A special comment from billy bob: 'ratings be damned, kiss my fat ass!'

Billly Bob (whose name is neither Billly nor Bob) worked long in the Seattle radio market  wearing a suit. He says the experience broadened his worldview, showed him the error of his ways, revealed God's love, and greatly diminished possibilities for future employment.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are portrayed in even local media, as these huge celebrities that get incredible, blockbuster ratings. But allow me to enter some local facts into the debate.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are on the same station in Seattle, KTTH which has Beck in the early morning, followed by Titan of Talk, Rush Limbaugh then the supposedly incredibly popular "local" host Michael Medved on from noon to 3p.

Oh, and don't forget, at night, they have Dr. Laura, who surely must be wildly popular. Imagine that! One station has a monopoly on all the big right-wing talkers. Their ratings must be through the roof, right?

Well, when it comes to total listeners (something Arbitron refers to as 'cume') KTTH isn't exactly setting the world on fire. They are ranked 24th. Let me say that more clearly: TWENTY-FUCKING FOURTH! Not only are KIRO-AM and FM ahead of KTTH. But so is KOMO. So is KJR-AM. So are three country stations. So are two jazz stations. So are the NPR stations. So is Jack and KUBE and Star and the Wolf and the Mountain and Kiss and Warm and Movin' and the End and Christa Ministries and Classic KING and the Funky Monkey and, well, just about everybody.

Yet, the media narrative remains. The so called "liberal" media would have you believe these "rodeo clowns" (Glenn Beck's self-description, not mine) are ratings winners. In reality, they are all on one station and that station is in the proverbial ratings shit-can. So my question, Billy, is why do people in the media and on websites and nitwits like you keep giving them so much attention? Signed, Ed Frebert

Dear Ed: You bleeding-heart libs make me sick always trying to twist arguments with your facts and figures. Well, Mister, I've got two words for you: kiss my fat ass.

Comments

[sparky]

You capture the Con discourse here quite well..lol

[Ted Smith]

Does anyone remember when Bonneville repurchased KIRO-KTTH and they were suddenly at the top of the ratings? Where did that dominance go?

I've always suspected that those ratings were bought and paid for. What was Bonneville worth as a client and how much did KIRO milk out of those ratings?

[ksr]

Ummmmm...

Where is KPTK in the ratings line-up?

[CorporateBook]

And KVI? The answer is that both are farther in the shitter than KTTH. Is talk radio as we know it, dead in Seattle? Is it any wonder KIROFM is talking to Luke Burbank and John Curley?

[Andrew]

Forget ratings, there's something to be said for the crowds that Beck can draw. It's hard to argue that Beck is not a conservative leader when he asks people to show up somewhere and gets the kinds of turnouts that he does.

How scary is this? He comes from morning zoo radio where his goal was to say and do any crazy thing in order to get people to listen, he's a salesman who pushes overpriced gold... and yet he's also a powerful conservative leader?!

Beck doesn't use his skill set to challenge conservatives or come up with solutions, he uses it to tell conservatives that all their worst fears are true. Classic fear mongering. And yet they appoint him a leader. He was groomed to exploit listeners for commercial purposes, and yet conservatives think they should trust this guy.

good article

[BenSeattle]

Somebody explain something to me. Beck himself that he is "clown" with a "big mouth," one of "God's slower children." In other words, no-one anyone with any intelligence or personal convictions would follow, yet he's still become the right-wing darling of the year, garning more attention than any individual on the right simply because of outlandish statements and relentless fear-mongering. If Beck is such a clown, why then, does anyone pay him any attention AT ALL?

[KS]

Certainly no less scary than the hell we have been through since 1/13/09. Sure, it ain't pretty. The Democratic Party has brought it on themselves - no crying crocodile tears about this - they knew exactly what they were doing.

It's the mere process of the pendulum swinging back in the other direction - keep up the fear mongering from the leftwing progressive propaganda sheets - because that's all you have left. bwahahaaha

Just a thought: you might try a new approach - like telling the truth. It will hurt though !

[Andrew]

There's a difference between liberal and conservative fear mongering. Liberal fear mongering consists of citing facts and statistics, like " 46.3 million Americans don't have health coverage." Conservative fear mongering is fake shit like "THE BLACK PRESIDENT'S BLACK WIFE IS TRYING TO CANCEL CHRISTMAS!!!"

The Republican party consists of the silent greedy rich people (the Koch's), and loud stupid poor (all the rest of em). The silent rich pay propagandists (pundits, columnists) to dress up in nice suits, speak like a professional and tell the loud stupid poor that their stupid ideas are good and that their irrational fears are all true.

You know this is how it actually is.

[Puget Sound]

Andrew
For someone who wants to be taken seriously, you sure have a cartoonish world view.
So black and white. No grays.

It's a common ailment in people with limited life experience.
Not to worry, I have high hopes for you. Once you get to meet a more diverse crowd you'll see.

