The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

14 July 2006

Jerry Springer, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Sheldon Drobny

WHILE WE WERE OUT

Sheldon Rambles, Olbermann Fluff, Springer: "Libs Won!"





While your Radio Equalizer has been tied up:


Jerry Springer continues his "We Won!" tour, celebrating leftist "victories" across the land. We don't know what he's been smoking, but it must be potent.

Excerpted from the Sarasota Herald- Tribune:


SARASOTA -- Jerry Springer insists he isn't looking for absolution from the raucous television show he's hosted for 15 years.

Although the 62-year-old Democrat is trying to build a new career as a serious radio show host, he said he is not ashamed of the television program. And he's not about to disparage its 15 years of success.

"I'm not going to disrespect it," Springer said on Tuesday night just before delivering the keynote address at a fundraiser for the Sarasota Democratic Party at Laurel Oak Country Club. "It has opened a lot of doors. It's why you are talking to me today."

Sure, there are people who can't separate Springer the radio host from Springer the television host. But Springer said he thinks that is changing after almost two years on the radio.

Although he's confident in his message, Springer said it isn't easy breaking into the radio business as a liberal talk show host.

"We are the fledgling liberal talk show hosts trying to get started. We are nowhere where they are right now," Springer said of conservative radio giants like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

But Democrats shouldn't take that as a bad thing. He said Limbaugh and the like are protesters to the liberal way of life that America has adopted. He said contrary to the way pundits talk these days, America is more liberal than it ever has been.

"We won. Progressive liberals, we won. America is so much more liberal than it was 30 or 40 years ago."


Yes, Jerry, those election results going back to 1994 certainly did go your way, didn't they?


What would the Huffington Post be without rambling tirades from Air America co-founder and LaRouche fan Sheldon Drobny?

From his latest:


It is the fact that that most of the wealthy liberals will not support it financially that prevents AAR from doing many of the things that would make it very successful. I am not suggesting that AAR is going out of business. We are still shareholders of AAR and have our own disagreements with some management decisions but that is only natural in corporate America. The big problem has always been from the very start that rich liberals refuse to give it financial support and they make excuses for not making an investment in AAR that are disingenuous. The people who are funding AAR now are the same people who funded it originally including our venture fund.

But every big time investor who is a liberal shifts the due diligence process to one of their financial advisors as if this were a “garden variety” investment. It is not. With more financial support and the branding that AAR already has, the network could do all the things necessary to make it enormously successful. The fact that right wing broadcasters control most of the powerful radio stations in the country makes AAR’s achievements almost miraculous. AAR is now in almost ninety cities. Unfortunately about 25 of these are Clear Channel under-performing stations and CC refuses to invest any promotional money for their local communities.


Well, Sheldon, if "wealthy liberals" really thought Air America had a future, don't you think they might consider investing in it?


And the New York Times manages to squeeze in yet another puff piece for liberal MSNBC weirdo Keith Olbermann. It seems MSM types are still pushing the theory that Keith is "catching up" to O'Reilly!

Just how long will it take, a century?


He is either the leading man of MSNBC or its leading agent provocateur, but Keith Olbermann has no problem embracing either role.

“You can’t spell momentum without Olbermann — or something like that,” he said in a telephone interview, with a typical sprinkle of wry in his voice.

The momentum reference related to MSNBC’s recent aggressive positioning of the program “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” as the centerpiece of this all-news cable network’s latest effort to become more competitive with Fox News Channel and CNN.

MSNBC revamped its prime-time schedule two weeks ago, shelving many of its prime-time hosts in favor of documentary-style programs but retaining “Countdown,” a program the network cites as its great growth story.

That growth, while coming from a base that Fox News would find disastrously puny, is demonstrable, especially among the group that is chiefly sold to news advertisers: people between the ages of 25 and 54. For the last quarter, Mr. Olbermann, who is 47, has seen his ratings in that group grow by more than 30 percent.


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to support the Radio Equalizer's efforts. Thanks for your vital assistance!

Mayor Of Hell: David A Lunde

26 Comments:

  • Sounds like a story from AAR's playbook - cite a percentage increase as if it's big news and then claim victory. But 30% of nothing is still...nothing!

    BSD

    By Blogger B. Samule Davis, at 14 July, 2006 16:00  

  • My "radio show" ratings went up 300 percent over the previous month, bringing them up to a .2 share.
    Pretty impressive dont you think?

