Big 89 Rewind
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Nice spin. People that call in to the program don't sound over 50. They
sound like they are 20 to 40 years old. Mom's with kids and many topics
revolve around kids, school.

The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired women and
senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest demos. They know
that 9 out of 10 over 55 callers will want to talk about social security and
Medicare, and they diligently keep these callers off the air. You don't
really think these shows let anyone at all on the air, do you?

Big 89 Rewind
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?
Nice spin. People that call in to the program don't sound over 50. They
sound like they are 20 to 40 years old. Mom's with kids and many topics
revolve around kids, school.

The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired women and
senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest demos. They know
that 9 out of 10 over 55 callers will want to talk about social security and
Medicare, and they diligently keep these callers off the air. You don't
really think these shows let anyone at all on the air, do you?




"Nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush,"

And then: "The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous
blue-haired women and senile old men, and purposely pick people in the
youngest demos."


You're contradicting yourself, again. If they're not listening, they
can't be calling.

Big 89 Rewind
 

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?
Nice spin. People that call in to the program don't sound over 50. They
sound like they are 20 to 40 years old. Mom's with kids and many topics
revolve around kids, school.

The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired women and
senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest demos. They
know that 9 out of 10 over 55 callers will want to talk about social
security and Medicare, and they diligently keep these callers off the
air. You don't really think these shows let anyone at all on the air, do
you?


"Nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush,"

And then: "The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired
women and senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest
demos."


You're contradicting yourself, again. If they're not listening, they
can't be calling.

"Youngest demos" for talk is generally 35-44.

Big 89 Rewind
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

D Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently, they finally succeeded in achieving that goal.
I'll have to check the shortwave relays next week to see if Rush is
still
on. I
recall the push to at least get him off, seemingly in contrast to what
the
troops
wanted.

How many of the troops are over 45 or 50? There are very few talk
listeners
(of the WLS / WJR / WGN type) under that age, so it makes sense to look
for
programming the bulk of the armed forces would enjoy, not just somebody
who
has been in long enough to make light bird or above.

Or maybe the troops just like Rush?


Isn't it amazing that never occurs to programmers?


When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.

Big 89 Rewind
 

dxAce wrote:

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.


=============================================
935 Lies on the Way to a War

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found
that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Mr. Bush and
administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or
obtain them or had links to al Qaeda or both.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass
destruction or have meaningful ties to al Qaeda,” according to Charles
Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism
staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush
Administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous
information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in
military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002235
================================================== ====

--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.

http://improve-usenet.org/

Big 89 Rewind
 

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
...
When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?
Nice spin. People that call in to the program don't sound over 50. They
sound like they are 20 to 40 years old. Mom's with kids and many topics
revolve around kids, school.
The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired women and
senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest demos. They
know that 9 out of 10 over 55 callers will want to talk about social
security and Medicare, and they diligently keep these callers off the
air. You don't really think these shows let anyone at all on the air, do
you?

"Nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush,"

And then: "The call screeners purposely exclude the dangerous blue-haired
women and senile old men, and purposely pick people in the youngest
demos."


You're contradicting yourself, again. If they're not listening, they
can't be calling.

"Youngest demos" for talk is generally 35-44.





Nice evasion.

Big 89 Rewind
 

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently, they finally succeeded in achieving that goal.
I'll have to check the shortwave relays next week to see if Rush is
still
on. I
recall the push to at least get him off, seemingly in contrast to what
the
troops
wanted.

How many of the troops are over 45 or 50? There are very few talk
listeners
(of the WLS / WJR / WGN type) under that age, so it makes sense to look
for
programming the bulk of the armed forces would enjoy, not just somebody
who
has been in long enough to make light bird or above.
Or maybe the troops just like Rush?

Isn't it amazing that never occurs to programmers?

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.




He doesn't get it, Steve.

Consider that there are a number of things that are not like things
at home. One is that the listener him/herself is different. They're
committed. They're focussed. They're trained. They've volunteered to
serve. They're politically active at the most basic level. They're less
concerned about the fluff that dominates the evening news than they are
defending the fundamental freedoms that permit the behaviours that lead
to the fluff that dominates the evening news.

That takes them off most squares of the psychographic grid. Hometown
demography doesn't apply. They're a different type of people with
listening tastes and habits that reflect a different type of lifestyle.

Another consideration is that there are dramatically fewer choices
for listening in theatre. Unlike you and me, who have a dial full of
selections, troops in theatre have a fraction of the offerings. They
listen, as you say, for fresh truths from home. Not for the latest
George Michael release.

And politically, they tend to a more conservative path. Rush is big
with military, as a whole, regardless of demography.

Programming AFN is not like programming WKSC.

Drop Gleason into a Marine base in-country and he'd get a dose of
reality he assiduously avoids in his current position.

Big 89 Rewind
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...
When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other political talker, why would they listen when abroad?


People fighting for their country abroad are not the same as your ordinary
couch potato partier. Many are actually interested in hearing what's going
on back home, and some are even right wingers who enjoy the likes of Rush.
Yes, the vast majority of music played on the FM here is
rap/hiphop/gangsta/garbage, but when it comes to finding out what's going on
back home, these guys like to hear both sides of the story a lot more than
you may care to believe.



You won't find out "what's going on back home" by listening to Rush
Limbaugh. That would give someone a highly distorted caricature of
current events at best. There's way more truth in the
"rap/hiphop/gangsta/garbage". It the "story" is true, there's only one
side.

Big 89 Rewind
 

D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently, they finally succeeded in achieving that goal.
I'll have to check the shortwave relays next week to see if Rush is
still
on. I
recall the push to at least get him off, seemingly in contrast to what
the
troops
wanted.

How many of the troops are over 45 or 50? There are very few talk
listeners
(of the WLS / WJR / WGN type) under that age, so it makes sense to look
for
programming the bulk of the armed forces would enjoy, not just somebody
who
has been in long enough to make light bird or above.
Or maybe the troops just like Rush?

Isn't it amazing that never occurs to programmers?

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.



He doesn't get it, Steve.

That's our 'Eduardo'!



Consider that there are a number of things that are not like things
at home. One is that the listener him/herself is different. They're
committed. They're focussed. They're trained. They've volunteered to
serve. They're politically active at the most basic level. They're less
concerned about the fluff that dominates the evening news than they are
defending the fundamental freedoms that permit the behaviours that lead
to the fluff that dominates the evening news.

That takes them off most squares of the psychographic grid. Hometown
demography doesn't apply. They're a different type of people with
listening tastes and habits that reflect a different type of lifestyle.

Another consideration is that there are dramatically fewer choices
for listening in theatre. Unlike you and me, who have a dial full of
selections, troops in theatre have a fraction of the offerings. They
listen, as you say, for fresh truths from home. Not for the latest
George Michael release.

And politically, they tend to a more conservative path. Rush is big
with military, as a whole, regardless of demography.

Programming AFN is not like programming WKSC.

Drop Gleason into a Marine base in-country and he'd get a dose of
reality he assiduously avoids in his current position.

Big 89 Rewind
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
D Peter Maus wrote:
Apparently, they finally succeeded in achieving that goal.
I'll have to check the shortwave relays next week to see if Rush is
still
on. I
recall the push to at least get him off, seemingly in contrast to
what
the
troops
wanted.

How many of the troops are over 45 or 50? There are very few talk
listeners
(of the WLS / WJR / WGN type) under that age, so it makes sense to
look
for
programming the bulk of the armed forces would enjoy, not just
somebody
who
has been in long enough to make light bird or above.
Or maybe the troops just like Rush?

Isn't it amazing that never occurs to programmers?

When nearly nobody in the 18-34 demo in the US listens to Rush or any
other
political talker, why would they listen when abroad?

Maybe they want the truth from home.




He doesn't get it, Steve.

Consider that there are a number of things that are not like things at
home. One is that the listener him/herself is different. They're
committed. They're focussed. They're trained. They've volunteered to
serve. They're politically active at the most basic level. They're less
concerned about the fluff that dominates the evening news than they are
defending the fundamental freedoms that permit the behaviours that lead
to the fluff that dominates the evening news.

That takes them off most squares of the psychographic grid. Hometown
demography doesn't apply. They're a different type of people with
listening tastes and habits that reflect a different type of lifestyle.

Another consideration is that there are dramatically fewer choices for
listening in theatre. Unlike you and me, who have a dial full of
selections, troops in theatre have a fraction of the offerings. They
listen, as you say, for fresh truths from home. Not for the latest
George Michael release.

And politically, they tend to a more conservative path. Rush is big
with military, as a whole, regardless of demography.

Programming AFN is not like programming WKSC.

Drop Gleason into a Marine base in-country and he'd get a dose of
reality he assiduously avoids in his current position.


You talk tough for a old fart safely behind a desk. Here's my old fart
take:

Our fighters in the Iraq ****-hole are fighting for each other. (That's
a period).

I'd rather fight the enemy here, rather than over there.