Time Magazine Affirms - Rush Limbaugh Is In Trouble

[TexasTowelie]

It seems the larger mainstream media outlets like Time Magazine are starting to realize that 'small-fry' social media outlets have become a force to be reckoned with.

Last week, I published a Daily Kos diary about Wall Street Journal radio statistics. The industry numbers confirmed social media campaigns are winning the fight against hate radio, namely Rush Limbaugh. And now, Time Magazine is jumping in. Both are seeing social media groups like StopRush, BoycottRush, and FlushRush cause Rush Limbaugh to lose sponsors, radio stations, and market standings. And these groups are supported by larger social media news organization/blogs like Daily Kos, Media Matters, Liberals Unite, Addicting Info, Politico, and PoliticusUSA, who continue to cover stories about the Limbaugh protest. Despite all of Limbaugh's money and best efforts to squelch the protest, it just keeps growing.

Time Magazine writer, Brian Rosenwald, chimed in on Wednesday. Rosenwald is completing his doctoral dissertation. In this article he discusses how talk radio has changed politics/public policy, and how now, the internet is changing talk radio. For decades, Limbaugh could get away with atrocities like making up sick songs about AIDS victims and getting away with it. Rosenwald goes on to say it's very different now:

Today, by contrast, every word that Limbaugh says is broadcast and archived. Watchdog groups, such as Media Matters, scrutinize every word, waiting to blast any potentially offensive statements out to the world. Whereas the opinions of non-listeners might have been irrelevant in 1988 and a boycott hard to organize, someone who considered the Elba comments to be racist could easily use social media to pressure advertisers to remove their ads from Limbaugh’s program (as many did in 2012 after Limbaugh insulted Georgetown student Sandra Fluke).

Most folks following the protest know that current campaigns not only pressured advertisers in 2012, they have continued to do so for three years.

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/19/1365415/-Time-Magazine-Joins-WSJ-To-Claim-Social-Media-Groups-Are-Pushing-Rush-Limbaugh-Off-Public-Radio?detail=facebook

[still_one]

1. bull. The stations that allow the drug addict to spew his garbage don't care. It is part of

an agenda

[Jenoch]

3. Most of the radio stations airing Limbaugh

do not have an 'agenda' (I'm sure some do). When Limbaugh no longer attracts enough listeners for them to target with radio commercials, then they will drop him and switch to other programming.

[PSPS]

6. Unless Limbaugh purchases the time outright.

Limbaugh's old TV show had very few viewers and could never attract advertising. So they simply purchased the time on various stations and broadcast it that way. The sad fact is that it doesn't matter if shows like his are profitable on paper or not. Its purpose isn't to make money. Its purpose is to shape public opinion (or provide the illusion of reflecting public opinion) and, thus, shape public policy. That is what provides the big payoff to his financial backers.

[nikto]

19. I agree.

In the corporate world,
agenda is set, top-down.

[stevenleser]

36. That model is prohibitively expensive. It can run into the

Many thousands of dollars per month per station. Rush is on close to 1000 stations give or take a hundred or two IIRC. What you are talking about would cause him to hemorrhage a minimum of a million dollars per month and probably several times that.

If it were easy to do what you are talking about, everyone would self syndicate.

[PSPS]

46. What's a few million a month when you get billions back?

Like I said, Rush's role isn't to make money. His role is to shape public opinion or appear as a reflection of public opinion. Thus, public policy is created through legislation that garners his backers many times this trivial expense.

[stevenleser]

55. He doesn't get billions back. No one is footing the bill for him. Even if we accept your premise

That the corporations have him out there for the reasons you cite, there are plenty of other right wing hosts out there on the radio. No one would spend money to keep him on the air.

[PSPS]

60. I never said "he" makes billions.

In any case, this is a silly argument. There are a lot of contemporary examples of money-losing media of all kinds that exist solely for the reasons I've cited. If you're a billionaire who sees that spending a few million dollars to help create an environment in which you can increase your income by billions of dollars, you'll do it. I don't know why you find that hard to believe, but there it is.

[Dont call me Shirley]

59. Rupert does it.

"Think about it. Why does Rupert Murdoch own so many money-losing newspapers? No one knows how much money the New York Post or The Wall Street Journal lose each year, but estimates fall in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Over in Australia, his largest newspaper, The Australian, has managed to lose $3 million a month in recent times—no small feat in a nation with so meager a population."


https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2013/09/12/73973/rupert-makes-the-news-literally/

[AndyTiedye]

64. They Don't Own TV Networks and Newspapers to Make a Profit on those Businesses

[Dont call me Shirley]

68. Propaganda is their business. On paper it looks like they're losing money, but in reality not.

[JohnnyRingo]

43. I'm not much for conspiracy theories

...but yours involves a lot of parties across the country that eat huge financial losses at the individual stations to promote an overall agenda of fear and hate from unnamed powers that be (Koch Brothers?).

