User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6622 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On another note, I found out a couple days ago that the amounts of money that people like Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck et al. pull in for their radio shows; Limbaugh's making $37,500,000 a year, Hannity's making $20MM, and Beck's making a comparatively paltry $10MM a year.
Why, though; what do they bring that makes Sean Hannity pull in Albert Pujols money and Rush Limbaugh to make a yearly salary that makes A-Rod jealous?
Listeners, and thus advertising dollars.
Which brings up the question of which way Beck goes. He has exploded listener-wise in the last year, but the advertiser boycott has significantly cut into what Fox makes from him. Will his popularity wane first, or will the advertiser boycott collapse as all of those companies start lusting after his audience?
Viewers and by extension advertisers. I find Hannity and Limbaugh repulsive but millions of potential customers watch/listen to their programs and if I had a business I'd advertise on their shows.
edit: Coke to RJ
I DO have a business, and would hesitate about placing ads on these shows, basically because of questions about the quality of listener. Who has time to listen to a radio show for an hour or two per day? Retirees, people on disability, and the unemployed. None of these groups is really known for buying a bunch of stuff, although I've read that Beck does well with what I call "CCFPP advertisers." (CCFPP = "crazy crap for poor people" -- think sleazy-looking ads for gold investments or survival seed banks.)
You forget people who spend a lot of time in their cars, small businessmen and people with private offices who can listen at work, etc. And retirees have a lot of money. 65+ is the wealthiest demographic in the US. They don't tend to consume as high a proportion as younger people, but still, they represent a lot of spending power.
I don't listen to these guys (though I'm broadly aligned with them politically) but it's extremely patronizing to think these millions of people are all disgruntled shut-ins.
Road warriors.
I have a business and I wouldn't advertise on those shows for ashtray money. Of course, my business doesn't really look to creationists and hysterical rubes as a clientele.
How much of that wealth is tied up in not easily accessed forms, like housing? Wouldn't income, rather than overall wealth, be a better measure to use?
You do realize that you're passing on a valuable and high-profit market.
I'm a scientist and co-owner of a contract laboratory. I really wouldn't be of much help in locating the final resting spot of Noah's Ark or Kenyan birth certificates. I suppose I could try and find the nanochips in each vial of H1N1 vaccine, but when I came up empty I'd just be part of the conspiracy!
I don't think so. You'd expect retired people to be consuming much more than their income, as they spend from their savings. Afterall, that's why they saved it for.
Conversely, the highest income groups (probably 40-55) are saving for retirement, childrens' college etc.,paying tuition bills and mortgages, so their "discretionary disposable income" is probably a lot less than their income or disposable income as measured by gov't stats.
Of course, at the end of the day, it matters exactly what you're selling, and who your market is.
You must be one of those "progressives" they talk about.
no, income would not be a better measure. Disposable income, plus some fraction of savings is the best measure. An elderly pensioner who pays nothing for either housing or health insurance can have a large disposable income with a medium sized gross income.
I don't listen to much non-sports talk radio, since my political views are pretty much down the middle. That means the host is likely to piss me off half the time with their opinion, and the other half of the time with their delivery.
No no no, I have short hair, bathe regularly, pay taxes, and own a business. I'm one of them, whether I like it or not. Hell, I even went to college in Mississippi - how much more credentialed do I need to be to gain admission as a Real American?
College? Git a rope!
Just get one of these, that should take care of it.
https://members.premiereinteractive.com/ows-img/glennbeck/pages/28585/101761.htm
I don't listen unless I happen to be driving somewhere during the afternoon. Sometimes it's interesting sometimes it silly crap. It's not for everyone, but to assume everyone who does listen is __________ (fill-in the blank) is ludicrous. It is as silly as if I were to say ALL liberals are __________ .
I've probably listened to Limbaugh for a total of 50 to 100 hours in my life while on the road, not counting the commercials. If you can't figure out what Rush Limbaugh isn't all about after the first five hours, you're simply not listening. It's not as if the man is exactly James Joyce.
