Limbaugh loses 141 sponsors, had ads pulled for two weeks

[mirele]

Rush may be able to weather this, but there are storm clouds on the horizon. Cumulus, to be precise.

Starting April 2, Mike Huckabee will be syndicated on the Cumulus radio network in the prime 12-3 ET slot that Rush now dominates. This article gives more information:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... cline.html

Basically, stations right now pay for Rush. He's unusual in the talker field in that respect...in some cases, the talker pays for the station to run his/her show. I don't know what Huckabee's financial deal is or what the arrangement would be to bring him onto the local talk radio station, but he's likely to be just as conservative and quite a bit less controversial than Rush. And since he's just starting out, likely a LOT cheaper than Rush just to put on the station. Some people think there's room for two conservative talkers in that slot, but, if one is regularly offending people, the advertising dollars may flow to the second guy. Who knows how this will play out?

[jericho]

Rage Against The Machine doesn't seem like a good choice for the Limbaugh show. They're far more liberal than he is. Why would the show's producers pick that band to play during his show?

It's the irony of it. Rush has intro'd every hour of his show with the Pretenders "My City Was Gone", an environmental song.

[Boltingmadonna]

LOL--as my eyes quickly skimmed the topics, for a minute there I thought it said Limbaugh had lost 141 POUNDS. I thought "Wow, that would indeed be a miracle." No such luck, I guess.

Jeez, not Jericho again. It must be a slow day wherever it is that he spends his time.

[Witsec7]

It's the irony of it. Rush has intro'd every hour of his show with the Pretenders "My City Was Gone", an environmental song.

As long as he pays ASCAP or BMI royalties he can play anything he wants. I like the fact that he's financially supporting Crissy and her liberal causes. But it does show how dim he really is.

[jericho]

LOL--as my eyes quickly skimmed the topics, for a minute there I thought it said Limbaugh had lost 141 POUNDS. I thought "Wow, that would indeed be a miracle." No such luck, I guess.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8234457&page=1#.T2DG3IcfS8A

[EmmieJ]

Actually I misspoke on the USPS. I think the government should give over the USPS to a private company who could manage it better. The USPS is eating our tax money left and right and we are still paying for stamps and shipping on top of that. Private school and roads and different than Obamacare because there is an option. You can go to free public school or pay for private school. With Obamacare you must buy insurance or you are breaking the law.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, the bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumera ... sabout.htm

So, the USPS is not "eating our tax money" as you claim above. Where are you getting your information? From Rush Limbaugh?

Further, you cited a wikipedia reference to support your claim that conservative talk show listenership is "through the roof" but you seem to have completely ignored my link that showed (per Arbitron, referenced in your link as well) both Limbaugh and Hannity have had quite a drop in listeners beginning in 2011. All your link showed was that a) conservative talk shows seem to dominate the radio airwaves; b) of those who do listen to talk radio (as others have pointed out, a minority of the public), Limbaugh and Hannity have the top-rated shows. As I pointed out, their ratings are sliding, at a rather steep rate. Extreme viewpoints, and hate-mongering, which is what Rush sells, are only popular with a minority of the public. Most of us find it extremely distasteful.

Here are a few highlights of what "Obamacare" does:

1. Guaranteed issue and partial community rating will require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).

2. A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare, or other public insurance programs purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

3. Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process.

There are a variety of other provisions, most of which sound reasonable to me. However, people who are not already covered by an employer's health care plan will be asked to purchase health insurance. There are two sets who can opt out - members of a exempt religious sect (Christian Scientists perhaps?) and those who cannot afford it due to financial hardship.

I like #3 - Medicaid eligibility will be expanded. That means (based on 2011 poverty guidelines) that a family with 15 family members (mom, dad, 13 kids who are not adults), would qualify for Medicaid if the household income was $85,000 or less. The Bates could qualify! A more standard family of four, with a household income of $29,725 (that's 133% of 2011 poverty guideline amount of $22,350), would qualify for Medicaid coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act is not perfect, but it certainly goes a long way toward making access to affordable health care easier for millions of people.

[jericho]

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, the bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumera ... sabout.htm

So, the USPS is not "eating our tax money" as you claim above. Where are you getting your information? From Rush Limbaugh?

Further, you cited a wikipedia reference to support your claim that conservative talk show listenership is "through the roof" but you seem to have completely ignored my link that showed (per Arbitron, referenced in your link as well) both Limbaugh and Hannity have had quite a drop in listeners beginning in 2011. All your link showed was that a) conservative talk shows seem to dominate the radio airwaves; b) of those who do listen to talk radio (as others have pointed out, a minority of the public), Limbaugh and Hannity have the top-rated shows. As I pointed out, their ratings are sliding, at a rather steep rate. Extreme viewpoints, and hate-mongering, which is what Rush sells, are only popular with a minority of the public. Most of us find it extremely distasteful.

I stand corrected on the USPS. I was wrong about tax dollars being used.

I have not been able to find a ratings history for the Rush show, but I do know it has been the number one syndicated radio show since the mid 90's. I did see the reports last year showing a 33% decrease in ratings, but I have also seen that Rush's ratings are up since the Fluke incident. I might add that ratings are historically down for all TV and radio (newspaper subscriptions as well) in the last decade due to internet and new media.

