The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

17 January 2007

Fox News Channel, CNN, Larry King

THE KING'S SURROUNDED

Larry Hosts Lone Non- FOX Top 15 Program







For a real sense of just how much the FOX News Channel now dominates cable talk, this clever new trade ad hammers the point home:

(Click for larger version, hat tip to Inside Cable)

Yes, when a 73- year- old softball thrower is the only non- FOX program in the top 15, you know the other networks are in a sad state of affairs.

Funny enough, since we hear so much from the mainstream media about Keith Olbermann, why is he unable even to move ahead of FOX's reruns?

It seems the MSM's endless upbeat publicity campaign isn't doing any more for MSNBC than it did for Air America.


Speaking of Larry, here's another account of his days as a two- bit scam artist in Miami. How many viewers are aware of his shady past?


Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Technorati tags:

31 Comments:

  • Where's my error here? I had been led to understand that Fox News ratings were plummeting--perhaps in tandem with the drop in President Bush's ratings——proving that it's a losing business strategy for a news organization to link its fortunes with a political party as Fox has linked its fortunes to the Bush-dominated Republican party.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 01:22  

  • By Blogger Sebio, at 17 January, 2007 04:44  

  • What does this have to do with radio, Mr. Radio Equalizer?

    By Blogger trainwreck, at 17 January, 2007 08:38  

  • Trainwreck,

    "The Radio Equalizer: where talk radio, TV, print media and politics collide."

    By Blogger Stacy, at 17 January, 2007 09:34  

  • Yes, all the 12%ers in all their paranoia watch this news network to make them feel secure. The network reports on a 5th grade level, for America's most ignorant. When you have every 12%er in the country watching the propaganda it is no surprise it is #1, it has a high concentration of retards viewing.
    The rest of America, watches various other networks or reads.

    12%ers rule !!!

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 17 January, 2007 09:35  

  • Metro,

    You took MSNBC's deliberate mistatement of ratings to get that idea about FOX. MSNBC is the toilet of ratings. Only the Minister of Poop plays to smaller audiences.

    Minister of Poop,

    to call you a 1/2 percenter is wildly inflating your popularity. You are in a small minority, but your delusions rule.

    The both of you love to take things out of context to prove your points. too bad, so sad.

    By Blogger PCD, at 17 January, 2007 10:05  

  • PCD
    Broadcast nightly news has 5000% more viewers than Fox news.
    America has no idea who I'm, but America agrees with the views put forth on my program and by the left in general far more than the radical fantasy world right. FACTS, buddy. YOU LOST, conservatism has been rejected. Fox's 2 million viewers are the 12%ers.
    deal with the irrelevancy

    The dumbest of the dumb watch fox news, real conservatives don't watch that crap. Only the functionally retarted and of corse the GOP

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 17 January, 2007 10:33  

  • minister of poop,

    "America agrees with the views put forth on my program and by the left "

    No, they don't. America is not a leftist country. You are so far left that you don't deal with reality. You say facts. Those are your delusions. The Democrat did not run espousing their ideas, just hate Bush and Iraq. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

    By Blogger PCD, at 17 January, 2007 11:11  

  • Actually, I think the people of the U.S. are quite crazy. Many, perhaps most, identify themselves as conservatives. At the same time, if you ask them specific questions, say on health care or Social Security, they turn out to have opinions in line with what liberals advocate.

    Go figure. All I can say is that there'll be Hell to pay if they ever, en masse, grasp that fact.

    (By the way, one of my New Years' resolutions is to be civil at all times in this sort of forum. Lord, give me the strength--oops, I forgot, I'm an agnostic! Maybe that should be, scepticism, give me the strength!)

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 11:23  

  • And PCD, and I mean this sincerely and not maliciously, please cite your sources. If you actually think you can educate me, that's a minimal duty on your part.

    In a brief bout of surfing on the web (about 5 minutes or so), I, a neophyte at looking at ratings, discovered reports dating from late summer/early fall and earlier which indicated a substantial drop in Fox News ratings. Most referred to a site, TVNewser, which, I assume, you know. Of course, most likely, the first right-wing reaction to this will be that TVNewser is biased. But, frankly, that's a right-wing trick that's getting a bit old, so I'll need substantiation of that fact to believe it.