I don't listen unless I happen to be driving somewhere during the afternoon. Sometimes it's interesting sometimes it silly crap. It's not for everyone, but to assume everyone who does listen is __________ (fill-in the blank) is ludicrous. It is as silly as if I were to say ALL liberals are __________ .
Listening to Limbaugh is one thing. Using his opinions as a starting point for your own is a walrus of another color.
So how do you explain that other 45 to 95 hours in your estimate?
I listened once. Once was enough. If I want to listen to crazy, well, that's what family is for.
Wait! Wait! Still your pitchforks, Ole Miss is one of the ten most conservative universities in the country!
Top Ten Conservative Colleges
Hardly anyone I knew gave a hoot about politics when I was there, but everyone knew the importance of dressing well and getting haircuts routinely. All those pretty Mississippi belles aren't impressed by your hippie style, Shaggy!
Entertainment?
Plenty of people have jobs that allow them to listen (e.g., truckers). Plenty of people who listen have money, including retirees and such. Do you think that the X million people who listen to Limbaugh all have no money? Huh? Wtf.
EDIT: And these days there are also podcasts and internet streaming, so people don't have to listen during the day; though that obviously changes the ad revenue calculus.
Harrumph. My alma mater makes Ole Miss like an SDS rally. We'll yield to Bob Jones U. when it comes to percentage of reactionary maniacs, but that's about it.
Entertainment?
Okay, I can't imagine how anyone finds that #### entertaining. There's no accounting for tastes, but ...
Not if the old people in the casinos hogging three slot machines at once between highly taxed cigarettes are of any indication.
Well, I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could spend a dollar or a minute watching hockey. Yet, there those idiot hockey fans dressed in the player jerseys are.
edit: Also, one could just as easily assume people who spend hours a day talking about guys who play baseball are nothing but idiots, to further your point.
So how do you explain that other 45 to 95 hours in your estimate?
The fascination of watching a train wreck is the only thing I can honestly come up with, although in 1992 and 1996 it was mostly the pleasure of hearing the yelp of a beaten cur.
It's all about knowing your audience ... and your niche!
Because you have no soul.
Wait! Wait! Still your pitchforks, Ole Miss is one of the ten most conservative universities in the country!
Its a trap!
EDIT: you say "left or right." I assume the same applies to those who support left-wing talk radio, too -- except those people are nuts because the MSM is liberal to begin with.
That's interesting, because from the perspective of a non-conservative, the MSM is conservative.
not lately, didn't Colmes leave over a year ago? The format of the TV shows on all these nets is a carnival. 3 or more screens, extreme yeller on right, extreme yeller on left, host incapable of moving discussion along, commercial break.
Oh, so they knew it's not important.
YR,
Anyone who can reach the conclusion that the MSM is conservative is so far left it is scary. I can see someone naively believing the press is unbiased, but to actually claim to believe they are conservative is far beyond being merely naive. Polls consistently show that both television and print journalists vote for Democrats around 90% of the time. It is one thing to agree with their point of view it is another thing altogether to deny they are predominantly left leaning.
What are the polls for the editors, producers, owners etc? (not trying to be a leading question, I don't know the answer)
Ray, have you ever been to a NHL game? Wipes out any other spectator sport.
Yeah, Colmes is gone. I used to tivo the show and watch when they had an interesting guest on, and it was tolerable with Colmes on there (even though liberals don't think he's a True Liberal). I tried to hang with the show after he left, but within two weeks I cut it loose; Hannity alone is insufferable. He's a barking dog who repeats talking points and doesn't seem all that intelligent (granting that you can't be an idiot to do what he does, but he can't carry the jock of someone like Christopher Hitchens or Charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol). I think it was the label of his "Great American Panel" that did me in, and within two weeks I was gone. He's a jackass.
These days I "watch" (fastforwarding through in tivoland as necessary) John Stossel, Bill Maher, and Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly mainly because he gets interesting guests; his opinions aren't all that interesting or provocative). That's about it.
Arena are too big. Unless you have kickass seats (far enough back that you can see the whole rink, but not too far) you can't really follow it.