    By Blogger Owen, at 14 July, 2006 16:24  

  • Falafel Boy O'Reilly's viewers are so old and crotchety that the advertising agencies are rolling commercials for Depends, Fixodent and prune juice.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 14 July, 2006 16:27  

  • While your Radio Equalizer has been tied up

    So THAT was the price you were forced to pay to get on O'Reilly's freaks and phonies show? Did you enjoy his falafel?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 14 July, 2006 16:38  

  • ...Yet he still has viewers, and thus has a demand with advertisers. See, ya gotta have SOMEONE listening to you if you're gonna sell your show... Even if - as you claim - they're all old.

    Better to be listened to by older citizens than no citizens.

    Oh, and what's wrong with our seasoned citizens that they are to be dismissed so easily? Elmonica, you're not an agist, are you?

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 14 July, 2006 16:40  

  • It doesn't appear that OReilly is having any trouble selling his advertising spots. If anything the commercial breaks are too long and too frequent.

    I can't comment about the commercial breaks on Olbermann's show since like the other 99.88% (350,000 out of 300,000,000) of America, I've never seen his show.

    As has been already stated, I think that it's obvious that even if OReilly has a only a small percentage of his audience in the coveted demographic, that number of eyes still vastly overwhelms Olbermann's audience.

    I'm also interested in Drobny's claim that AA's donors need to ignore their brains and give from their hearts. Those hearts will probably last through November, but I don't think they'll keep bleeding generously enough to reach 2008.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 15 July, 2006 10:58  

  • Sheldon says "The people who are funding AAR now are the same people who funded it originally including our venture fund."

    Is my memory failing me or wasn't there a buyout that left original AAR creditors holding the bag?

    It was just before the un-armed robbery of the boys and girls club as I recall.

    An admission of guilt?

    By Blogger MaaddMaaxx, at 15 July, 2006 11:27  

  • Libs are always getting on Limbaugh about his weight.

    Well, take a look at Drobny!

    It's looks like if he were to un-tuck his shirt, his gut would spill out onto the floor.

    But to refute the nonsense he's spewing. He seems to think that more money from rich liberals would make AAR fabulously successful.

    Well then, if that's the case, shouldn't AAR be at least somewhat successful as is? With the exception of Portland, it's failing everywhere.

    By Blogger Brett, at 15 July, 2006 13:43  

  • I love Keith's show, a just wish more people did. If Olbermann catches up, I'd love to see the look on O'Lielly's face.

    By Blogger Aaron, at 16 July, 2006 02:39  

  • Aaron -

    "If Olbermann catches up, I'd love to see the look on O'Lielly's face."


    Not to be cruel about this, but, however clever Keith might be, you can't live long enough for Olbermann to catch O'Reilly.

    O'Reilly simply has too much of a lead in viewership.

    Olbermann could start doing the show with naked girls in the background and it wouldn't catch OReilly.

    I'm not supporting or defending OReilly's opinions here... it's just Olbermann's show is a sort of stinky French Cheese situation.

    No matter how good he is, Olbermann's views have a taste that doesn't appeal to enough viewers.

    O'Reilly opinion is American cheese. Maybe it isn't very good but you can melt it over anything, and people will eat it up.

    Sorry.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 16 July, 2006 11:20  

  • Jerry Springer was Mayor of Cincinnati (as you know, but maybe some of your readers don't) and he became famous here for writing a check to a prostitute he visited in Covington Ky. just across the Ohio River. At the time, it caused something of a stir here, but by today's standards, I guess it means nothing.

    By Blogger Anton, at 16 July, 2006 11:20  

  • "If Olbermann catches up, I'd love to see the look on O'Lielly's face."

    That is a mighty big IF.

    Olbermann would need a very large increase:
    Not a 10% increase
    Not a 25% increase
    Not even a 35% increase

    In order to simply match O'Reilly, he would need an increase of 550%. I think hell will freeze over first.
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 16 July, 2006 12:59  

  • I support Air America, at least by listening to it. It would be a shame for it to not be there.

    I have to admit that Springer's show is often painfull to listen to. And who's ideas are those spoof skits that they play ?!? Do they think any listeners are idiotic enough to enjoy them?

    If Springer is going to survive, he needs to clean house and gear his program more towards brainier back-and-forth discussions, and away from people imitating Laura Bush saying something naughty. Galvin's a very funny guy, but if those skits are his doings he needs to be sacked asap.

    Try some experimental formats Jerry, before its too late.

    By Blogger ohio, at 16 July, 2006 20:23  

  • In order to simply match O'Reilly, he would need an increase of 550%. I think hell will freeze over first.

    Or if you had any brains or weren't brainwashed by your failed ideology, you would also see that O'Reilly's numbers are in rapid deline. Over Q2 '06, Falafelmeister lost 11% of his 25-54 demo and 8% of his total viewers. Olbermann won't have to catch him - the serial sexual harasser is going to fly straight past him on the way down.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 16 July, 2006 21:36  

  • HeadHunter: It looks like you've been reading Brian Stelter and making some of the the same assumptions that he is.

    There's one problem with your analysis, which Stelter acknowledges but you do not: With the most viewers across the board, FNC has the most to lose. Furthermore, just because FNC is losing viewers does not necessarily mean that MSNBC is gaining them.

    Just a couple of snapshots, not taken to state a trend, but they do sorta illustrate my point:

    From Thursday, (a big news day) O'Reilly had three times the viewers "in the demo" that Olby did, with almost seven times as many total viewers.

    Going back to three weeks ago (not as big a news day), O'Reilly had 2-1/2 times the viewership "in the demo," while carrying 5-1/2 times the total viewership.

    If O'Reilly is crumbling as you say, someone had better explain it to the ratings books.

    As to Olby, he should worry about getting above Nancy Grace and Paula Zahn in the ratings books before his fans start popping off about taking down O'Reilly.

    By Blogger JD, at 16 July, 2006 23:54  

  • HeadHunter: It looks like you've been reading Brian Stelter and making some of the the same assumptions that he is.

    Your assumption about what I read is wrong.

    There's one problem with your analysis, which Stelter acknowledges but you do not: With the most viewers across the board, FNC has the most to lose. Furthermore, just because FNC is losing viewers does not necessarily mean that MSNBC is gaining them.

    I didn't make any such claim. Falafelmeister's viewers are leaving in droves. Some may go to Olbermann, many may go elsewhere, but given their average age most are simply going to die off.

    Just a couple of snapshots, not taken to state a trend, but they do sorta illustrate my point:

    Well at least you acknowledge that the numbers you cherry-picked do not represent a trend. In fact, the trend is exactly the opposite. He has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo. Putting stupid shills like Maloney on your show will do that.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 17 July, 2006 06:47  

  • Fine. Prove it.

    Those weren't cherry picked dates - those were random.

    You are making the claim that O'Reilly "has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo." Your words, not mine. The only way to validate that claim is to provide the link.

    Can you?

    And will you also provide the links of the viewership to his direct viewing competition (Grace, Olby, Zahn) to see what their viewership trends are (e.g. more/less people watching news)?

    Or are you just another RWW sockpuppet who comes on here with big spew but no facts?

    By Blogger JD, at 17 July, 2006 11:33  

  • Fine. Prove it. Those weren't cherry picked dates -those were random.

    Prove that! You selected them. So you tell me your methodology to ensure your selection was truly random.

    You are making the claim that O'Reilly "has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo." Your words, not mine. The only way to validate that claim is to provide the link.

    Can you?


    Sure. I'll even use the source you yourself have been using.

    Quarter to quarter numbers for FXNC

    June '06 vs June '05 numbers

    And will you also provide the links of the viewership to his direct viewing competition (Grace, Olby, Zahn) to see what their viewership trends are (e.g. more/less people watching news)?

    Sure. The last link above also shows Nancy Grace down, Blitzer down, and Zahn down in the demo but up in total viewers. But also shows Lou Dobbs with big gains, Hardball with more modest increases, and Olbermann with impressive gains as previously discussed.

    Or are you just another RWW sockpuppet who comes on here with big spew but no facts?

    Shove those links in your pipe and smoke it, wingnut. How about applying this standard to blinky boy and the falafelmeister.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 17 July, 2006 13:01  

  • BZZZT!

    404 on both hyperlinks, nimrod.

    Try harder next time, wouldja?

    By Blogger JD, at 17 July, 2006 18:45  

  • Here you go, wingnut. It's tough to care about this BS. My bad...

    Fine. Prove it. Those weren't cherry picked dates -those were random.

    Prove that! You selected them. So you tell me your methodology to ensure your selection was truly random.

    You are making the claim that O'Reilly "has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo." Your words, not mine. The only way to validate that claim is to provide the link.

    Can you?


    Sure. I'll even use the source you yourself have been using.

    Quarter to quarter numbers for FXNC

    June '06 vs June '05 numbers

    And will you also provide the links of the viewership to his direct viewing competition (Grace, Olby, Zahn) to see what their viewership trends are (e.g. more/less people watching news)?