I think Limbaugh gets airtime at any particular station because he pays the electric bill... for now. My theory is far more simple, involves fewer devoted conspirators, and relies on the fact that profit is fundamental.

[PSPS]

47. Actually, it's not a theory at all

Rush isn't the first to play this role in broadcasting. The individual stations would book no loss at all when they sell a block of time, assuming they know how to price it (i.e., cover lost spots.) The same goes for everyone else in the distribution/broadcasting chain. They continue to pay their bills as always. Like I said, this is the very model that was used for Rush's TV show.

[stevenleser]

56. What you are talking about is what most businesses do in the beginning

Most businesses do not show a profit right away. It takes a few years. Rush did what he did in the hopes that his radio show would make money eventually. And it did.

You are trying to twist facts to fit theories instead of vice versa.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. His radio show was FREE when it first came out....

That's how he got it to spread out nationally.

[stevenleser]

57. Yes, see my #56 nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. Actually, he spread at a unique time in history. It was when most people weren't political....

Station managers were told "Here's a free show to fill three hours every day with a built in loyal audience." After they were the local station to air it they were trapped. If they personally wanted to drop the show they were met with terroristic threats by that gun happy audience. As in, "we know where you live" kinda personal threats.

Of course, this was back before the big guys bought up all the little WKRP type operations all over the country.

(I'm old enough to remember when they had cool DJs.)

[quakerboy]

12. Most of the stations are owned by a select few

And they really do have an "agenda". The individual station may not, but if it starts going against the agenda of the ownership, you can bet there will start to be staff turnover untill that stops.

Hate radio is handy when it makes money directly, but that's not its most important function to those who perpetuate it.

[Jenoch]

20. What is your experiemce in broadcasting?

I have over 30 years in the business.

[quakerboy]

22. Im happy for you

So is your radio station owned by Clear Channel or Cumulus?

[still_one]

24. San Francisco is a perfect example. Essentially liberal talk radio is gone from San Francisco. A

city whose talk radio programs definitely do not represent the majority

[FrodosPet]

37. Many liberals do not like talk radio

They enjoy music and art and culture, and sometimes even sports, more than they do listening to people complain. Whereas complaining is perfect for many conservatives.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Excellent point. I could never stomach Air America

Heaven knows, I tried, but years of being a listener and loyal member of a Pacifica station has greatly increased my aversion the advertising. I couldn't stand the relentless commercial interruptions. Commercials fragment thoughtful discussion to such an extent that they naturally encourage shallow thinking and sensationalized sound bites.

[PSPS]

51. I think you're right about that.

For example, I find myself avoiding even NPR during weekdays because their programming is practically all related to politics. Radio broadcasting has largely turned into what I call the "outrage industry" and a lot of people have been swept up by it. Even DU reflects this.

[quakerboy]

67. And many do

If your argument is that Right wing talk radio gets a larger audience share, then you are correct.
If your argument is that there is no audience for left wing talk radio, particularly in larger markets, then you are not correct.

If the only way for a radio station to be successful was to corner a majority of the market, then Liberal talk radio would be out of luck in a fair market.

But if the implication is that a small market share would mean a radio station format would get nuked, why did Liberal talk radio disappear from so many markets at the same time as a great number of stations with far smaller market shares have continued to thrive, and why were so many of them replaced with programming that is pulling smaller market shares than before the change?

[Jenoch]

63. The only reason liberal talk radio has not

been a national success is because it has failed to attract enough listeners. Air America did not even succeed with talent such as Al Frankin.

[LanternWaste]

25. The agenda is little more than increased profits for shareholders.

The agenda is little more than increased profits for shareholders.

[quakerboy]

27. That seems a bit pollyanna

That doesn't explain what has occurred in the venue thus far.

Here is an instance of what I am talking about:

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-29853-fox_sports_radio_kpoj_ratings_continue_to_plummet.html

Once doesn't usually "increase profits for shareholders" by cutting ones audience to 1/8th of what it had been.

[stevenleser]

38. Correlation does not equal causation. Certain media are simply in decline

Print media and radio among them. You can't say that content is causing the decline.

[quakerboy]

66. when there is a rapid and large change in audience immediately following a

rapid, drastic change in content, it seems foolish to make the assertion you have.

For your argument to be on point, we should seem a similar 87% decline in other radio stations who did not change their content in the same market at the same time.

That didnt happen. That would appear to rule out overall declining media audience as a cause of this rapid and significant change in market share.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. It's to promote the Right Wing....

Stop and think about something for a moment.