Now, if you said College Hockey, in a ~4000 seat arena, I'd agree with you. Awesome spectator sport close up.
This winter, I didnt shave for six weeks, and my resemblence to tom hanks became even more apparent..I could have been his stand-in in Castaway.
People throw that stat out all the time without any attempt to analyze it or put it in context. It's as if the actual content of the material published by the MSM is irrelevant.
Whatever.
Steve Treder, is that you?
Lack of content being published is relevant as well. Did you ever hear how Bill Clinton solved the homeless problem?
The press stopped reporting on it.
Well we're lucky Al Gore invented the internet so you can look it up yourself.
You might want to watch the News Hour and get both sides of an issue (not to mention getting some actual in-depth reporting), and leave the opinion jocks on all sides to their one sided rants.
The press stopped reporting on it.
Is this a comment from Ray? What does that even mean?
EDIT: Why do I get the feeling that this is one of those Limbaugh-esque talking points that's well-known to true believers, but incomprehensible to those outside the echo chamber?
I think you must drift in that direction if your reflexive example of librulmediabias is that they weren't hard enough on that knave Bill Clinton or his harpy wife Hillary.
It's based on Bernie Goldberg's first book, I think called Bias. IIRC Goldberg did a Nexis search of all news stories that used the word "homeless" or whatever, and found that there was an abundance of such stories during Bush's term (including on the network news and such), but a huge drop in such stories after Clinton took office.
The press as a whole doesn't like reporting on issues that don't make a liberal president look good.
It's these sort of rigorously evidence-based conclusions that impress the rest of us so much about the "MSM is liberally biased" meme.
Like when the New York Times brushed the whole Lewinski thing under the rug. Man, if that story ever broke, Clinton would never have been Crowned Emperor.
Also. Perhaps Goldberg has a bias himself:
from FAIR on Goldberg
I don't vouch for the website or author's accuracy - but at least I will consider your point in dispute.
Of course, MSM, like any big corporation, cares about one thing, and one thing only. Money. They run stories to sell advertisement space - be it TV, Print, or Internet Eyeballs.
Now, if you are lucky, you might find a news outlet that feels it's market niche is to be objective and unbiased as possible. Then at least you can have your illusions.
Besides, 90% of the time when people say the Media has a liberal bias, they mean it has a "Democrat" bias. And since we all know the Democrats are just as beholden to big corporate $$ as the Republicans (made obvious by The Health Care Bill), it's really a matter of whether you rather kill foreign adults or native unborn children.
A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media in 2009. Both books were also national bestsellers with A Slobbering Love Affair hitting number two on the New York Times list.
_______
Goldberg sounds as if he is a go-to guy for straight, even-handed takes on liberal media bias. His ten Emmy awards and his being on the NYT Bestseller list certainly indicate that this is a guy the liberal MSM successfully silences and keeps on the margins.
The reality is that all sources are biased and in the digital age you can find information for your particular slant with a few clicks. Combing the Newsweek.com front page, I see articles by Michael Hirsh, George Will, a rightwing take on Obama's interview with Bret Baier, and a fairly leftwing take on same--within 30 seconds or so.
Yet another way our politicians have failed us. I see no reason we can't kill both!
Well, we pretty much do, right? So I don't think our pols have failed us on these issues.
We're leaving a lot of killing on the table. It's because government is inefficient... a privately administered killing machine could kill at least twice as many and for less money.
As to Brett Baier's interview of Obama, I did see it, and thought Baier was being a jackass for continually interrupting Obama. And I felt Baier was disrespectful in accusing Obama of filibustering and such. I understand that part of Baier's problem was (at least I presume) that he had only a limited time to ask Obama the health care questions and so was trying to get answers from Obama that directly addressed the questions - so I'm a bit sympathetic to Baier, but not much. It would have been better had he let Obama give a full answer and then asked Obama the question again if he felt he hadn't answered it.
That's not to excuse Obama, whose answers simply didn't address the questions, and many aspects of his answers were incredible and ridiculous, as usual. But I've come to expect that from him.
