Pab Sungenis said:
{Link to bitter partisan screed posing as ratings analysis}
This is a prime example of the partisan drivel sites that you can block in your DNS log to protect those who aren't in on the "joke."
The junior typist at the addictedtocrack link gave himself up by mentioning oxycontin. Nothing says "bitter partisan crap" like mocking an addiction (Limbaugh successfully completed rehabilitation 8 years ago). Just in case the repeating
yet again of the "paid caller" myth from last year didn't give it away right up front.
You'd think compulsive partisan koolaide consumers would have some sympathy for a fellow addict. And you'd be wrong.
The steno drone didn't even try very hard:
Limbaugh obtained the largest audience during an era when audience count was made by manually filled out diaries, a practice which has been slowly phased out over the past few years, as detailed electronic tracking became available. Once the detailed tracking was available, Rush’s ratings dropped significantly, by over a third. With an estimated weekly audience of 15 million users now
The estimates were off and you equate that with "losing audience?" Really?
This is why they should teach at least one middle school course in logic. It could change politics overnight.
The
audience didn't drop. Nobody turned off the radio. The
estimate dropped. Limbaugh's national audience was estimated by diaries at around 22 million. Turns out in the PPM age, it's more like 15M (which is still an estimate that includes diaries in smaller markets, just like the estimates for every other show). Of course 15M is still the largest audience of any radio show today and it's the same audience he's had for years. And I would imagine estimates for other shows were adjusted accordingly. So where's the audience "loss" in that? I'm sure those advertisers with the courage to expose themselves to large audiences are going ballistic that only 15M are hearing their ads!
One of the keys to Limbaugh's large audience is his large number of (willing and paying) affiliates, which apparently aren't too concerned that someone estimated that the per-station listeners on Ed Schultz's under 40 confirmable affiliates is larger than on Limbaugh's approximately 600 stations. While Limbaugh's station total has held steady despite manufactured controversy, Ed seems to be losing affiliates, so it's likely the audience estimates used for him are stale: the claim of an average 8,000 listeners per station on under 40 stations is under 320,000 listeners. That's just over 2% of Limbaugh's audience estimate. It may be because "Giant" Ed can be a bit tough to digest when his anger management techniques aren't working for him. And it explains why nobody complains when Schultz engages in his periodic ugly misogynist ranting. As with Bill Maher, there just isn't a big enough audience to matter.
Rush has always been difficult to sell locally and after all the Sandra Fluke mess it's been nigh impossible.
A lot of people keep trying to sell that meme, but Limbaugh's ratings went up for a couple of weeks surrounding the manufactured Georgetown activist kerfuffle, and other than a short term cooling off period, ads are back where they were before the Media Matters-coordinated "boycott" which consisted of a handful of political activists who never listen to Limbaugh harassing advertisers. This has been tried before against Limbaugh with the same results. It's surprising that ad buyers even pay attention to the noise. Rush's dedicated audience has always stuck with him during these charades, and the advertisers shoot themselves in the foot by pulling ads for no reason. And the activists apparently can't counter whatever it is that scares them silly about Limbaugh, so they have to try and silence him. Not that the activists have a shortage of media mouthpieces to churn out their message. Must be a weak message.
With cheap programming, PHT can afford to sell less ads post-Rush. But to generate revenue, they still have to have ratings to sell, something "Mr. Excitement" Smerconish appears to be short of.
