Very true, and along with high demand for housing ( due to good weather, high-paying jobs, etc.) is the fact that the San Francisco metropolitian area is, of course, surrounded on 3 sides by water, so there is no land left to build housing. In fact, when the Navy left Treasure Island, which is in the middle of the bay between Oakland and San Francisco, developers started building condos there.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
KFI Major Schedule Change Starting Tomorrow
- Thread starter Ray D. Owe
- Start date
I don't believe that for a second about rush and you did say it was his opinion. I would bet my life rush believed everything wholeheartedly he said. This dude your talking about sounds very cynical in general.
I don't think the guy I was referencing was cynical at all. It was the fact that he'd spent years in talk radio working for both conservative and more progressive stations, in both larger markets and being nationally syndicated and he didn't mind pulling back the curtain every once in a while to give his listeners a glimpse into the inner workings. He wasn't trash talking or negative toward anyone in the business, but he was being forthright and honest about how at least some hosts, including him, operate. If one has spent any time at all working in or around live radio, they'd most likely agree with his comments and observations.
Regarding Rush believing everything he said, the primary thing you must keep in mind is that, first and foremost, Rush Limbaugh was an entertainer and a showman. He knew how to generate buzz and he knew how to get listeners to tune in. He had a lot of schtick and he started out as a mediocre at best DJ - When he moved to talk, he carried forth some of the lessons he learned as a jock and applied them in the talk world which few if anyone back then had done. If you've ever worked around true "entertainers" and "showmen", the very first thing you'd notice is that those people in general can usually be quite different off the stage or off the mic than they are when they're "on". The better ones, like Rush, know exactly who their core audience and demographic is, who they're "pitching to" and they know how to deliver to them. That's not to say Rush at his core wasn't conservative or that he got done with his show and then went and watched hours of MSNBC. No. However, he knew what to say and how to message to pander to his core audience. To do that, he most likely embellished at times and most likely didn't 100% always personally believe in what he was saying or the claims he was making. Again, he was a showman.
Last edited:
J&K have always come across as twin Rush Limbaughs wannabes, but that’s their schtick and if they have made it work, then more power to them. I personally can’t stand them!
This is just my humble opinion but I have always believed that both left wing and right wing media hosts are just putting on an act and have invented a persona. .
Last edited by a moderator:
Hate to tell you, Patrick...
Having worked for many years with a bunch of people who worked with Rush, and having some mutual friends (all told, about 20 people), Rush was, at least until 2010 or so, much more moderate than his on-air persona.
It's possible that he evolved to a more hardline set of beliefs in the final 10 years of his life and career, but as people above noted, in talk radio, every day you need to stir the pot. And it's even more critical when you align yourself with a political movement that doesn't take dissent or contradictory facts well.
Basically, in that situation, you're the guy feeding the alligators. If you run out of red meat, they'll eat you.
As usual, no specific examples given.
Rush was so good at what he did, he could have (and would have) easily taken this post and turned it into an hour's worth of programming. He loved talking about those not-in-the-know talking about him.
On a moral level, I don't understand why people like Rush can go on the air and stir up all the anger and hatred they do, while knowing that they are often talking about conspiracies which have no basis in fact.
For example, when Fox News' Sean Hannity went to testify to the Jan. 6 committee, he said that he did not believe for a second that the voting machine were rigged to deny election to the incumbent Pres. Trump in 2020. Yet, much of Fox' coverage was devoted to hours of reporting on a stolen election.
Sean Hannity Admits He Didn’t Believe Dominion Voter-Fraud Claims ‘for a Second’
In a sworn deposition, Fox host Sean Hannity admitted that he never bought Trump's claim that the Dominion rigged tabulation machines.
This promotion of information known to be false can be very dangerous, because it can stir reasonable people to violence. They can argue that promoting election conspiracies is protected free speech under the First Amendment, but that amendment of course, does not protect the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater and cause a panic where people can get hurt.
In Phoenix, Arizona, the Chair of the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, Republican Bill Gates, had to go into hiding to keep himself and his family safe from death threats about a rigged election. In Michigan, elections officials have received death threats also; and in both states, elections officials have resigned over the threats. It's a very harrowing situation. And it's exacerbated by talk radio personalities who base their ratings on their ability to listeners to outrage and physical retribution.
Listeners greatly believed Rush, and they listened with rapt attention. It was irrelevant to them whether or not he was "just entertaining." -- Daryl
Maricopa County Official Reportedly Goes Into Hiding Over Midterm Safety Fears
Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates was moved "for his own safety" after ugly attacks linked to midterm losers, local news reported.
And it is not just the U.S.A. where this issue of inflaming the public through media exists. It also happens in Britains, where the tabloid media is very profitable in inflaming readers/ listeners against the Royal Family. That's a huge soap opera with British tabloids owned by Rupert Murdoch and others, or Piers Morgan on broadcast media, and Harry and Meghan on the other side. Those tabloid stories sell very well, and right wing denunciation of the royal family is very popular. Piers Morgan, Nigel Farage, Katie Hopkins -- people who sometimes make racially tinged remarks- can sell a lot of tabloid articles. JMO -- Daryl
"As usual?"
Seriously? After this weekend where we broke the character limit (and the moderator's patience) with specific examples?