    So, what's up? And, please, no ad hominem; no changing the subject. Just the facts (and your sources).

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 11:41  

  • PCD:
    America is indeed a "liberal country", America rejected conservatism, the only concepts of conservatism some Americans agree with is curtailing od spending by the government.
    America believes in science, America does not want big business to write legislation, America does not want a state religion, America does not want endless wars, America is against war profiteering.
    Guess you PCD are out of reality. More rude awakinings to follow. America has wiken up from the propaganda induced haze of conservatism. Learn to get used to it

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 17 January, 2007 11:43  

  • It's FUN to watch conservatism's last, dying, death gasp!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 January, 2007 12:47  

  • Maloney, I like the way you smear King who is as apolitical a television host as you will find. Continues to reflect your extreme bias against any media organization other than Fox.

    Yesterday Tucker had on the the ultra right-winger Tom Tacredo. Tucker was kissing his ass like Maloney kisses Limbaughs. Between Scarborough, Tucker, Mathews and Olbermann you have a real effort at providing differing viewpoints.

    You want to see an example of Fox rightwing bias? Look at this banner here

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 17 January, 2007 14:50  

  • It's been proven that watching FOX News makes you dumber.

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 17 January, 2007 16:15  

  • The URL I just posted didn't show up right, here is a link.

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 17 January, 2007 16:19  

  • Hi, Elmonica!

    Re: the banner

    Having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years, (alas, sigh, I no longer do), all I can say is that the rest of the country should be so lucky as to turn into San Francisco. It's a great city!

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 17:55  

  • Yeah, its great to live in the San Fran area, unless you're poor.

    http://www.marinij.com/marin/ci_5029025

    MOP,

    Tone down the broadcasts, cut the vulgarities, and reference the material you use on your show and it might get on the air.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 17 January, 2007 18:50  

  • Stacy

    Thanks for the advice and thank you for checking us out. We sometimes go way overboard, I agree. The stories we use are usually posted on our blog. We have been doing the show for only 7 months, it is a learning experience. Thanks again

    Jared

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 17 January, 2007 20:31  

  • "all I can say is that the rest of the country should be so lucky as to turn into San Francisco. It's a great city!"

    Met - thanks for the laugh.

    Oh, wait - you were being serious?

    Okay, then: Thanks for the HUGE laugh!

    By Blogger JD, at 17 January, 2007 20:40  

  • JD, I was being absolutely serious. San Francisco is wonderful. Sophisticated and cutting edge.

    Which brings me to Elmonica's comment that it's no fun to be poor there. Sadly, she (I'm guessing from
    ElmonicA) or he is right.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 22:34  

  • Oh, and Elmonica, I do take your point. You're spot on.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 22:35  

  • But, I have a question. Is it worse to be poor in
    San Francisco, CA, or, let's say, Tucson, AZ, or San Antonio, TX. I'd vote for San Francisco.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 17 January, 2007 22:39  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Stacy, at 17 January, 2007 23:46  

  • Metro,

    The point was, you have the rich libs threatening legal action against having homes build by Habitat. Where is the compassion that the libs profess to have for the poor and disadvantaged when they don't want them living near them? And they are worried over the traffic from 7 HOMES? Oh Please.

    Similar story playing out in Cape Cod, I believe, but have not had the time to look for that story. Patriot World, you're in that neck of the woods, have you heard about that story?

    By Blogger Stacy, at 17 January, 2007 23:49  

  • So, let's get this straight, Stacy. You're telling me that liberals are worse enemies to the poor than Republicans?

    I just don't think so.

    What evidence do you have that rich liberals are more of a threat to poor people than Republicans, who are really, truly, deeply, profoundly rich and contemptuous of the poor? Whose whole strategy of the last several years has been to strip ordinary people of pensions and benefits while cutting taxes for a narrow, fabulously rich elite?

    If you're saying that there's a fight between rich and the non-rich in this society, I agree. But to attack librerals as the major group of rich people who are oppressing the poor, I think, is wrong. The rich are predominantly Republican and conservative. You're attacking the wrong people. If you think the Republicans of, say, Arroyo Grande, are more generous to the poor than the Liberals of San Francisco, I would say that you're way wrong. The Republicans of Arroyo Grande (just try to put in a Habitat-for-Humanity development there--they'll burn crosses on your lawn) or Orange County truly, deeply, hate the poor in a way that no San Francisco Liberal does.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 18 January, 2007 00:48  

  • I've now had a few minutes to process Elmonica's and Stacy's criticism of my comments.

