Tommy, I’m deeply confused. In the article, you say that Limbaugh has 3 million listeners. But according to Mediaite’s Power Grid Rankings, he has 14.75 million listeners. Someone is lying by a factor of 5x. Is it you, or your employer?

Frum explains it in the video.

No, not really. Frum says that Limbaugh has a daily audience of 3, 4, maybe 5 million listeners. You said it was 3 million (the low end of Frum’s estimate) without specifying daily or weekly. The Mediate Power Grid Rankings say 14.75 without specifying daily or weekly.

I’m agnostic as to whether daily or weekly listeners is the more accurate measure of a radio host’s influence. But I am concerned. If, as you assert in the article, taking on Limbaugh if merely “pissing off 3 million people,” then why do the Mediaite Power Grid Ranking give a number that is 5 times that amount.

You see, here’s what bugs me. According to Mediate’s “About” Page, “Mediaite’s ‘Power Grid’ OBJECTIVELY ranks media professionals across a dozen categories based on their real-time relevance.” (emphasis is mine). Based on that OBJECTIVE measure, Rush Limbaugh has 14.75 million listeners.

Frum got on national television and used a number that was 1/3rd to 1/5th of that OBJECTIVE amount to argue that Limbaugh’s influence is overstated. I would have thought that Mediate’s response would have been: “David Frum Tells a Fib; Manipulates Statistics to Devalue Limabugh’s Relevance by 2/3rds to 4/5ths.” That would have been an interesting article that certainly would have challenged the image that Frum is trying to craft for himself as a guy who tells the truth when others are just being partisan hacks.

Instead, you (who ironically is employed by and is writing for Mediaite) did not defend Mediaite’s OBJECTIVE measure of relevance. Not only that, you took the LOW END of Frum’s “3, 4, or 5 million” estimate so that the difference between your measure and the Power Grid’s measure was the largest it could possibly be.

So, my question is this: Are the Mediaite Power Grid Rankings bogus, are are you, Tommy, the one who was not being OBJECTIVE?

Geez — 5 days a week of about 3 million is about 15 million. The same 3 million which, if you consider the number of overlapping outlets (in my area Rush is on four different stations at the same time), would seem to be the result of the number of outlets and little other choice. And the conclusion that Obama risks nothing because he’s pissing off Rush’s listeners is exactly right — they were never going to vote for him anyway. But what those listeners and you who suck Rush are missing is that they aren’t going to vote for Rush either. Rush is ultimately ineffective and a blowhard who’s getting rich off the rubes at his carnival.

Bill Adkins:

IF that’s the case and weekly listeners are nothing more than (the low end) of daily listeners times 5, then you might have a point. But I’m guessing [he said facetiously] that the exactly same listeners do not listen everyday. But I’ll leave it to an OBJECTIVE media expert to explain the difference and why Tommy’s estimate of Limbaugh’s relevance is only 1/5th that of the OBJECTIVE measure that his employer touts.

And, Bill Adkins, you have things backwards. Radio hosts don’t have lots of listeners because they are on lots of radio stations. Rather, they are on lots of radio stations because they have lots of listeners. Supply follows demand. Supply doesn’t dictate demand. Apple sold lots of iPads this weekend because lots of people wanted them, not because they made a lot of them.

Right, Frum was (presumably) dividing the weekly audience by 5.

Also, there is some truth to what Bikll says about the number of stations:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/14/rush-limbaugh-owes-success-to-giving-his-show-away/

All the Marys in Heaven know I don’t want to cause anyone to descend from this Mighty Molehill, but it strikes me “influence” includes something more than raw numbers, and it does strike me that Limbaugh has, over the last couple of years, morphed into something of a clown. We still have Republicans and conservatives offering Limbaugh tribute and fealty, to be sure, but even that has become something of a tedious slapstick routine.

David Frum has been criticizing Limbaugh – and challenging his influence – for a number of years. This isn’t the result of any “liberation” (real or imagined) as a result of him leaving AEI.

Second, this Administration didn’t push back against “falsehoods”. They aggressively went after a critical press in a way that, to my knowledge, has never been done. That should be troubling to anyone who isn’t an apologist for an Administration (Democrat or Republican).

Third, this Administration is now going on Fox News and working with it. So much for their outrage over “falsehoods” by that sinister news organization.

Other than getting facts wrong and reciting a tendentious account of the matter, this was just a terrific post.

SteveMG, I don’t think you factor in the degree to which FOX has changed, a change brought about in some measure by having been on the outside looking in for a while. O’Reilly is still quirky, but he has become far more temperate than he was in the past. Hannity has been marginalized in a signficant way as his brand of Raygun Republicanism has been substituted with this mean-spirited but amorphous mass. Van Susteren has never really contributed much to the FOX brand, and that continues. A few true barking believers remain: the Gretch and the Douchey still throw out cheap cuts of red meat to the hair curler-laden Alabama Hausfrauen; Mean as Helly Kelly remains as bitter and strident as ever; Beck continues his slog through an extreme right swamp of fear and ignorance. By and large, however, Ailes & Company seem to actually be working for that legitimacy they so crave. I think President Obama is a real mensch for recognizing that and trying to help. In the end, President Obama may cloak FOX in legitimacy, but not by the mad dog and beans manner Ailes planned.

In the end, President Obama may cloak FOX in legitimacy, but not by the mad dog and beans manner Ailes planned.

