The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

14 July 2006

Jerry Springer, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Sheldon Drobny


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


  • 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 none, at 14 July, 2006 16:27  

  • 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  

  • 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.


    By Blogger Lokki, 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  

  • 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 SierraSpartan, at 16 July, 2006 23:54  

  • 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 SierraSpartan, at 17 July, 2006 11:33  

  • BZZZT!

    404 on both hyperlinks, nimrod.

    Try harder next time, wouldja?

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

  • 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 SierraSpartan, at 18 July, 2006 00:56  

  • 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 SierraSpartan, at 18 July, 2006 11:42  

  • 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 SierraSpartan, at 18 July, 2006 15:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger