NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52586

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52586 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10569
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!uflorida!sinkhole.unf.edu!unf6!jdough
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Dougherty)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:20:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of North Florida, Jacksonville
Lines: 65


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
>keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
>not care for this.

    Satya,
    I don't understand *how* you can justify this remark. First,
politics isn't the *only* issue in the US, and Limbaugh certainly isn't
short of other cultural issues to discuss. The news is filled with stuff
that he continually comments upon. For example, he made some comments
this past week (on Friday, I believe) about the verdicts in a couple
of court cases...actions that would outrage anyone...and people on the
phone responded. That's a case of his "enemy," the stupidity of certain
legal decisions.
    Another example: he made a long comment about the appointments
rumored for the Clinton cabinet. True, this may be political, but his
criticisms were founded in the socialist and cultural disparities
within the actions of those people.
    As for him taking on a "fundamentalist Christian" tone, all I
can say is when did this happen? Limbaugh rarely discusses religion on his
program, and generally does so only when a caller mentions it, and even
then only in the most perfunctory manner. Trust me, I've been listening
to his program daily for over three years, mostly at work. If he were to
take this direction you claim, I'd be listening  to music tapes instead.



>
>So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends,
>he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
>
1. His book not only went #1 on the NYT Best Seller list in two weeks,
but it returned to the top spot after being knocked down by Madonna. No
non-fiction book has ever done this before.

2. His television program, a syndicated program locked in at no set time
slot in any major market, follows only "The Tonight Show" and "Nightline"
in late-night popularity. This is since September, when it debuted, at
the height of the campaign, and has increased since the election last month.

3. The early book numbers on his audience this year showed a weekly listening
audience of 13 to 13.5 million. Three to 3.5 million are listening atany one
time. The late year figures show an increase to 14-14.5 million weekly. Thus
his audience continues to grow, despite what you believe. This isn't made up,
look at the radio audience ratings books. Only Paul Harvey has a larger
audience, and his programs are very brief. Usually, they're played in the
middle of some other format (i.e., here in Jacksonville, they play his little
news and "Rest of the Story" bits a couple of times per day on a local FM
country station). So, it's not a decent comparison. Compare his ratings
to Larry King. That's the real contrast.

    I know you'd like to see him go away, since you seem to be so
against him idealologically.
    In your dreams...

Cheers and happy holidays,

Joe Dougherty
[e-mail]