The Right Wing is OBSESSED with money. They try to keep every DIME they can for themselves and yet they pour BILLIONS into propaganda. The reason is because they KNOW their ideas would be universally repulsive to the average American without the spin.

If they wanted shows based on actual popularity they would use the example set by Liberals like Oprah and Ellen.

[JohnnyRingo]

42. True

Many believe corporations- who are not people by the way- have an agenda that trumps dollars and cents. Other than Rupert Murdoch, commercial media companies are faceless entities that are solely motivated by an easeled graph that shows the bottom line.

When bile like Limbaugh cease to be profitable they will be gone from the airwaves. That's why organized boycotts such as the ones fielded against Limbaugh can be so effective.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Bain Capital, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners? Of course there is no agenda!

Deep pockets do mean that Rush won't be hushed any time soon. Clear Channel/iHeartMedia has been bleeding money for long enough to prove that profit ain't the motive here.

iHeartMedia not.

[cascadiance]

34. Yes, people out there should know that there's yet another obscuring name change to Iheartmedia

... from Clear Channel, when the term "Clear Channel" picked up to much bad name baggage, much like Blackwater, Diebold, the DLC, and other corporate entities that have changed their names surreptitiously to something different to sound "nicer" and be more under the radar.

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8182506

Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. has Changed its Name to iHeartMedia + Entertainment, Inc
Sep 16 14
On September 16, 2014, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. changed its name to iHeartMedia + Entertainment, Inc.

Whenever you hear IHeartRadio and other terms like that being thrown out, it is code word for Clear Channel stuff.

Then when Stephanie Miller tweets that she's going to the IHeartRadio Music fest, it doesn't sound as bad as her saying she's going to the Clear Channel Music Fest, that would turn off a lot of her audience.

https://twitter.com/stephzeeee/status/513708014743064576

[nikto]

18. On most stations (which are owned by mega-corps like Comcast, Clear Channel, etc) it IS an agenda

Agreed.

The agenda is set at the highest levels.

Limbaugh was subsidized in his early years. Others are not subsidized. Why was he?

Because he served a corporate agenda.



Obvious cui bono.

[nxylas]

31. You mean he didn't pull himself up by his bootstraps?

Quelle domage.

[Fumesucker]

2. That feels mighty good...

I worked in place where that waste of scrofula was on the radio every day, I didn't know much about him when I started and I loathed him by the time I left.

The blueprint for getting rid of Rush was laid out in 2012, I gladly helped spread the word.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002374653

[lpbk2713]

4. OxyRush is a slimy weasel. He'll adapt.

All he is interested in is making money off of the simple minded RWingnuts. Limbaugh will find a middle ground that will keep him on the air and raking in the money.

[jalan48]

5. I thought Rush was subsidized by the masters he serves.

[PSPS]

7. You're right.

As I said in my other post, his show's purpose isn't to make money. It will continue even if it's in the red. No, Rush's role is to affect public opinion and, thus, affect public policy. That's where his backers get the big return on the relatively minor sum it costs for his salary and, if necessary, purchasing blocks of time on stations. What's a measly $200 million/year when the return is measured in billions?

[sendero]

50. I fall in the middle...

... I think there is an "agenda", but I also think there is a "point of diminishing returns".

I makes no sense for anyone to pay money to keep someone on the air that practically no one is listening to.

When you are down to the hard-core listeners who already believe all the bullshit you are spouting, where is the gain?

I don't think Rush will be on the air much longer personally. I'm sure though, that there is new "talent" waiting in the wings.

[PSPS]

54. Hard-core listeners

I think the listeners of any talk/opinion program consist largely of those who "already believe" (i.e., preaching to the choir.) It amuses me how many seemingly liberal people on DU can't wait to post on DU the latest "outrage" uttered by Rush. Why are they listening in the first place? For their daily dose of "outrage" dished up by the "outrage industry?"

Nevertheless, it can make a lot of sense to keep someone on the air that "practically no one is listening to." The purpose is to promote the illusion that they speak for "a lot of people." How? By saying, "but Rush is on hundreds of stations!!1!" That, alone, can help shape public policy.

[sendero]

58. Perhaps...

..... and I agree with you about "liberal" people listening to Rush, Fox, etc - why? I don't have to listen to any of them to know they are lying their asses off 24/7 and dispensing discord at every turn.

If I ran DU, posts like "rush said" would be immediately deleted. I don't give a fuck what Rush said. When people stop talking about him he will go away.

[MADem]

8. If they don't get that bang for their buck, they'll stop backing him.

That day can't come soon enough. I have a neighbor who was bedridden and in great pain for most of last year, who got "hooked" on Limbaugh because he was a reachable signal on the bedside radio.