Look, Flip, you don't like it when I don't post specific examples and you really don't like it when I do.
You've acknowledged privately and publicly that I'm an honest and decent man. I'm not lying to the people on this board about what I've been told by roughly 20 people that Rush and I had in common as co-workers and personal friends.
Believe it or don't. I'll just say that I'm glad Patrick didn't actually bet his life.
Last edited:
You are taking it a bit too personal. It was not a shot at you, it was simply noting the fact that posting hearsay (usually inadmissible in a court of law) is what you did and it is very easy to do. "My friends say..."
If you know of a specific issue or instance in which Rush took a position on-air that he didn't really believe, then by all means share.
In the meantime I have "friends that tell me" our esteemed vice president slept her way to the top of American politics.
See?
I see.
I made an honest generalization based on knowledge of a person's views by a group of 20-ish people that we had in common as co-workers and friends---people in a position to know, with no reason to lie, who all had the same experience.
You've made a disgusting, demeaning, sexist accusation against the Vice-President of the United States, and used "friends told me" to do it.
Last edited:
I was illustrating how unfair it is to use hearsay to make a point. You have no problem believing what your "friends told you" about a person on the right that you most likely do not like, but took immediate offense when the same ploy was used on a political person of the left that you most likely do like. Regardless, you still have not supported your position with any actual facts.
Now let's consider a more likely scenario than what your friends have told you. In this scenario we take the man at his own word absent any hard evidence to convict him otherwise. You know, the "Right Thing to Do".
In his early career and working his way up to success, Rush almost certainly worked for program directors, station and station group bosses and owners, sponsors, and clients that had either liberal or simply more moderately conservative views than his own. In order to get clearances, approvals, and advertiser buys from these decision-makers and approvers, he may very well have "soft-pedaled" the positions on his show, while still believing everything he said. Everybody does everything they can to put themselves in the best light to advance in their careers; Rush did so spectacularly.
It is quite possible your not-so-in-the-know friends may have been privy to some limited private conversations to that effect, and then extrapolated them to fit their own world view, much like I believe you have done. That doesn't make either them or you liars, it makes them human. We all believe what we want to believe. However, absent any published or other simialrly verifiable information to support your view, it has to be considered what it is - inadmissable and unreliable hearsay.
Last edited:
Personal experience is not hearsay. The lack of acknowledgement of such experience is a major shortcoming of Wikipedia where creators of technology, newsmakers and industry experts can't use their own "unsourced" information. In this case Michael is relating precise personal experience.
He is not relating precise personal experience. He is reporting what his friends have told him. That is the very definition of hearsay.
And look what you chose out of thin air to do that.
If the friends were "at the scene" that is true personal experience. There is a difference between casual conversation and people in the news business relating amongst themselves personal experiences.
And again, for clarity for everyone else reading this thread (Flip's gonna do what Flip's gonna do), this was roughly 20 people, some who had worked with Rush, some who hadn't. Some of those people Rush and I had in common as co-workers at different times, and some were personal friends we had in common who, in most cases, neither of us had worked with.
This was not watercooler gossip.
And something very important to stress here---none of these people had a bad word to say about Rush. They liked him. Some loved him. It's rare to run across someone in a broadcast environment who doesn't have something negative to say about someone (hopefully your personal friends can be trusted)---but not Rush.
And what they said was that he was much more moderate than his on-air persona. Not one person, not a couple, but around 20, over a period of 30 years.
Again, as I said to Flip, believe it or don't. It's the truth. And only on the right would "more moderate than his on-air persona" be an insult worthy of a response making insinuations about the sex life and qualifications of the Vice-President of the United States" disguised as an offhand example of hearsay.
Last edited:
Michael,
You are a newsman trying to put the best spin on a point of view you simply cannot support with any verifiable facts. You and David denying the basic facts of hearsay don't make it so. The world exists as it is, not as you want it to be.
As for "Flip is gonna Flip", I spent 20 minutes (won't spend any more, I have to work for a living) doing several searches on the internet to find anything that is published that will actually help you make your point. I read NY Times articles even, which is more than anyone should have to bear. I couldn't find even one that supports your point, even in passing. My search of course cannot be exhaustive, there are thousands of articles written on Rush and his politics, so maybe one exists somewhere, but I couldn't find it after a very good-faith effort.
You could very well be right. I don't know, but I have kept an open mind all day, asked you several times to actually put facts forward to support your position, tried to find any myself, and couldn't. I can only conclude that the facts in evidence don't support your position. You and your friends are welcome to have whatever opinions you wish, but that is all they are, unverified opinions.
Again, you are demonstrating one of the major failures of online data: those actually involved in or who have experienced or worked in an area can not write unattributed Wikipedia (and related sources) articles as they can't "attribute" something they themselves did.
Of course, another major fail... which makes such articles even less accurate... is allowing those with no direct knowledge or involvement in a subject to write articles which are simply a collection of "attributions", many of which are totally wrong.
So the recording engineer who mixed a huge hit can not say something like "I purposely drove the saxophone tracks at the edge of real distortion to give the desired 'mud wall' effect in the solos and hook backing" because he can not cite attribution. Instead, someone writes, "the biggest defect in that song is the distorted saxophone playing which shows the lack of skill by the engineer who did the mixing".
- Status