SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (60446)6/26/2007 4:23:59 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
    I will admit that, of all the liberal talk radio shows 
I’ve listened to, Schultz’s is the best. But, to put that
in perspective, it’s sort of like saying that Schultz is
the smartest guy in the special ed room.

Ed Schultz Whines About His Poor Ratings

In Politics, The Loony Left, Entertainment
Say Anything

And as a typical liberal, blames the fact that his ratings are far inferior to those of conservative talkers not on the fact that people are choosing not to listen to him and his fellow liberals but rather on the idea that government isn’t doing enough to force people to listen to liberal talk radio.

McQ over at QandO has an interesting analysis of Ed “The Left’s Rush Limbaugh” Schultz’s ratings numbers as stacked up against the two biggest conservative talkers, Sean Hannity and Limbaugh.


<<< ...in markets where I could determine Schultz and Hannity/Limbaugh went head-to-head, Schultz was in 50, won 7* and lost 43. . . .

hile Schultz isn’t represented in NY, the largest radio market, Air America is, and they get buried. The Limbaugh/Hannity station, WABC pulls a 3.7 while WWRL, the AA crew, pulls a .6.

But Schultz does show up in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th markets and gets buried in them. Number 2 is LA and even progressive LA isn’t interested in progressive talk. KFI, which carries Limbaugh and mostly local hosts pulls a 4.2. KABC, which is all conservative talk and includes Hannity has a 1.8. KTLK which has the AA gang (Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Tom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, Mark Germain, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Alan Colmes) pulls a dismal 0.7.

In number 3 Chicago, it’s about the same. The top rated talk show is WGN with all local talent (5.3). WLS which carries Limbaugh and Hannity comes in second at 3.4. Coming in at #6 in a six station race is progressive talk radio with the AA gang and Schultz. Rating? 0.5.

Detroit, another market in which you’d think progressive talk radio might do well. It’s the #10 market in the US. Limbaugh/Hannity? A 5.9 on WJR. Schultz and the AA crowd? 0.6 on WDTW. 4th in a 5 talk radio market.

Probably most enlightening is the #4 market, San Francisco. If progressive talk can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere. And, as it turns out, progressive talk is tops in SF. It’s just not the progressive talk with Schultz. Instead it is local progressive hosts along with a mix of medical and legal shows which leads the ratings. KGO pulls a 5.5 in the market. And how do Limbaugh/Hannity do? Well not bad considering. KFSO, where they are carried, comes in at 3.2. And Schultz and the AA gang? 1.1 on KQKE. That’s number 4 in a 5 talk station market.

What’s that tell you?

It tells you that despite all this twaddle about ’structural problems’ in talk radio, that where at least Limbaugh and Hannity and progressive talk go head-to-head, listeners have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen the Limbaugh and Hannity. >>>


I will admit that, of all the liberal talk radio shows I’ve listened to, Schultz’s is the best. But, to put that in perspective, it’s sort of like saying that Schultz is the smartest guy in the special ed room.

But Schultz has been rather successful, and I don’t begrudge him that. I just think his incessant whining about getting beaten by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh, and he and his fellow liberals calls for government intervention to force more liberal radio programming, is pathetic

feeds.feedburner.com



To: Sully- who wrote (60446)6/26/2007 5:05:14 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
    [B]y any meaningful metric employed, the U.S. is winning 
this war. But it will never be reported that way.

Scoring The War

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Monday, June 25, 2007 4:20 PM PT

War And The Media: Day after day, Americans are treated to a never-ending, mind-numbing parade of statistics about the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about the terrorists?

One way the media distort Americans' view of the ongoing war against terrorists is by focusing on just one side in the conflict: ours. Whether it's the daily body count or alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, the public could be forgiven for thinking the U.S. is not only losing the war, but behaving badly in doing so.

But neither is true.
This year, for instance, the U.S. has killed roughly 650 terrorists a month, according to published reports and Defense Department estimates. That compares with about 37 U.S. combat deaths per month, through May.

The ratio, thus, is about 18 terrorists killed in combat for every allied soldier killed. And that doesn't include the current offensive in Diayala Province, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which dispatched 159 enemy combatants in just the first five days.

Since the war began, we've lost about 70 troops a month. This compares with 526 a month in Vietnam, more than 900 a month in Korea and 6,639 a month during World War II.

In other words, by any meaningful metric employed, the U.S. is winning this war. But it will never be reported that way.

This is nothing new. Go back to Vietnam. Remember the "five o'clock follies," when the press routinely ridiculed Pentagon casualty reports? The Vietnam syndrome continues to this day.

Only now it's the media misreporting the numbers. Just weeks into the war in 2003, we started hearing the now-oft-repeated canard that Iraq was worse off with the U.S. than with Saddam. This is so plainly wrong that it must be called what it is: a lie.

And yet, it's repeated to this day. Here again, the numbers tell the tale. In his 24 years as Iraq's Stalinist supreme leader, Saddam Hussein killed at least 2 million people. That averages out to about 6,944 a month for the better part of three decades.

Most responsible estimates show that, at most, 60,000 or so civilians have been killed since the war started, about 1,200 a month.

Moreover, no one doubts that Saddam was responsible for all 2 million of his deaths. In the case of the U.S., most of the civilian deaths come from al-Qaida and other terrorists, not U.S. troops.

We got to thinking about this as a result of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which began a week ago. It involves some 10,000 U.S. troops trying to rid Diyala Province of al-Qaida terrorists. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, operations since the war began.

And yet, when we looked for news of how this huge effort in the war on terror was going, the focus was all on American fatalities.

Since Vietnam, the media have approached each military conflict with the same template: "U.S. Wrong, Foe Right." And they've reported accordingly. That's why wanton murderers of women and children are generously called "fighters" by our own media, while errors by our own troops are tarred as war crimes.

So, in a sense, we are losing a war — the war for Americans' hearts and minds, fought daily on America's TV screens and front pages. But in the real war, our troops are fighting bravely and well — and it's about time someone started keeping score.


ibdeditorials.com