"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"

"The Official Portrait of Miss InDiana"
aka "Miss Victory"

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Rush Limbaugh vs. U.S. Newspapers

Why is that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh makes so much money, yet newspapers all over the country are going broke and are beginning to beg for a bailout?



I'm not going to tell you what to think, but not all news services are going broke.

Things that make you go, "hmmm".

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most newspapers have a liberal monopoly-Just like th N Y Times they could care less if they make money as long as they can spew their leftist propaganda like the news media on television -to a captive audience- called us the real working taxpayers. t=he ones paying the bills that are ignored.

Anonymous said...

maybe the newspapers should be more like Rush Limbaugh if they are so worried about their balance sheets. the last thing they should get is a taxpayer bailout to spew their lies.

Pete Boggs said...

Uncle Rushbo has something that they in the Meidacre have lost... an audience. Surely it's not a product problem... objective journalism, is so passe. How could the acronymics (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC) possibly fail, with "they distort you deride."

Shorebreak said...

Why does Rush make so much money? Simple. Almost anyone can be bought. We all know what Rush's price is.

FYI - the answer to whether or not Rush is bought and paid for resides not in what he says, but in what he fails to say. Based on that criteria, there is no question that he's a propagandist.

melyssa said...

Shorebreak...if we follow that line of thought (and knowing what we know about the MSM) then is there really a reason to bailout any of them? Maybe they should concentrate on becoming as good at propaganda as Rush.

Shorebreak said...

Don't bail out any of them. Let them fall. If they reported honest, hard-hitting news the presses would be running in overdrive.

Think about this: Do you spend more time on mainstream news websites, or do you spend more time on blogs? Why? The answer is simple - anyone who is seeking truth will naturally drift away from the watered down fluff and dis-info that's present in our newspapers in favor of verifiable hard-hitting reality that's revealed by conscientious bloggers.

I often hear people say something like "And you're gonna believe that because a blogger wrote it?" Here's the choices that I have - the kind of media who resorts to "anonymous" informants to tell us that Saddam is building "nookular" weapons and we need to send 1000's of our bravest young kids to die...

Or the kind of new media that says "Think about it, people: one plus one does NOT equal three. We've all been sold a lie. The justifications for invasion have changed from X to Y to Z as each is revealed to be a fraud, yet the radio propagandists decry anyone who reveals otherwise."

I choose the guy who explains and provides meticulous detail and multiple examples to support his story over the print media who says "Trust us - our sources are ananymous and this is what our faithful government explained to us".

Here's my recommendation to the Star and other printed newspapers: Stop your daily printing and update your websites to compete with Craigslist. Those guys are walking all over you. If you want to print something, make it a weekend real estate guide with a coupon/flyer section. You've participated in spreading too many of the AP/Reuters promoted lies and half-truths, while ignoring the real stories and expository efforts that people expect from a viable journalism operation. Go home - the party is over.

Anonymous said...

The Indianapolis Star sent me an invoice for $240 for a one-year subscription. I pay just under $100 for the Wall Street Journal delivered to my door. The only thing in the Star that I cannot get from Wall Street takes me about five minutes to read. Can I can get that local news off the internet and from Blogs in the same amount of time? Would you renew your subscription?

Pete Boggs said...

In defense of accuracy, Rush has a rating of ~98% which blows the acronym-hicks (hillbillies of "modern" journalism, ABC / See BS, CNN & NBC) away; as annually reviewed by the Sullivan Group, which analyzes media content for accuracy. Might there be a link, between product quality or content & demand (consumer interest)? When the low quality (absence of objectivity, overwhelmed by the impulses of advocacy) of their work product has been paper thinned to an events calendar, who needs 'em? Preferred or selected sources in the form of reliable blogs are today's advertising platform and it's a shame, but it's their shame.