From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:33:37 +0800
To: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Noise: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
In-Reply-To: <9607221607.AA00659@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607240016.A9441-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> >Limbaugh is giving up the show because it is run in syndication. 
> >Syndication is not a profitable format with the ensuing satellite blitz 
> >on the horizon. 
> 
> 
> I find your argument only moderately less convincing than the average
> political campaign ad.

Your opinion. It's not an argument; it's the way it is.

> 
> Given Limbaugh's propensity for telling blatant fibs I don't credit anything
> he says as being likely to bear any relation to the truth, particularly
> when it would mean admitting failure and retreat.
> 

Again your opinion. 

> Syndication is highly profitable for many, if its profitable to syndicate
> drama with its astronomic production costs it is profitable to syndicate
> Rush with his astronomic weight. 
> 

Good straw man defense: Apples == Oranges.

Syndication is only profitable for those shows that can make the time 
slots garnered with the biggest advertisers. Drama wins because it's 
chewing gum for the mind - just like Clinton's saturday morning 
broadcast and the subsequent denials issued afterwards. Zero thought 
television appeals to the masses, ie: Bay Watch != Script.

Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.

In addition, Limbaugh, like other TV hosts, has zero control over when 
the show airs and which episodes get aired. To screw someone in the 
Nielsons, you place the show in the low rate time bracket to guarantee 
bottom ratings, and do re-runs. It's doesn't matter how good the show is 
- it won't fly.

Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
because he does not broadcast on TV. That parallels the generally 
accepted myth (especially in academia) that one is not an expert in the 
field unless published.


> >Limbaugh is a buisnessman and a commentator. He earns a living. He will 
> >do what is necessary to leverage his marketability to make the most money.
> 
> >Since you've gone to college, I'll have to explain it to you: It's called 
> >capitalism - look into it...
> 
> Its called failure and spin control. Rush has not announced a new TV show,
> he has closed his only TV show. He has closed after his audience declined
> and his contracts expired. That is the business decision of the local
> stations who don;t see Rush as profitable business anymore and advertisers
> who don't want to see their products associated with appologists for
> the Oaklahoma bomb.
> 

Again, your opinion of the situation. Adverstisers are whores. That's 
what they get paid to do. IF they think going PC will sell more product, 
that's what happens. Watch and see the score of all the Clinton's business 
backing when Hillary is finally indicted.

> 
> >You fail to acknowledge the simple fact that a segment of society that 
> >feels not only disenfranchised, but that the system is irrepairable will 
> >stoop to whatever means they feel is necessary to make their point. They 
> >don't care what other people think - just what they believe in. 
> >Discrediting is a non issue.
> 
> I know that facism has an appeal for many people but that does not mean
> that they are not a minority. And I am not using the words Facism as a
> casual insult but as an accurate description of a movement which is in
> large part a vehicle for racism and has already caused 200 plus murders
> at OKC. 
> 
> Every time an extreeme idological faction of the left or the right gains
> power there are splinter groups from that side claiming that the failure
> of the policies is due to them not being compromised and insufficiently 
> ideal. Since right wing idealogues have been dominant in the US for some 
> time it is the right wing extreemists who are to the fore.
> 
> 

Right wing, left wing. It's all the same. Pigeon holes for unpopular 
ideas. 

The issue I take with this, is the constant spouting of King Bill's 
pronouncement of why OKC occured in the first place. We don't know WHY it 
took place - that's what a trial is for (if you actually believe that 
justice is blind and lawyers tell the truth always). We will NEVER really 
know - but it's damn fine political fodder to take an unconstitutional 
swipe at the populous with the anti-terrorist legislation.

If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
Hill. 

...Paul