy ****. This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.

The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush. It reflects on you.

Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright. You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal. Twits like you are a dime a dozen.

 

[Osomir]

Liberal!

December 20, 2007
RUSH: That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer. Don't take me seriously.

January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller praising my talents as a journalist. I think what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, "We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."

A couple of things here:

1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.

I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.

2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.

 

[Ernie S.]

while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.

Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).

Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.

I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.

Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.