If it's Arbitron, it's an estimate. All of it!
> The last time I looked, Gallagher was only carried on low
> rated Salem Radio Network. The Network reaches about 70% of
> US and gets an average 1.0 rating.
Last time you looked WHERE? Are sources alien to you guys? Where oh, where do you get this stuff? I asked dampier (or was it bierkenstock) to site his sources and he sent me a link to Wikipedia! I sourced my information. Do you make yours up? Where does it come from?! You guys spend too much time on
http://www.dailykos.com/
>Also, Gallagher is apparently not very well liked by Salem because he is
>usually carried overnight
Do you <u>honestly</u> believe that hosts are carried in non-prime dayparts because they are "not liked"? Have any of you guys ever worked in radio?
>which means that his rating is probably closer to 0.1 than 1.0.
This is so silly I only post it because it is a sight to behold. Don't you think that Arbitron takes into account the daypart a show is on? Here's a guess.. but it's JUST a guess. I'll bet that 80% of his ratings come from a few of his larger markets.
Here's a shocker for you. Are you ready? Get a grip now, this is going to be tough to take. Before he was syndicated, Mike Gallagher was successful at WABC. Just so you don't have to look it up, WABC is in New York.
>Can you take any reseach seriously that uses the following criteria.
> "The numbers indicated in the section Top Talk Radio Audiences By Size are
> estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports
> and information provided by Arbitron. These figures are rough projections
> based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals."
(Sigh) If you had a clue, you would know that the Arbitron report itself has a page of such qualifiers, including this stunner:
<u>"All Arbitron estimates are its opinions and are subject to the qualifications and limitations stated in Arbitron's reports. Due to these qualifications and limitations,
the accuracy of Arbitron's audience estimates cannot be determined to any precise mathematical value or definition."</u>
The whole damn business is built on imprecise estimates. Did you not know that?
I've already said I consider Gallagher a not-too-bright goofball so it's not as though I am his apologist. But you guys (kids?) come in with political motivations and just attack anything that displeases you.
This is the third time Talkers has been dismissed because it ranks conservatives higher than you wish. But did you see up near the top of the list? Howard Stern!
I've asked each of you who has attempted to discredit Talkers because it came up with answers you don't like to suggest a better authority for this information. I'm still waiting.