    It's never good to be poor. But I think that that it's probably better to be poor in San Francisco than in many other western or midwestern or southern cities. (I cannot speak of the Northeast, where I have only lived for short periods of time. It's an area that I do admire, however) The social services are better there, for instance, than in any red state. The opportunties to advance economically and socially are better there, too.

    But, I must confess, that this is a completely subjective perception.

    I do not know how to objectively measure these things, and this is all from my all-too-fallible gut.

    What I can say is that, in Texas, if you're a renter, as I was there for a period, you're treated like shit. You have no rights to protest such treatment.

    That's not true in San Francisco, where there are entire govermental departments dedicated to renter's benefits.

    And now, there is a movement towards universal healthcare in California.

    So, all in all, I think think that California liberals have not done badly.

    (The real problem with Habitat, Dear Stacy, is that it undermines union labor. And it's unions that bring middle-class security to us all.)

    Ciao, belli.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 18 January, 2007 02:40  

  • Metro,

    OC Republicans are not all or predominately rich. I used to be one. Most of us are working middle class. Now, you want to see rich liberals, SoCal and SF has lots of them, as does CA legislature, and Congress. Many Democrat fundraisers are put on by RICH DEMOCRATS like Warren Buffet, Corzine, Paul Allen, Soros,... So knock off the class warfare. It is so 1930s socialist of you.

    By Blogger PCD, at 18 January, 2007 08:07  

  • It's not a question of how rich or poor any individual voter is, it's whether or not they worship at the altar of corporatism or not.

    If socialism is such a "1930s" concept, then why are so many conservatives so obsessively paranoid over the concept, in the here and now?

    It's the fascism we rail against...the merging of government and business interests.

    If you believe the interests of multinational corporations, that have loyalty to no nation, are your interests, that is fine for you. But your interests then run counter to those of the majority of American working people, and we are right to stand up against your interests.

    Contrary to the giant Reagan lie...to align yourself with conservatism is to set yourself AGAINST hardworking American citizens, as our economy and declining standard of living aptly proves...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 January, 2007 10:06  

  • Metro....as far as being down and out, better to be in San Francisco by far, because of the decency and compassion of the residents, relative to the other two regions.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 January, 2007 10:08  

  • PCD, I've reached the point where I just have to throw up my hands and say that it is a complete reversal of the way things are to imagine that rich liberals are a worse theat to the poor than rich corporatists (to borrow a term from Hashfanatic). And, I might point out, that most liberals, myself included, are NOT rich. The debate between you and me has entered, somewhat however, the realm of values, not facts, where argumentation no longer functions.

    But really, do you really think that the Bush administration and the outgoing Republican congress, let's say, is better for the poor than the Democrats are? With it's massive tax giveaways to a very few, very rich people? With its war where rich profiteers make fortunes while working class soldiers, who enlisted for lack of other employment opportunties, die? With its overcrowded prisons that mask an unemployment level worse than any in Western Europe? With its sweetheart deals with pharmaceutical corporations to keep drug prices high? With its refusal to address the need for universal healthcare, something which every other industrialized country has?

    Oh, and I do believe in class struggle.

    By the way, PCD, your point is well-taken about Orange County. I've spent time there, too, and it does baffle me how people there, from my perspective, were capable of taking political positions completely opposed to their own self-interest. I guess the fools thought that they would be rich someday and actually have to pay an inheritance tax. Now that's self-delusion.

    I remember living in a gentrifying neighborhood in San Antonio, not far from places that reminded me of rural Peru they were so poor. Yet there were people there, living in shacks near me, who had Bush for President signs on their lawns. That's the sort of thing that makes South Pacific cargo cults seem rational.

    By Blogger metrodorus, at 18 January, 2007 10:41  

  • Prop Minister: Check your arithmetic

    According to this source

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/1401AP_Nielsens.html

    the network newscasts total 26.3 million viewers. Taking your 2 million viewers for Fox News, this is only 24.3 million viewers more, or 1215%, not 5000%

    By Blogger Missouri Show Me, at 18 January, 2007 18:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger