Estimates suggest that radio listenership (listening at least once a week) to the following categories are as follows (1) :
NPR/Public Radio 34 %
Christian Radio 22 %
Conservative Talk Radio 17 %
Liberal Talk Radio 7 %
I have no way to know the accuracy of the above numbers. But the survey sited in (1) does break things down by voter demographics.
Corporation for Broadcasting (our tax dollars at work) budget for FY 2007 is a little over a half a billion dollars (2) with the state of Alaska getting about 7.5 million of that money. And my state of Utah receives 6.8 million. I guess ol' Stevens is more powerful than Hatch.
So Booty, how much does it cost to run a radio station?
Thanks John, I have to admit, none of the categories are mine though. I know where to find Conservative talk and Christian, I have no idea where to find Liberal talk or NPR, but I am often the square peg in the round hole.
I have begun listening to Rush and sean on a regular bases. I used to listne to the local NPR station for the classical music they played, but the constant beg-a-thons and the far left view of their news turned me off quickly.
Of the 3rd parties I have been associated with over the years, Ross Perot's Reform Party was probably the closest to being viable. Unfortunately, Ross's EGO was in the way of allowing any sort of mass handling of the party. I don't have the exact numbers but didn't Perot get close to 20% of the vote in a 3 way race.
Originally Posted by Mr Booty
The Libertarians embrace of alternate lifestyles, de criminalization of drugs, unwillingness to go to any war makes them an offshoot of the D's. No self respecting family person would want to associate with that agenda facing them. I'm fairly tolerant, just not that tolerant, I would not want my grandkids forced into accepting that. As you notice the large black vote in CA contibuted to the ban on alternate marriage, so the self respecting blacks do not accept those thoughts either. I'm old enough that being gay meant you were happy.
I have long said Hannity & O'Reilly were Pseudo conservatives because it was selling (if you read any of their books they are not exactly rocket scientists), Ann Coulter is no better, Rush has some good history lessons on occasion but is given to self aggrandizement.
One of the problems is the Conservative movement has been so watered down by stating Reagan was a Conservative that many do not know what is real conservatism. Reagan was a "B" level actor who recognized the AUH2O movement & jumped on the wagon. & there is a tendency of those defining same to attempt to remake the definition into something that fits there agenda.
Real conservatism starts with fiscal responsibility. Limiting funds can have a serious dampening effect on the progress of government. It also has much to do with not meddling in individuals lives in any manner - on this subject the D's & the Social Conservatives are very similar - one group just cuts there hair shorter than the other.
I'll give you an example - We had Waco & Salt Creek, polygamy at it's best, should the government have gotten involved. I say NO, but I also say the many wives should not have been on Public Assistance. No government means just that. If you can't afford the freight don't make the delivery.
Anyway Booty, being conservative for broadcasters is expedient today, rather like being liberal at a Sexfest. When it quits being lucrative those guys will get a new set of stripes.
Originally Posted by Lisa S.
Huckabee is no Conservative either, look at his policies from Arkansas, he is a Bill Clinton with morals. He does hunt but he is just as pseudo conservative as the rest.
Computer problems at home. I'll respond in the morning.
Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth
I don't think you can lump O'Reilly in there with someone like Rush. Whether you like him or not, Rush is one of the main leaders on real conservative though right now.
I really believe Limbaugh listeners are like fruit cakes (the real thing not people who have a different persuasion). As most know there are 3 fruit cakes in the world and they just get passed around from one person to another. No one actually eats them. I believe there are only about 4-5 true Limbaugh listeners. They just keep changing their name and the tone of their voice. There are others who claim to listen to him but actually can't stand to listen to his arrogant, blow hard, party line politics with almost no original thought. I am a conservative and he makes me want to nuke the radio when he is on.
Truthfully the most interesting, albeit sensationallistic, talk radio is Glenn Beck. He makes a lot of sense sometimes and gets you thinking.
O'Reilly is just plain boring and I get tired of his "what say you" callers. Can't comment on Hannity.
The problem with the cost of public radio is that the government pays all the expenses to keep them afloat minus any local donations. That means paying their rent, utilities, staff etc. A big waste of tax payer dollars! A single local station carrying as much syndicated programming as NPR does shouldn't cost more than 400k annually to operate. I'm sure we as tax payers are paying much more than that per NPR station.
Originally Posted by John Schmidt
The ratings information is a study conducted by/for NPR to make it appear that they have more listeners than they actually have. According to the industry's accepted ratings which is Arbitron, NPR stations have less than a 1 share of the listening. Arbitron's new measurement for radio listening is a device known as the Personal People Meter. This is an electronic device that people wear that records all sources of audio whether it be traditional terrestial radio, satellite or Ipod/mp3. That information is downloaded and brokendown by age, sex, time spent listening etc. Again, NPR is less than 1%, so it is a waste of taxpayers money.