So, why did the White House abandon its “quarantine” of appearing on FNC? That policy lasted, what?, a month? So much for delegitimizing FNC (and there’s a huge difference between the very professional, in my view, straight news reporters at Fox versus the lunatics like Beck and hacks like Hannity. The White House and other critics of FNC fail to recognize the difference).

Anyway, for about 200 years or so the opposition press in this country has attacked the party in power. From roughly Jefferson on to Obama, Presidents have been excoriated by the opposition and their allies in the news media. Sometimes fairly, sometimes not.

What Fox is doing isn’t new. It may be “worse” but not new.

When my government aggressively goes after a news organization the way this Administration did, I tend to support the media over the government.

As JFK once said, sometimes the Party (or ideology) asks too much. If folks like Tommy really were concerned about press freedom and not ideology, they’d be as least as concerned with the White House’s response to the unfair (and much of it is) criticism from Fox as they are with what Fox broadcasts.

No, Steve, FOX and Foxes have been moaning about President Obama not appearing on FOX almost from the inception of his presidency. Van Susteren still bleats about it endlessly.

FOX is going through a change. I can say what the impetuses or impeti are, completely. I think President Obama recognized the efforts of some very fine people at FOX like Major and Shep. I think he wanted to acknowledge that.

I also think the Baier interview, with Baier’s rudeness and disrespect for our President and our presidency, also helped our President.

I think our President took a step, but FOX made a leap.

Tommy:

You are completely and utterly sacrificing your credibility on this.

Mediaite’s official position, as expressed in its much-touted Power Grid Rankings long before this came up, is that Limbaugh has 14.75 million listeners (let’s round that to 15 million for the sake of math).

Frum then gets on television and says that Limbaugh’s viewership is “3, 4, or 5 million.”

You then run a story a story that: (1) says that Rush has 3 million listeners (the low end of Frum’s estimate); (2) implies that Rush’s own estimate of 20 million listeners is bogus; and, (3) credits a tweet from Trish Hussein Llanes that says: “Ha! Kurtz pushing the bogus, inflated estimate of Limbaugh listeners, Frum shoots him down.”

So, you, and all of Mediaite, need to go on the record. Is 15 million a “bogus, inflated” estimate of Rush’s listeners? If so, why is Mediaite using it in its Power Grid Rankings?

Is the real number, as you now apparently claim, only 3 million, but Mediaite artificially multiplies it by 5 because there are five days a week? If so, that methodology needs to be explained.

Or, was Frum wrong, and you are simply scrambling to concoct a post-hoc justification for his erroneous statement because: (1) you don’t like Rush Limbaugh; and, (2) I know your organization’s official position on Rush Limbaugh’s listenership better than you did when you wrote this “story”?

Try as you might, you cannot have it both ways on this. Either Mediaite is wrong or you and Frum are wrong. Choose your poison.

Tommy:

And the fact that you are peddling that bizzaro theory of syndication as the secret of Rush’s success is even more desperate. If that’s all it takes, why haven’t liberal talk show mimicked it and equaled Rush’s success? There’s nothing stopping them from doing it. The truth is that everyone in the business (both liberals and conservatives) have done everything possible to beat Rush (including that and every other syndication scheme imaginable) but it hasn’t worked. Rush is at the top of the industry because he gets the most listeners, plain and simple, by far.

For the record, I’m not much of a Rush fan. But I’m not going to let the issues I have with him lead me to concoct bizarre theories about how his success is really a mirage. His success is what it is, and it is for a reason.

Finch wins for most annoying poster of the week. Again.

Trickletown:

Then you have the option of ignoring me and unreflectively accepting whatever pablum is fed to you.

(White) Royal, since you know everything that goes on at Fox, you must be a regular viewer. I’m sure they appreciate your patronage.

Trickletown, I actually enjoy Finch’s posts for the most part and often agree with him, but you are a jewel.

Yes, a fired no one takes a shot at Rush. Nothing new.

Well, Tyler, that gives a great lesson in life to our children, doesn’t it? A man is fired because of his principles whilst another man prospers due to his total lack of principles. I think I finally understand conservative values. Thank you.

The people that say Fox news reports lies are just nuts that want to believe its lies. The truth hurts. If Ruppert would just buy one of the networks his news model would wipe out the other two networks. If Rush has only three million listeners, what does that say about all the other radio hosts who have far less? The anti-Rush nuts seem to think the same people listen everyday and they listen to all three hours. Anyone that knows how radio works know the audience changes all the time.

The Real Royal King, you have no principles, only loathing for this country.

Trickletown says:
April 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Finch wins for most annoying poster of the week. Again.

Those pesky little “facts” really frick up your day, eh trickledick?

Keep it up finch, you have far more stamina than I!

TylerDurdin says:
April 5, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The Real Royal King, you have no principles, only loathing for this country.

Tyler, I don’t think he actually loathes the country, just anyone or anything that doesn’t see things his way. Kind of like little kids, you can’t reason with them even when they know you’re right, the intellectual “wall” goes up and nothing (especially common sense) gets through.

Whoa…more than a few dim bulbs and rubber stampers posting on this site.

I am certain T. Christopher has facts to back up his charges…so what does he offer to back up his charge that Rush Limbaugh trades…”in facts that are demonstrably, objectively false.”. What facts used by Limbaugh are false?

By the way…Frum’s been gone for a long time…we knew it…maybe he didn’t.

Don’t you love it when a site that reports obsessively on everything Rush Limbaugh says claims he isn’t influential after all?