And maybe read a book that isn't recommended by Michael Moore.

[Puget Sound]

Oh yeah, I didn't realize you were THAT Andrew.
I ran across that website a couple years ago.
Nice effort. And good luck with it.

[Andrew]

Do these look like cartoons to you?

If the conservative party was a story, nobody would believe it was true.

[KS]

There's a difference between liberal and conservative fear mongering. Liberal fear mongering consists of citing facts and statistics, like " 46.3 million Americans don't have health coverage." Conservative fear mongering is fake shit like "THE BLACK PRESIDENT'S BLACK WIFE IS TRYING TO CANCEL CHRISTMAS!!!"

Stop telling half-truths Andrew and pulling stuff out of your orifice... First it is 32 million. Cancel Christmas ? LMAO. Wherever you got that, there is no confirmation.

Even though I am not much of a fan of Glenn Beck, he sure scares the bejeezus out of you and other lib progs. I find that pathetic and rather hilarious. I have an issue with Beck throwing out some of his Mormon ideology and masking it as Christianity - where there is a difference.

"The Republican party consists of the silent greedy rich people (the Koch's), and loud stupid poor (all the rest of em). The silent rich pay propagandists (pundits, columnists) to dress up in nice suits, speak like a professional and tell the loud stupid poor that their stupid ideas are good and that their irrational fears are all true."

That talking point is becoming obsolete and everything you said about to the GOP applies to the Democratic Party. Democrats (aka the proslavery party) are the rich elites in academia and the actors in Hollywierd who are consumed by greed. They were once the party of the little guy, but now they are the party led around by the nose by trial lawyers, corrupt union thugs and some large corporations looking for any opportunity to implement their statist expansion of government. Once they were for the little guy, now their little guy is on the plantation - they want to create a welfare state for the little guy and continue their diabolical ways. Seems like the divide and conquer tactic has backfired on the Democratics and many of them don't want to go over the cliff with the pied piper - Obongo.

[Andrew]

Those wealthy liberals would pay higher taxes if they had their way, but they don't mind because they believe those taxes would be used to fund good things. That's the essense of selflessness.

[KS]

ROFL . More dog squeeze - Good things in their mind like implementing a welfare state and taking away self-reliance. That's how perverted and f'd up they are.

[Andrew]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that they have benevolent intentions. Rich people fighting for lower taxes at the expense of the poor don't have much credibility, except among the very stupidest of people, not that I'm describing you or anything.

[Puget Sound]

Those wealthy liberals would pay higher taxes if they had their way, but they don't mind because they believe those taxes would be used to fund good things. That's the essense of selflessness.

Posted by: Andrew | September 06, 2010 at 11:27 AM

OK Andrew, tell you what I will do for you gratis. If you like to walk the walk -not just talk the talk- I will gladly do your tax return for you and ensure that you pay a much higher rate.
Why not set the example? Gain some credibility?

(stop laughing KS...he might take me up on it...)

[Puget Sound]

Actually Andrew
What we are seeing is the death of Keyensian Economic Theory. It is coming at great cost --and should have been learned earlier-- but it is coming that people understand you can't spend your way out of this no more than you can lean your way into a left hook and expect a good outcome.

From an interesting book on FDR, New Deal or Raw Deal, is this quote from FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury after almost 8 years of FDR Policies.
Hopefully we can learn a lesson.

"No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

[KS]

You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that they have benevolent intentions. Rich people fighting for lower taxes at the expense of the poor don't have much credibility, except among the very stupidest of people, not that I'm describing you or anything.

Posted by: Andrew | September 06, 2010 at 11:37 AM

My opinion is based on fact and your opinion is baseless - same old class warfare shit, but you are still entitled to it. The red herring you spew about the poor doesn't fly - 47% of the people pay zero Federal Income Taxes. hey bucco, did it ever occur to you that the wealthier people are getting sick and tired of financing their welfare state?

Look at the statistics - 40% of the highest income pays 47% of the Federal taxes. If you felt sorry for those on welfare, you could always pay more taxes to do the right thing instead throwing out more of your demagoguery.

[Andrew]

The fucked up state of health care in the US is proof that Keynesian theory has validity. You can't have a thousand HMOs each duplicating the same work, in a proprietary format, and expect an efficient outcome. There are plenty of examples of central standardization and regulation resulting in improved efficiency within the private sector. Put simply, the idea that selfish actions can lead to a cooperative outcomes is idiotic. When companies do battle with eachother, unintended casualties can occur, and in great numbers.

[Puget Sound]

Keynesian Economic Theory has little to do with health care.

If you want to discuss making HMOs more efficient, that is a great topic and I support it a hundred percent.

What kind of charity work do you do? Have you served anything larger than yourself by giving time to an organization such as the Peace Corp?

It starts at home. Walk the walk, don't just talk it.

