Too bad, Limbaugh ratings not plunging

[busybody..]

Too bad, Limbaugh ratings not plunging






I really urge you to take a look at the Twitter hastag #StopRush, it’s one of the more depressing places on the internet; one can’t help but feel sorry for people who spend their day tweeting obsessively the same things over and over again, day after day, when the rest of the world (except for Media Matters and NOW) has moved on.

One piece of news which had the #StopRush folks cheering was a report that Limbaugh’s ratings plunged in April, which gave hope that their tweets were not in vain.

Well, as with many misleading political memes, there was a kernal of truth there. But only comparing April to March, which was a blockbuster month for Limbaugh. As reported fairly by The Hollywood Reporter, Reports of Rush Limbaugh Ratings Plunge Exaggerated


Reports circulating online Tuesday indicating a massive drop in Rush Limbaugh’s audience – as much as 40 percent in some markets – might be premature.

The Arbitron data that was released to several reporters shows a decline from March to April — presumably due to Limbaugh’s characterization of law student/activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut” — but only after a surge that was probably caused by the same incident.

Reports circulating online Tuesday indicating a massive drop in Rush Limbaugh’s audience – as much as 40 percent in some markets – might be premature.

The Arbitron data that was released to several reporters shows a decline from March to April — presumably due to Limbaugh’s characterization of law student/activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut” — but only after a surge that was probably caused by the same incident.

Tom Maguire had a similar analysis, and notes how it’s spun:


What’s fun, in an entirely predictable way, is the loss of nuance at Media Matters, which only notes the lead.

The effort to force Limbaugh off the airwaves is not over, but in the key demographic — people who listen to him on the radio — he hasn’t been damaged.

 

[busybody..]

How many times has AIR AMERICA gone bust?


How many times did AIR AMERICA steal money from BLACK KIDS?

 

[off2bed]

"The viewer plunge at CNN, which just recorded its lowest ratings in 20 years, is presenting a “challenge” to the Cable News Network to fight back against scrappier and more provocative cable networks, according to network anchor John King..."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...5/john-king-laments-fewer-watching-cnn/645496

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/fun_games_with_mainstream_media_numbers.html




Million Man Math Method

 

[busybody..]

The Walking Dead


But until their carcass is consumed, they can do much damage......

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More "Fun with Numbers."

In the space of seven days, to name just three of the more obvious offenses, alleged journalists at the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, told us that “home construction is near a three-year high,” when it’s nowhere near there; seemed astonished that presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney didn’t serve up any “red-meat conservative policy” in a college graduation address; and wondered whether John Boehner and congressional Republicans are “deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances.” Oh, and it would appear that the folks at AP are coming down with a developing case of what I would describe as “thin-skin syndrome.”

The “home construction” howler of May 16 came about because AP economics reporter Chris Rugaber, perhaps with help from a colleague who has made the same mistake, seems to believe that “housing starts” and “home construction” are synonymous.

That’s wrong on two levels. First, “residential housing” includes single and multifamily units; “homes” is a word usually reserved to describe “single family homes.” Second, the housing starts statistic, while useful as an indication of where the industry might be headed in the coming months, is arguably the least important of the three items one must consider to get a handle on the current level of “home construction” for comparative purposes. The other two, as seen in the Census Bureau’s definition of “new residential construction,” are “total units under construction” and “units completed.”

So how does the current level of “home construction” as properly defined square with Rugaber’s claim that it’s “near a three-year high”? It doesn’t — at all:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/another-week-that-reeked-at-the-administrations-press/?singlepage=true

 

[off2bed]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/fun_games_with_mainstream_media_numbers.html




Million Man Math Method

Yep, just like Biden saying Will and Grace helped "re-educate" Americans to accept gays, even though the highest rated episode was seen by a whopping 6% of the US population.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But the story is still true!

 

[off2bed]

But the story is still true!

It's like saying Top Shot has gotten Americans to accept the 2nd Amendment.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Great Debate
By R. EMMETT TYRRELL, JR., The American Spectator
Zombie Liberals would rather sit this one out.

WASHINGTON -- Here I am on the campaign trail, frenetically promoting my book, The Death of Liberalism. I appear on scores of radio interviews, in and out of the studio. I appear on Fox News and C-SPAN. I hardly have time for dinner, but it could be more demanding still. I could be invited to appear on mainstream media, as it is still quaintly called. Yet I am not. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC do not call. I, the editor of a major magazine from the right that has been around for 45 years, have written a book arguing that a major political ideology, Liberalism, is dead, and no one in the mainstream media seems to think it merits even a spitball. Things have changed even more than the mainstream media knows.