Didn't see it. Sounds like you have a fair enough take in many ways, though.
Edit: Now I note you had to add "incredible and ridiculous." Obama is a pol, so he does what pols do.
No. The homelessness problem at its core is not about the economy or about jobs; it's fundamentally a mental illness problem. Many homeless people couldn't hold down a job if you put them up at the Ritz.
I'm not the blackmailer, if that's what you're asking...
FWIW, I like Wash and hope things work out for him.
I also thought Baier was trying to play to the Fox News crowd by showing that he would give Obama a tough interview. I didn't think it was helpful.
Why the personalities at Fox News work themselves in a lather just for securing an interview with an Obama or Hillary Clinton or someone else on the left who "won't come on" is beyond me. But I guess that silliness is matched by the White House pretending that Fox News is Evil.
Political Function of PBS
So... you are standing by your example of Goldberg as the MSM liberal bias whistleblower?
Nah. I just figure most Libertarians are into recreational drugs.
I think this thing will, uhh, blow over for Washington, and I hope it does. But I am sticking with the Angels to take the AL West. Baseball hijack.
I'm picking the Angels, too. Mostly, though, I have no idea what to do with that division. I could see any team other than the A's winning it, and I could see the A's finishing as high as second place. There's going to be a lot of compression out there.
Nothing but wholesome, clean burning alcohol for me! I really don't even like coffee much.
You're probably right about Washington, unless the team gets off to a horrific start. AL West is wide open... I'd be pretty surprised if it takes more than 87 wins to claim the division, but the Angels seem like the best bet to me too.
Fox News is the largest News network in America, and also considered the most conservative among the networks. David, how do you reconcile that?
Stop teasing.
No, you see, the press as a whole doesn't like reporting on issues that don't make a liberal president look good. Bernie Goldberg said so, and Ray parroted it, so it therefore must be true.
Addendum: I would also add that, by any honest objective measure, these guys are actually fringe figures who represent fringe viewpoints, yet by the magic of NewsCorp get "mainstream" status. It's really phenomenal if it weren't so depressing.
No cigar, Ray.
The most likely reason neither you nor Bernie Goldberg nor anyone else has ever provided any smidgen resembling a hint of a notion of proof for your theory -- which you assert as fact, as you did quite readily in #51 and #59 -- is that none exists. It's one of those Occam's Razor things, it would seem.
I can remember when I was younger, growing up in the mid-80's and having these moments, while riding in the car, where all of a sudden I'd see this teasing vision in the oncoming traffic, a sleek, exotically styled red dream of a car ... and the child in me would go ... Oooh! Lotus? Ferrari?? Lamborghini??? and the car would get closer and closer and my excitement would build as I tried to figure out what gorgeous automotive fantasy was on the verge of roaring past in a blur of fantasies ... of wealth, prestige and exotic women ... Jane Seymour and James Bond? or maybe Paulina Porzikova riding shotgun to Magnum PI? ... and the anticipation would build and build and still closer the car would come, drawing inexorably to the point where recognition would leap to mind and then that moment would come like a cold slap across the face ... AWWWW ####, it's just a ####### FIERO, a grabasstic underpowered plastic ####-pile of bureaucratic Corporate mediocrity that doesn't even look good once you've seen the whole thing!!!
So ...
I hear KRAUTHAMMER and I think, dear god, what an incredible name! What man could possibly own SUCH a name???
I hear Krauthammer and I wonder, was he Ivan Putski's arch-nemesis?
I hear Krauthammer and my imagination spins wild thoughts about a long forgotten superhero from the days of The Greatest Generation, nipping the Nips and going Heil! right in der Fuehrer's face, a defender of Apple Pie, Mom, and the American way, shamefully used and discarded after doing his jingoistic duty, quietly replaced by the sanitized and blandly palatable Captain America ...
I hear Krauthammer and I think ... What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. YES, KRAUTHAMMER, YES!!! That is good! That is good.
I hear the name Krauthammer and the kid in me goes ... Oooh! Lotus? Ferrari?? Lamborghini???