    Sure. The last link above also shows Nancy Grace down, Blitzer down, and Zahn down in the demo but up in total viewers. But also shows Lou Dobbs with big gains, Hardball with more modest increases, and Olbermann with impressive gains as previously discussed.

    Or are you just another RWW sockpuppet who comes on here with big spew but no facts?

    Shove those links in your pipe and smoke it, wingnut. How about applying this standard to blinky boy and the falafelmeister.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 17 July, 2006 19:38  

  • BZZT! Nice try, Hunter, but once again you don't get the Kewpie doll.

    Remember what you wrote: "...year after year, quarter over quarter."

    I see 2005 to 2006. Where's 2004? 2003? And you're accusing me of cherrypicking? What were O'Reilly's ratings in 2004? In 2003? When did Olby get paired with O'Reilly on the schedule? What happened when that occurred? Do you know, or are you just buying into the Olby-Wan jedi mind trick?

    Again, a reminder: "...year after year, quarter over quarter, in both total viewers and the demo." You're the one making the claim, you back it up. If you can.

    As an aside, it's real easy to post a big gain versus previous year when the previous year you had microscopic ratings to begin with (example - Olby, 2005). If you had a 1 rating and went up to 2, you could realistically claim a 100% increase in ratings. The trick is to maintain the ratings and share over time. And note also that with Olby's "impressive" gains, he still remains in fourth place in the demo and in total viewership in the time slot, behind Nancy Grace, behind Paula Zahn, and behind O'Reilly. No matter how much you try to cook the books, you just can't get around that fact.

    You hate O'Reilly, I get that. Olby-Wan is your master. I get that too. But your take on the ratings and trends is absolutely dead wrong, and IMHO will be proven so in the next book or two.

    By Blogger JD, at 18 July, 2006 00:56  

  • BZZT! Nice try, Hunter, but once again you don't get the Kewpie doll.

    And your a typical wingnut coward. I asked you for your methodology concerning how you "randomly" selected your numbers and what did you do? You decide to duck.

    Remember what you wrote: "...year after year, quarter over quarter."

    Go back to elementary school and earn how to read, dumbass. I wrote "year over year". The June '06 vs June '05 numbers I posted is the current year over year comparison. Here's another year over year comparison. And another. And another by quarter. More proof. All showing O'Reilly rapidly shedding viewers.

    I see 2005 to 2006. Where's 2004? 2003? And you're accusing me of cherrypicking? What were O'Reilly's ratings in 2004? In 2003? When did Olby get paired with O'Reilly on the schedule? What happened when that occurred? Do you know, or are you just buying into the Olby-Wan jedi mind trick?

    You're a moron. You cherry-pick numbers from 2 nights and you want me to run around pulling numbers going back 3 years? When I didn't even make any such a claim? Fuck you.

    Again, a reminder: "...year after year, quarter over quarter, in both total viewers and the demo."

    Now I know your also a liar and a cheat. If you had copied and pasted from my original post, here's what it would have said.

    "He has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo."

    Fucking wingnut cheat.

    You're the one making the claim, you back it up. If you can.

    I have... more than adequately.

    As an aside, it's real easy to post a big gain versus previous year when the previous year you had microscopic ratings to begin with (example - Olby, 2005).

    I was talking about O'Reilly and his numbers.

    If you had a 1 rating and went up to 2, you could realistically claim a 100% increase in ratings. The trick is to maintain the ratings and share over time.

    Duh. When did you finally work that one out?

    And note also that with Olby's "impressive" gains, he still remains in fourth place in the demo and in total viewership in the time slot, behind Nancy Grace, behind Paula Zahn, and behind O'Reilly. No matter how much you try to cook the books, you just can't get around that fact.

    You cherry-pick numbers from two nights and you accuse me of "cooking the books". You're a typical wingnut hypocrite.

    You hate O'Reilly, I get that.

    He's a liar and a shill and a serial sexual harasser. What's to like? If you like that sort of thing then you're the one who has to live with that. But don't get all whiney when people ding you for it.

    Olby-Wan is your master. I get that too.

    Nope. Quote from any of my posts which demonstrate I've been cheerleading Olbermann.

    But your take on the ratings and trends is absolutely dead wrong,...

    Dead wrong? You're living in fantasy land, wingnut. Read the numbers instead of being blinded by your failed ideology.

    ... and IMHO will be proven so in the next book or two.