Thirty years ago, when I came out with a book, all the above networks -- at least all the above networks that were then in business -- would have me on. They thought I was crazy, but they would have me on. Through all these years my views have not changed or radicalized. They remain pretty much fixed, though possibly I am a little bit more liberal. I am more tolerant of sexual diversity. I have flipped and oppose capital punishment. I am open to reforming the criminal justice system to treat nonviolent crime differently from violent crimes. But today the mainstream media is alien country to me. I cannot get in even with a green card. Three, possibly four, presidents have been my friends, but I remain persona non grata with mainstream media, especially when I talk about politics.

The voices of conventional mainstream media never tire of mawkishly saying that something has changed in America. In this I agree with them. Yet as my hordes of publicists spread out through medialand tempting the personages with appetizing morsels of my thesis, only the conservatives bite. The Liberals turn a stony face. In 2009 when Sam Tanenhaus came out with a book titled The Death of Conservatism they clapped their hands, though there was no evidence in the book to support its thesis, and a year later, on October 19, 2010, as the conservatives were about to have their mightiest victory in decades, the unfortunate Tanenhaus came out with a second edition now in paperback!

Today, of course, the mainstream media bewail how polarized the political landscape has become. They fret over the violent language, the dirty tricks, the lack of dialogue. But what they are fretting about is that there has over the past thirty years appeared a point of view that disagrees with the serried ranks of Liberalism. It is the point of view held by 42 percent of the American people. It is the point of view that has dominated politics since Ronald Reagan's election and gained emphasis since President Bill Clinton threw up his hands and said, "The era of big government is over." It was in retreat in the last years of George W. Bush and perhaps the first six months of President Obama, but now it is again dominant. It is also a perfectly respectable point of view.

As I continue on my campaign, I am increasingly aware that what has changed in the country is mainstream media. They are less hospitable to conservatives. They act like a political party, an especially partisan party. Conservatives have emerged in media to express their point of view on major issues of the day. This is diversity of opinion that the increasingly partisan mainstream media cannot countenance, and so they say it is shocking. It is incendiary. It is closed-minded.

Actually, one of the rare figures on television or radio that strenuously works to include both the left and the right in debates is -- prepare yourself -- Sean Hannity of Fox News. He really works at it. He airs people who disagree with him and he lets the left and the right have at each other. As for mainstream media, if it airs a debate between the left and the right the person on the right is usually a critic of the right who feigns a therapeutic message for conservatism, say, David Frum, a man with no standing on the right.

I say wherever I go nowadays that Liberalism is dead. One piece of evidence is mainstream media. It pretends the dominant political view in the country does not exist, conservatism.

 

[busybody..]

^^read BOOKS, not BLOGS

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

“Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4 percent annualized pace – slower than at any time in nearly 60 years,” Nutting wrote, citing data from the Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget and an independent financial firm.

“The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat,” he wrote. “Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4 percent. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

The Obama campaign circulated Nutting’s article by email and posted it on its website Tuesday. The president picked up on the theme again today to hammer the point home.

“I just point out it always goes up least under Democratic presidents. This other side, I don’t know how they’ve been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over, we’ve got to clean it up.

“They point and say look how irresponsible they are. Look at the facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job – in a balanced way,” he said, referring to his plan to reduce the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes.

The Romney campaign noted that more than $5 trillion has been added to the debt during Obama’s first term, though in 2008 Obama called the $4 trillion added under Bush ”unpatriotic.”

The Republican National Committee pointed out that while growth of spending and debt may have slowed, Obama has overseen the three largest deficits in U.S. history. (They also pass along fact-checker Politifact’s 2011 designation of Obama as the “undisputed debt king” of the last five presidents.)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...republican-wild-debts-im-not-an-over-spender/

 

[busybody..]

^^read BOOKS, not BLOGS

 

[akatrex]

"The Romney campaign noted that more than $5 trillion has been added to the debt during Obama’s first term, though in 2008 Obama called the $4 trillion added under Bush ”unpatriotic.”

That would be $5 trillion in 3 years under Obama!

$4 trillion in 8 years under Bush.

Cha Ching!