See you seem satisfied using the money that others earn and expropriating for things you like.
Why not expropriate some of your cash or time?

[Puget Sound]

Andrew
If you don't want to address the Secretary Morganthau comment then how about something a little more contemporary.
"Liberal Writer, Matt Yglesias likes to call his political opponents “dishonest,” but in a revealing exchange on the website Twitter Friday he advocated lying for political purposes.

“Fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do, yes,” said Yglesias.

The exchange, with Washington Examiner writer Mark Hemingway, came on the heels of a debate between the two on transportation policy."

Would you follow the Yglesias line? You know, it's okay to lie to further your end of the debate?

[Puget Sound]

On the flip side, Paul Krugman lays out the case that it is 1938 and that we should double down.

"The president in question is Franklin Delano Roosevelt; the year is 1938. Within a few years, of course, the Great Depression was over. But it’s both instructive and discouraging to look at the state of America circa 1938 — instructive because the nature of the recovery that followed refutes the arguments dominating today’s public debate, discouraging because it’s hard to see anything like the miracle of the 1940s happening again.

Now, we weren’t supposed to find ourselves replaying the late 1930s. President Obama’s economists promised not to repeat the mistakes of 1937, when F.D.R. pulled back fiscal stimulus too soon. But by making his program too small and too short-lived, Mr. Obama did just that: the stimulus raised growth while it lasted, but it made only a small dent in unemployment — and now it’s fading out.

And just as some of us feared, the inadequacy of the administration’s initial economic plan has landed it — and the nation — in a political trap. More stimulus is desperately needed, but in the public’s eyes the failure of the initial program to deliver a convincing recovery has discredited government action to create jobs.

In short, welcome to 1938. "

So anyone got the guts to double down? Go full Keyensian?

I am guessing the people will reject that and want to go full Reagan to cure these ills.

[Coiler]

So you're in agreement not to pull back the stimulus and expand it?

[joanie]

there's something to be said for the crowds that Beck can draw.

He makes gold out of stupid, needy, undereducated people. The kind who always flock to people who sell hate and an afterlife. It is a cult. Geez, Andrew. Grow up. There's nothing new here. And 87,000 people isn't all that much for someone with books on the best seller list (ugh!), å radio show and a television show. Let's keep it in perspective, shall we?

Coiler, sputs is suddenly a doctor. He wants to inject the same virus that started this mess thirty years ago and he thinks it will now "cure these ills." Well, if economics works like antibodies, maybe it will...

Are you laughing yet?

[KS]

Well, if economics works like antibodies, maybe it will...

Are you laughing yet?

Posted by: joanie | September 06, 2010 at 10:20 PM

yes, I am laughing at another one of your inane comments. You try to put lipstick on a pig and it turns out to be an uglier pig. 87,000 people for Beck's gathering in DC is way low - between 300,000 and 500,000 is the correct total. NBC and CBS reported that, if you and KKKoiler would get your noses out of the leftwing propaganda websites and see reality for a change - oops, I know that will sting your psyche to see what a fuck up this administration really is.

[joanie]

Oh, so now you trust mainstream media?
Why, klueless, I never knew.

BTW, I like pigs. You don't?

[joanie]

From Politico: "Beck said he had heard the crowd was between 300,000 and 500,000, "and if that's coming from the media, God only knows."

But The Associated Press said tens of thousands of people participated in the rally.

Authorities wouldn't say how many people turned out. The National Park Service stopped estimating crowds in 1997 after it was accused of underestimating the size of the Million Man March two years earlier.

Sgt. David Schlosser, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said it's extremely difficult to estimate crowds of this magnitude, given their fluctuations throughout the day and the fact that some are simply tourists."

From Mediaite:
Thus far, the big question following yesterday’s event appears to be how many people attended. Answer from the ground: a lot. Interestingly CBS is estimating the crowd at 87,000. NBC quoted the National Parks service which put it at 300,000. Based solely on my perspective from the ground and the fact I was in Washington for the Inauguration I would err on the side of NBC and the National Parks. But the discrepancy begs the question: how do you lose 200,000 people?

Sounds like a lot of wishful estimating to me.

[Puget Sound]

Sounds like a lot of wishful estimating to me.

Posted by: joanie | September 06, 2010 at 11:02 PM

agreed. you are sure wishing it wasn't so.
anyway, we'll wait to see what kind of crowd Big Ed can draw.

[KS]

Oh, so now you trust mainstream media?
Why, klueless, I never knew.

BTW, I like pigs. You don't?

Posted by: joanie | September 06, 2010 at 10:43 PM

One again, you miss the point. I don't hate the media, I loathe them. They knowingly distort to take advantage of the millions of those who were largely educated in Government schools and critical thinking-challenged to spew their bilge of half-truths that become talking points, which are helping to lead this country down the pooper chute. Meanwhile, talking heads like Ed Schultz and the MSNBC lot cling to these half truths and their religion of liberalism as talking points.