From: tiverson@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thor Iverson)
Subject: Re: Ratings & Rush (was Re:  What about Paul?)
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.133847.19077@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:
> >WARNING:  Not much Letterman content here--bail out now...
>Ditto!  :->
>
>The "content" should have likely been posted to alt.personal.flame,
>or alt.rabid.rush.fan, but whatever..<heh>

But as you would have seen if you read the whole post, I'm _not_ a
Rush Limbaugh fan.  Not at all, in fact.

>arsenios ratings have been slumping badly, but is there any proof your guy
>is doing that well?  In L.A. for example arse is on at 11pm, while ruch 
>comes on at 1am.  I highly doubt he could be doing as well as you claim.

Mmm-hm.  Variety and TV Guide both reported these ratings, as well as
the Boston Globe.  Whether or not you "highly doubt" it, those are the
facts!  And, for the second time, he's not "my guy"...

>>Get real...  Stern "reaches" more than TEN million people in L.A. alone!

My point exactly--that's his potential audience, but how many of those
actually listen to his show?  The numbers for Limbaugh's show were based
on Arbitrons (radio's ratings system), not US Census figures...

>Oh?  Can you prove that?  When the show was on only in N.Y., Philadelphia,
>and Washington D.C. the daily ratings were estimated at 5 million.  NOW he
>is also the #1 show in Los Angeles, and is rising fast in Chicago, Dallas,
>Las Vegas, and several other cities...  10M is a safe estimate.

The Arbitrons do not support your claim--but, as I don't have a Billboard
next to me, you'll have to verify this for yourself.

>NOT if they have to PAY for it.  His show is FREE, therefore it the
>bottom line Q&D profit is easier for them...

False.  Lots of things are free.  They could probably program 24 hours
of Nature documentaries, donated by the National Geographic Society, and
just think of all the $ they'd save!  No, no, this is about ratings--and
with the ratings Limbaugh gets as the #1 radio show in the country, he
could charge the stations and they'd still carry the show.  No matter
how expensive it gets, you don't drop your #1 show (see ABC and
"Moonlighting," for example).

> >Might it be that you really don't have evidence supporting your 
> >"Rush is nobody" claims
>Nope.  I have not seen one wit of "evidence" from you either, just flames.

I actually haven't flamed you once, up to this point.  And I certainly
consider Arbitron and TV rating numbers as evidence, though perhaps
you believe your personal judgement to be superior to hard facts.  (In
case you missed it, _that_ was a flame.)  I've now cited TV ratings
3 times and Arbitrons 3 times in 2 posts, as well as giving sources for
both.  That's usually known as evidence...

> >But they're an incredibly loyal group--much more so than even Letterman fans
>Where is your evidence for that?  Dave has had a very successful nightly 
>network show for ELEVEN years.  

You edited it out, but I believe I was referring to another conservative
media outlet, _The 700 Club_.  This has been on since the mid-'70s I
believe, and Robertson's early shows from which this was drawn began
in the late 60's.  In case you need more "evidence," that's significantly
longer than 11 years.

> >> to say DAVE'S ratings would be "lower" than that jerk is absoluteluy 
> >> RIDICULOUS.  That guy is a big fat NOTHING compared to Dave...
> >Switch "Dave" and "Rush" in that sentence, and see how it sounds to you.
>
>It would be VERY much incorrect.  Also FYI: this is alt.FAN.letterman!!

Which is why I posted the warning at the head of the message.  And which
also causes me to wonder why you posted the original 4-screen-long rant
about Rush Limbaugh to alt.fan.letterman in the first place...

> >OK, _The 700 Club_, to take a relevant example
>
>You call THAT "relevant"??  Thanks for the tip where your head is at!  :->

Hmmm--lets see--both enormously popular media outlets for roughly the
same group of viewers/listeners (conservative, mainly Christian, largely
fundamentalist, avid Reagan fans), and an example which counters your
argument about Dave's audiences' superior longevity.  Sounds relevant
to me.  Perhaps you're misinterpreting "irrelevant" as "not agreeing
with your viewpoints"...

Thor

P.S.  Who _really_ is now going away until January, so you're free to
wage whatever speciously reasoned flamewars you want, because I will
temporarily be unable to play...  ;-)