And then ... I open my eyes, full of wonder and dreams, like a child coming downstairs on Christmas morning ... only to find out that "Life *IS* pain, Princess" and there *IS* no Santa Claus and Charles Krauthammer is a Pontiac Fiero ..."
Sigh.
Well, one of them messed with a horse, and the other one messed with the wrong end of a swimming pool, but if you overlook the details those two actually have one very big thing in common.
Ignoring the Lewinsky scandal would have been on the level of how news was reported in soviet Russia. That story was not going to get ignored, it would almost be on the level of the Boston news not covering the Yankee's winning the world series.
Counting Gore as being ripped apart doesn't even come close to Quayle's spelling of Potato(e).
How I find the media leaning to the left is when they apportion the blame when something goes wrong. When a Democrat is in office there is a closer look at what went wrong (since the economies downfall has it's roots across multiple presidents lets look at the guy in charge of the finance or the lower than expected job numbers in February were because of all the snow). With Katrina very little negative was said about the mayor or governor even though they also made huge mistakes, the focus was the person at the top.
Billy,
I'll assume you're very young and don't remember the Clinton years rather than think you are being intentionally disingenuous. The media didn't want to cover Clinton's foibles. Newsweek (among others) knew about the Lewinsky/perjury thing and chose not to report the information. Then the story got leaked to Drudge and they had no choice but to cover it once it was out of the bag.
Anyone who is unable to recognize the difference in how the majority of the media cover stories depending upon the political party involved has serious cognitive issues.
Well, this is the furthest thing from anything approaching any sort of objective, comprehensive analysis. It just is. By about a million miles.
For something as important as this issue is -- and if there is some manner of systematic, persistent, ongoing bias in any direction by the "mainstream media" (yet another definition that is often conveniently rendered) -- then it's crying out for some manner of systematic, persistent, ongoing serious and academic analysis by those raising the concern.
None occurs, or has ever occurred. It's all BS; every one of the purported "studies" of the "problem" has been easily exposed as agenda-driven and rife with methodological failure. There simply is no factual, objective basis for this canard. Yet drumming it out, year after year, with no concern for any factual, objective foundation, is what goes on, and has gone on for at least 20 or 25 years that I've been observing it.
It's the equivalent of the Drug War, with its equally preposterous factual foundation. Yet folks like Ray or David, who easily see through the fact-absent nonsense of those who support the Drug War, fail to comprehend the same stupidity of this one.
Please understand, I'm no apologist for the MSM in the US, or in the Western World generally. It freaking sucks. But it does so not because of any kind of "liberal bias."
Seriously? Katrina was a devastating example post 9/11 of US unpreparedness in the face of a predictable disaster. The mayor and goverrnor got their fair share of criticism, but it was Bush who put an inept political appointee in charge of FEMA and whose political response was so disconnected from reality as to be outrageous.
Comparing Bush to the governor of a poor and corrupt state and the mayor of the Big Easy is an apt one, though..he should never have risen politically above that level in a sound society.
Even though there is still a bias I find for international news the BBC to be closer to what I would want news to be.
Oh and I would watch FOX every day and call it ice cream if all the other channels had Nancy Grace on it.
Amen.
Just look at the treatment of Reagan vs. Obama. Reagan was portrayed as a buffoon, at best an amiable bungler, even though he was quite intelligent, had a long career in many leadership roles (union President, Governor), wrote many of his own speeches, etc.
Obama is a hack machine politician who has never held a real job in his life and couldn't order at McDonald's without a teleprompter, and he is treated as the second coming.
Or compare the treatment of Quayle's or Bush's malapropisms to Obama pronunciation of Navy "corpse-men". The commander and chief doesn't know the name of Navy medics!?
For goodness sake a major network forged documents to try and embarrass Bush II, and people say there is no bias?
Personally I think it was no ones fault something like Katrina happens once, pretty hard to prepare for that.
I don't remember what the media knew before they started covering Clinton's peccadilloes, but I do remember that it was practically the only political story getting coverage for at least a year. I don't ever want to know that much about someone else's dick and what they did or didn't do with it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main