Makes for some interesting conversations when I'm helping out doing the neighborly thing, changing a light bulb, or what-have-you. The guy's hook, apparently, is fear--they're going to take "stuff" that belongs to YOU...."they" being anyone who is foreign, not white, sometimes female, and of course, "they" are all slackers, while the hard working people (that would be the YOU bunch) who hate government programs (never mind that Social Security, now) are the ones who are being put upon by all these losers!

Of course, I'm "one of the good ones...." I do bite my tongue at times, and try to catch flies with honey, but there are days....

[jalan48]

11. I see Rush as part of the propaganda network.

If his shtick wears thin someone will replace him. I don't mean to be a defeatist but until the FCC reinstitutes the Fairness Doctrine big money will control the airwaves like it does elections. Rush appeals to older white males. The oligarch's know that they need to reach out to younger people. They tried Dennis Miller but he bombed. Let's see who the next big right wing voice is.

[MADem]

13. Everyone I know who listens to radio is within 20 years of a hundred--except for the NPR crowd.

And GW Bush loaded NPR with a bunch of wingnut morons who co-opt the "soft talking hippie" approach while they sell all kinds of ugly corporate shit.

Oh well, I guess we're on our own--good thing the internet is a utility, I guess!

[jalan48]

15. I quit listening to NPR during the run-up to the Iraq War.

They were serving as cheerleaders, like all the other major media outlets. I agree about the internet, so much good information is available. The current info posted today about Bill O'Reilly and his coverage of the Falkland Islands War is a good example.

[erronis]

40. Let's hope the internet survives

With more and more control of the government and the industry by the corporatists I think they can quickly clamp down on this avenue of free speech. Perhaps its already happening - how would we really know that a message was dropped, a frequent commenter was missing?

[rurallib]

45. When Bob Edwards was gone, so was I

They took a hard right turn and I pretty much turned the dial.

[alp227]

62. Bob Edwards Weekend is still ongoing.

Distributed by Public Radio International.

[rurallib]

65. Our local stations don't carry it

I have heard it when traveling. But honestly anymore, if I listen to talk shows of any ilk they are usually left wing such as Hartmann or Miller.

[nikto]

21. Like a high-priced superstar athlete, he's locked-in at over $30 Million/year, regardless of ratings

Net worth estimated around $400 Million.

He's served the corporate masters well by poisoning the dialogue and muddying the waters
with insane emotions, in order to preclude wingnuts from engaging in rational conversation.
Regardless of ratings, he helps push the dialogue for maybe 5-10 million foolish American RW suckers.


Sadly, I have to say, I believe he's earned his money.

[stevenleser]

39. No such thing as "locked in" in the media world. There are out clauses in every contract

Particularly when that amount of money is at stake. There is zero chance cumulus' lawyers didn't insert a number of out clauses based on listenership, ad sales, moral turpitude, etc.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Flush rush

[The Wizard]

10. Limbaugh's job is to get people angry.

Anger compromises health and well being. Rash is losing his audience through attrition. The age of his audience is another factor.

[Fumesucker]

28. Anger is also addictive and will keep people coming back for more

It took me quite a few years of listening in the car before I realized I was tuning in for the anger fix as much as anything else. If anything listening to right wing talk radio made me ever more liberal.

[Midnight Writer]

16. Hate radio is like Hydra

Cut off one head and two will take its place

[Arugula Latte]

53. That's why the protest needs to be spread.

Soon the PTB will get the point that any rightwing hate radio will be met with protest, bad publicity, and boycotts.

[Vestigial_Sister]

17. awwwww

It couldn't happen to a better fuck stick.

[RiverLover]

23. Great news. Thank you TT!!

Gave you a Rec here & a Rec there!!

May this trend continue.

[Orsino]

26. Gee. He might one day run out of listeners or sponsors, and have to retire to his mansion?

That'll change his plans for sure.

[Arugula Latte]

29. We need to spread the protest to all the rightwing radio hatemongers.

[KamaAina]

30. KamaAina Affirms - Rush Limbaugh Is Trouble

Especially if there's a bottle of Oxy and some Dominican boys around.

[concreteblue]

32. Flush Rimjob.....

Cleaning the kitchen of the CONservative movement since 1984.......

[Doc Holliday]

33. It is a source of

never-ending hilarity to me that Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et.al., who spew their spew on AM radio, think of themselves as cutting edge and deride everything else as "lamestream" or "drive-by" media.

If not for AM radio, the oldest existing broadcast medium, those ass-hats wouldn't have an audience...or a job. About the only time I'm ever subjected to their low-tech assault on intelligence and common sense is if I pull up next to a pickup truck at a red light.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. How sad. Another attack of anal warts spreading to his brain?

[charles d]

44. Who's the Father?

I bet Rush doesn't even know!

[Stuart G]

49. K and R no text..

[KansDem]

61. MEGA-DITTOS!!!