[EmmieJ]

Here is something interesting I found when trying to determine ratings for radio talk shows:

When it comes to national ratings, the numbers don't necessarily add up. The reason is simple: No one actually takes the time to accurately calculate the ratings or number of listeners on a national level.

You could make an educated guess, I suppose. Limbaugh, for example, has a weekly audience of 15 million listeners. Sean Hannity has 14 million. Mark Levin, 8.5 million. Or maybe not.

Those stats come from Talkers magazine, which says the figures are "estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports and information provided by Arbitron and other sources as they relate to talk shows on news/talk-formatted stations. These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron or any other ratings service totals."

In other words, they're (almost) made up. As one source said, "Talkers is the only outlet that has ever tried to produce audience estimates. It's basically the same numbers every year, which means it's either accurate, or it's too high and the syndicators are happy with the exaggeration."

Soooooo, there is actually no way to accurately determine whether Limbaugh is actually pulling in 15 million listeners a week, whether his ratings are up overall following his indecent and disgusting comments re Sandra Fluke, etc. As in all things commercial, Rush Limbaugh will rise or fall based on whether advertisers will continue to pay premium rates to advertise on his show. If there is enough pressure that continues to be felt by advertisers, I think many of them would be happy to transfer their advertising to Huckabee's show instead.

I'm no huge fan of Huckabee, but he knows how to speak in a pleasant, relatively civil manner. He is much less likely to offend your average person who believes that common decency is still important, on the airwaves or in private discourse. Limbaugh has made a fortune and even if his show was cancelled tomorrow, he will live comfortably all his days. Sooner or later, his time will come and his show will dropped in favor of one that costs Clear Channel/Premiere and advertisers a lot less money.

[Fluffy-Boo]

Rush's listeners have apparently rallied to his cause:

There has been no measure of his listenership since the Fluke flap. But nonpartisan radio expert Michael Harrison told The Daily Caller that Limbaugh’s numbers likely are going no where but up — despite the anti-Limbaugh push.

Harrison is founder and publisher of Talkers magazine, the industry’s leading trade journal.

According to Harrison, even if all the publicity is negative, it is a “good bet that Rush is enjoying pretty high ratings†last week and going into this week.

“The irony is that he probably right now has the biggest audience he’s had in years, and the double irony of all this is sponsors that are fleeing, they’re missing out on the best advertising buy in radio,†Harrison told TheDC in an interview, explaining that Limbaugh incites passion on all fronts.

Limbaugh’s fans, said Harrison, will galvanize around him, not abandon him. Many of his detractors are listening because they feel vindicated, he explained, and still others are tuning in to hear what the fuss is about.

All this talk about Rush, and certainly people are going to tune in to hear what this train wreck is all about. All publicity is good publicity for these icons.

Even more interesting is that Politico is reporting that Axelrod is no longer appearing on Maher:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 17387.html

That's probably for the best, considering how feisty this whole thing has become.

[formergothardite]

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, the bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumera ... sabout.htm

So, the USPS is not "eating our tax money" as you claim above. Where are you getting your information? From Rush Limbaugh?

Further, you cited a wikipedia reference to support your claim that conservative talk show listenership is "through the roof" but you seem to have completely ignored my link that showed (per Arbitron, referenced in your link as well) both Limbaugh and Hannity have had quite a drop in listeners beginning in 2011. All your link showed was that a) conservative talk shows seem to dominate the radio airwaves; b) of those who do listen to talk radio (as others have pointed out, a minority of the public), Limbaugh and Hannity have the top-rated shows. As I pointed out, their ratings are sliding, at a rather steep rate. Extreme viewpoints, and hate-mongering, which is what Rush sells, are only popular with a minority of the public. Most of us find it extremely distasteful.

Here are a few highlights of what "Obamacare" does:

1. Guaranteed issue and partial community rating will require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).

2. A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare, or other public insurance programs purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

3. Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level along with a simplified CHIP enrollment process.

There are a variety of other provisions, most of which sound reasonable to me. However, people who are not already covered by an employer's health care plan will be asked to purchase health insurance. There are two sets who can opt out - members of a exempt religious sect (Christian Scientists perhaps?) and those who cannot afford it due to financial hardship.

I like #3 - Medicaid eligibility will be expanded. That means (based on 2011 poverty guidelines) that a family with 15 family members (mom, dad, 13 kids who are not adults), would qualify for Medicaid if the household income was $85,000 or less. The Bates could qualify! A more standard family of four, with a household income of $29,725 (that's 133% of 2011 poverty guideline amount of $22,350), would qualify for Medicaid coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act is not perfect, but it certainly goes a long way toward making access to affordable health care easier for millions of people.

Thanks for explaining it better. I really don't see why people are freaking out over this. And I think the comparison to public schools is really quite valid. Just like you are forced to send your kid to school, you are now forced to get health insurance. And if you can't afford it or have religious reasons, then there are exceptions. Don't they even accept scamaritian ministries as an option?

[Elle]

Here they all are on a Pinterest board, with links to company statements where available:

http://pinterest.com/thinkprogress/comp ... -limbaugh/

This is really helpful in deciding where to shop. ;)

WalMart is on that list? How many times now has WalMart been sued for its second-class, and ILLEGAL, treatment of women? WalMart is practically the poster child for treating women poorly.