    That's a just dumbass wingnut opinion that runs counter to the trends in O'Reilly's numbers as I have more than adeqautely shown.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 July, 2006 04:31  

  • It sucks when you get punked with your own words, doesn't it?

    I clearly stated that I chose my dates not to state a trend but to illustrate a point. They happened to be both Thursday evenings, one from before all this bidness in the Levant was going down, and one from after.

    But I don't have to explain my methodology to you. I'm not the one making claims about how O'Reilly "has been bleeding viewers year over year, quarter over quarter in both total viewers and the demo." Check the thread. Those are YOUR words, chump.

    And when they are brought to challenge, you take the RWW way out - lies, obfuscation and invective. That won't wash here, not with me.

    It's not my fault that your statements are not borne out by the facts. It's not my fault that when your statements are challenged you point to the incorrect data. It's not my fault that you can't back up your own statements without resorting to spew.

    But that's okay, evidently that's how you roll. But all it proves is that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper sack.

    Next time come with something besides half-assed smack and juvenile antics, mmmKay?

    By Blogger JD, at 18 July, 2006 11:42  

  • Hilarious! That failed wingnut ideology of yours has obviously made you delusional... but entertaining nonetheless.

    And dishonest. You had to resort to falsifying my words in order to achieve some supposed great gotcha moment. Your mother would be proud.

    Coward. When challenged about the supposed "randomness" of the numbers that you selected, you decide to run. Well done.

    Willfully ignorant. I provide SIX sets of data - SIX! - over variously extended timeframes - year over year, quarter over quarter, plus more - which clearly prove Falafelmeister is shedding viewers... ratings data that an entire industry lives and dies by... which through some twisted unintelligible wingnut logic you declare as "incorrect".

    And what do you provide to support your statements in counter-argument? Numbers from two nights... supposedly chosen in random. You are just too funny for words.

    Desperate. So realizing that you've had your head handed to you on a pike, you start babbling about RWW and trot out all the standard old wingnut boilerplate which has absolutely no relevance to the argument.

    You're an absolute laughing stock. Run home to mommy now, mmmKay?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 July, 2006 12:45  

  • Hunter - I would encourage you to look at your post of 7/17 at 06:47, and then consider whether your precious "SIX sets of data - SIX!" come anywhere close to what you allege.

    News flash: They don't. One year, yes. One quarter, yes. But remember - "year over year, quarter over quarter, in both total viewers and in the demo." Your words, not mine. Your assertion, not mine. Your burden to prove if challenged, not mine.

    I'm sorry that you are so offended that someone is calling you on your bullcrap. No amount of air freshener is going to cover up that stank that you're trying to put out.

    By Blogger JD, at 18 July, 2006 15:43  

  • News flash: They don't. One year, yes. One quarter, yes. But remember - "year over year, quarter over quarter, in both total viewers and in the demo." Your words, not mine. Your assertion, not mine. Your burden to prove if challenged, not mine.

    Do you have any idea what "year over year" or "quarter over quarter" comparisons actually are when referring to ratings or financials or any other type of recurring data. Your mindless babble betrays your ignorance. Let me educate you, dumbass.

    A "year over year" comparison compares a given month (or quarter) of the current year with the same month (or quarter) of the previous year. I have posted links to 4 such comparisons all of which clearly demonstrate Falafelman's declining numbers.

    A "quarter over quarter" comparison compares a given quarter with one of more previous quarters. I have posted a link to one such comparison which also clearly demonstrates Loofa Boy's falling ratings over the first two quarters of this year.

    I have also posted a link to the this data which includes:

    April marked Bill O'Reilly's lowest-rated month in the 25-54 demographic since August 2001.

    His 415,000 demo viewers in March was a new low, but O'Reilly managed to lose a few more in April, averaging 412,000 in the demo. Here's his post-Katrina track:

    Sept: 1,115
    Oct: 518
    Nov: 468
    Dec: 460
    Jan: 472
    Feb: 458
    Mar: 415


    And Apr '06 - 412 (as per above)
    And May '06 - 378

    That's 3 consecutive quarters of significant losses. And all you could put up were two nights of supposedly "random" numbers. Pathetic.

    I'm sorry that you are so offended that someone is calling you on your bullcrap. No amount of air freshener is going to cover up that stank that you're trying to put out.

    No offense taken. Your ignorance and your delusional persistence in the face of hard numbers is hilariously entertaining. You really ought to check your pants for that smell.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 July, 2006 17:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger