COMMENTS: 57
Limbaugh's $400 Million Contract Is an Even Match for Clear Channel's Layoffs
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
Even for a pancaked industry like radio broadcasting, which has become somewhat numb to years' worth of mass layoffs triggered by hyper, corporate consolidation, and more recently by an over-the-cliff advertising recession, last week's HR wave of mutilation unleashed by industry giant Clear Channel Communications must have felt like a pile-on.
Drowning under massive debt and desperate to cut more costs, Clear Channel took an ax to its payroll -- again -- and hacked hundreds of radio pros out the door. Program directors, morning show hosts, production pros, news anchors -- all of them tossed over the side. A "bloodbath," one newspaper called it. (In Albany, New York, the entire on-air staff at a Clear Channel music station was sacked; same with a radio outpost in Exeter, New Hampshire)
The most recent blizzard of pink slips (one industry report pegged it at "nearly 1,000") came in the wake of a January purge, in which 1,850 Clear Channel employees were let go. So already this year the company has shed nearly 3,000 employees, or 12 percent of its workforce. Also, last week, Clear Channel's parent company announced it was suspending its matching contributions to employee 401(k) retirement programs.
Clear Channel, the conservative-friendly media behemoth with a soft spot for right-wing radio -- and which emerged earlier this decade as the poster child for everything that's wrong with runaway media consolidation (aka "The Evil Empire") -- is now hanging on for dear life. "It's a house of cards," radio watcher and Clear Channel expert Alec Foege recently told me, noting the company's crippling debt payments, which are due at a time when advertising revenues are vanishing. (Foege is author of 2008's Right of the Dial: The Rise of Clear Channel and the Fall of Commercial Radio.)
As The New York Times noted last week, "It is too soon to say who will be the biggest loser among media companies in this recession. But Clear Channel Communications is vying for the title."
Clear Channel's fall from business grace remains epic in its proportions. In 10 years time the company has gone from dominating a flourishing radio industry to a corporation that now teeters on the brink. (Clear Channel stock traded for $90 a share in 2000. When the radio company went private last year, pre-crash, the stock was already down in the $30s.) Lots of over-extended, debt-ridden media conglomerates are struggling through today's deep economic recession, but few face a future quite as perilous as the one staring back at the San Antonio radio giant.
And yet Clear Channel's most famous employee, Rush Limbaugh, remains oblivious to it all. I sometimes wonder what Limbaugh thinks when he reads about the not-so-slow-motion collapse of his radio employer while lounging in his 24,000-square-foot Florida estate or motoring in his $450,000 car to the airport to ride in his $54 million jet. Does Limbaugh feel bad? Does he feel a little guilty? And does he ever think about giving some of his riches back so that thousands of radio colleagues wouldn't have to be bounced to the curb?
And I wonder what those pink-slipped Clear Channel employees -- some of whom spent decades working for the company -- think about Limbaugh as they're ordered out the station door and onto "the beach." (That's radio-speak for unemployment.)
I wonder about Limbaugh and the thousands of his laid-off Clear Channel colleagues, because the dichotomy is striking: Last July, just months before the radio economy went into free-fall, Limbaugh's bosses at Clear Channel, who enjoy deep ties to Texas Republicans and who have been at the forefront of promoting right-wing radio, rewarded the turbo-talker with the biggest contract in terrestrial radio history. The contract included an eye-popping 40 percent raise over his already gargantuan pay, despite the fact it's doubtful any other radio competitors could have even matched Limbaugh's old pay scale.
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 7, 2009 1:26 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rush the rightwing blowhard
Lived by his tongue
Spouting lies and talking points
and other dittohead dung.
Little Rupert Murdoch
Loved old Rush's stuff
and bought him pills and Viagra
And underage offshore muff.
Evil Robber Barons
Would bow whene'er he'd pass
They'd assume that position
to kiss his hairy ... foot
One great day it happened
The dittoheads came no more
And Rush that mighty big gasbag
Ceased his endless roar.
Without his life-long fans
Rush could not be brave,
So Rush that fat wingnut
sadly slipped into his grave.
Rush the rightwing blowhard
Lived by his tongue
Spouting lies and talking points
and other dittohead dung.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» see: the LA Times
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: see: the LA Times
Posted by: kabac
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: nonaste
» ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: parrotuya
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: kelly.nickell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ishmael1 on May 8, 2009 1:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Its all business
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 8, 2009 4:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
p.s. it is immoral to use food for fuel
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» uh what?
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» Corn should be for eatting only
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: mainspark
» RE: read much?
Posted by: jewellthief
» Randi Rhodes aka the Crazy Lady
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Largely Incomprehensible Rant...
Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrXyzzy on May 8, 2009 4:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, come on. Let's not get into what he deserves.
This article was too long.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on May 8, 2009 6:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» obviously
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» RE: How is Clear Channel getting their money?
Posted by: ranchero42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daniel1982 on May 8, 2009 7:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 'Yes' then he probably saved jobs since his show (at least partially) offset losses in other areas. So is his show profitable or not?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» actually
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» RE: actually
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: actually
Posted by: mizani
» Sure..
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Sure..
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: The question is...
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» keep your eyes on the ball, or on the carny?
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on May 8, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its a similar argument with professional sports. Many people complain that NBA players are overpaid. Well that may be the case to an average Joe who busts his ass and sees a guy who gets paid $10 million a year to put a ball through an iron ring. But the simple fact of the matter is that these players are the ones providing the product that their industry is selling. Without the Rush Limbaughs and Lebron Jameses there would be no entertainment value. No product. No revenue. No industry. No jobs necessary to support an industry that isn't there.
No matter what you think of Limbaugh (and if you think, you probably don't like him very much) you cannot deny that he IS the product. If he wasn't being compensated to the degree he is who do you think would be pocketing the difference? The soundman? The janitor? The station manager? I don't think so. The same questions must be asked of professional atheletes. If they get a smaller share of the pie they help generate who gets the difference?
Compensation for Limbaugh and other entertainers is best examined from a business perspective and not, as the author is doing, an emotional one.
That doesn't mean you can't be pissed that the blowhard is making that kind of bank. It just means you can't really say he's overpaid unless you look at the complete business picture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: From a strictly business perspective...
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: From a strictly business perspective...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» "...you can't really say he's overpaid...
Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: "...you can't really say he's overpaid...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mcyclemama on May 8, 2009 7:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the matter, the right wing rich assholes feeling a little of the pinch of the economy and not giving as much to that syndicate? Or is it that some of their listeners are starting to come to their senses and analyse the crap that comes from Clear Channel. If only that were the case. In addition, die FAUX NEWS die!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on May 8, 2009 8:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The money circulates. And if he doesn't spend it all, remember Economics 101....... Savings = Investment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: kelly.nickell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on May 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 8, 2009 10:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No charge. Free. Here ya go!
How is that making them money? Other than it might make the ratings better for the ad revenue.
Clear Channel was stupid to boost his pay that much.
Oh, who am I kidding? Clear Channel is a stupid company that should be broken up because it is not serving the American people very well.
BREAK THE RADIO MONOPOLIES!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 8, 2009 10:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He waddles around his house wondering which nerve endings to pleasure.
I doubt he reads anything other than his own press.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MeyravLevine on May 8, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Limbaugh's tax bracket is same or not much higher than the tax rate of hard working middle class is the problem.
No need to have salary caps. Just raise the tax rate for those making over $1M and up from 60% to 90%, and there will be no need to worry about how much fat hate-preachers get paid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 8, 2009 4:41 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
going after the Seals for 'gunning down minority teenagers' does not bode well when those 'Teenagers' were the ones who attemtped to committ an armed hostage attack. Besides the Reality is that in their country, there is no such thing as the 'teenage' years that is merely a Western luxury our kids are afforded- they have a rite of passage into adulthood once they hit puberty. So in a way, Rush not only insulted the Seals, but also the Pirates.
Then Rush decided to once again go after Colin Powell, who as a Lefty I Know was used by the Bushies to sell their illegal invasion- Powell was the only one left with any real creditability- so they Duped him. If they didn't give Congress all the Intell, I'm betting they didn't give it to Powell either.
so now Rush has not only gone after the enlisted ranks (like the ones unjustly called 'rouge 'at Abu Ghraib), but our expert marksmen and rescuers of the Ship Captain,And four Star General- hellova job supporting the Troops, Rush. Please TELL US once again what a 'Patriot' you are, how you support the Troops. Apparently only when they can be used to increase your Ratings and your pocket book.
Frankly,Rush even an 'Against the Wars' Liberal must disavow you for your shameless disrespect for those in Service to this country. Disgusting and Pathetic, as usual.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socrates2 on May 8, 2009 5:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When all governments back in the 1930's nationalized the broadcasting band of the electro-magnetic spectrum, ours decided to grant _monopolies_, defended and policed by government, to whomever solicited a license to operate a particular frequency in a geographical area.
Originally anyone who "promised to serve" the public airwaves and not broadcast obscene material got a license for a couple of bucks. The big cost and initial investment was the transmitter and antenna. After that it was gravy all the way. And the gravy only increases exponentially depending on the market size and the wattage (reach of signal).
You _sell_ sponsors "air time" by the second to raise listener awareness of their product. The more listeners the more you can charge per second. As an example, next time check out what a Superbowl 30 second commmercial costs. By the way, radio technology is so primitive and _cheap_ compared to television. That means, other than the low-maintenance transmitter, low overhead at the station's end. All that money is pure, monopolistic profit! Programming has its costs (ASCAP/BMI royalties for music), but the station gets its money back _many times_ over.
And, as these monopolies are so lucrative (especially in larger markets), at one time a rule limited the number stations one corporation or individual could own.
Those limiting rules were done away with, as was the Fairness Doctrine--whose un(?)intended result has been the ubiquitous, on-air presence of over-rated right-wing windbags the masses either love or hate.
That said, Rush may or may not be worth the price to his Goebbel-esque ringmasters, but at one time they believed so. My question is, where were the _anticipated monies_ supposed to come from that were destined for Rush? And why is this money suddenly and mysteriously unavailable under the Obama administration and when the GOP is on the run, thanks to the past 8 years of misrule?
There is more to this _gambling on future revenues for Rush_ than meets the eye. Perhaps Rush's sponsors are indeed going broke and are cutting back on ad dollars.
On the other hand, Rush unashamedly waved, cajoled, and sold the GOP party-line and its hawkish views. The official view has changed and Rush is a liability, a 400 mill liability. Like Father Coughlin, perhaps Rush is starting to believe his own oral fantasies. And as someone once commented, Rush needed the embrace of a lot of Oxycontin before he could sleep at night...
I have to pity Rush at some level. Despite his obvious ability to absorb, regurgitate, and glibly sell _cherry-picked_ facts, Rush will always remain a _shallow_ human being. I find it difficult to believe than an individual with authentic self-insight, empathy, and understanding into the human condition could actually believe what Rush preaches.
Rush is fundamentally a comedian, but a one-trick pony, good for a week or two of laughs before his message recycles itself. And recycles itself and recycles itself and ...
"My condolences, Mr. Limbaugh; the reactionaries lost _this round_."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nice.
Posted by: LeaderofMen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: konawriter on May 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on May 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on May 9, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgroarke on May 9, 2009 1:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on May 10, 2009 4:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of you seem to be coming from the premise that the ONLY motivation for clear channel is they make that much off him, so Rush should get it. Since when do businesses like clear channel, with a political agenda, make decisions based on logical business practices? Their motivation is always something else.
Radio does not live on hosts alone. You gotta have the people who punch the buttons and get the tub of lard onto the air. Only if Rush got a raise while all jobs were kept could anyone argue that Rush brings it in and therefore deserves it. He ain't bringing it in or they wouldn't lay everybody else off!
Giving one person everything while neglecting everybody else is not a sustainable business model. Good! Let the bastards sink. I think America would be better off if right wing radio went bust.
Lub,
Granny
Granny's crazy videos Go get a chuckle!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 10, 2009 10:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 1rufus1 on May 10, 2009 11:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on May 11, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about the angry viciousness and inappropriateness of that comment. Bush had eight years to have equal comments made about the kook hosts of hateful lefty Air America. None were made. Repeat, none were made, ever.
You see, there are no taste or ethical boundaries for the secular socialists. They get a pass to do this sort of tacky stuff week after week. The Dufus actually laughed. You can bet he will not smooth it over either. What does that tell you about the true nature of the man?
Its a tradition of national democrats to have others throw the spears or to just say anything they like…knowing the biased media will change their diapers as needed. Dumbing down the culture is democrat domain.
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on May 7, 2009 1:26 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rush the rightwing blowhard
Lived by his tongue
Spouting lies and talking points
and other dittohead dung.
Little Rupert Murdoch
Loved old Rush's stuff
and bought him pills and Viagra
And underage offshore muff.
Evil Robber Barons
Would bow whene'er he'd pass
They'd assume that position
to kiss his hairy ... foot
One great day it happened
The dittoheads came no more
And Rush that mighty big gasbag
Ceased his endless roar.
Without his life-long fans
Rush could not be brave,
So Rush that fat wingnut
sadly slipped into his grave.
Rush the rightwing blowhard
Lived by his tongue
Spouting lies and talking points
and other dittohead dung.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» see: the LA Times
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: see: the LA Times
Posted by: kabac
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: nonaste
» ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: parrotuya
» RE: It's Sing Along Time!
Posted by: kelly.nickell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ishmael1 on May 8, 2009 1:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Its all business
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 8, 2009 4:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
p.s. it is immoral to use food for fuel
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» uh what?
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» Corn should be for eatting only
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: mainspark
» RE: read much?
Posted by: jewellthief
» Randi Rhodes aka the Crazy Lady
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» Largely Incomprehensible Rant...
Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: envy much?
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DrXyzzy on May 8, 2009 4:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, come on. Let's not get into what he deserves.
This article was too long.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on May 8, 2009 6:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» obviously
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» RE: How is Clear Channel getting their money?
Posted by: ranchero42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daniel1982 on May 8, 2009 7:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 'Yes' then he probably saved jobs since his show (at least partially) offset losses in other areas. So is his show profitable or not?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» actually
Posted by: Cory.Goodman
» RE: actually
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: actually
Posted by: mizani
» Sure..
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Sure..
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: The question is...
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» keep your eyes on the ball, or on the carny?
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on May 8, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its a similar argument with professional sports. Many people complain that NBA players are overpaid. Well that may be the case to an average Joe who busts his ass and sees a guy who gets paid $10 million a year to put a ball through an iron ring. But the simple fact of the matter is that these players are the ones providing the product that their industry is selling. Without the Rush Limbaughs and Lebron Jameses there would be no entertainment value. No product. No revenue. No industry. No jobs necessary to support an industry that isn't there.
No matter what you think of Limbaugh (and if you think, you probably don't like him very much) you cannot deny that he IS the product. If he wasn't being compensated to the degree he is who do you think would be pocketing the difference? The soundman? The janitor? The station manager? I don't think so. The same questions must be asked of professional atheletes. If they get a smaller share of the pie they help generate who gets the difference?
Compensation for Limbaugh and other entertainers is best examined from a business perspective and not, as the author is doing, an emotional one.
That doesn't mean you can't be pissed that the blowhard is making that kind of bank. It just means you can't really say he's overpaid unless you look at the complete business picture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: From a strictly business perspective...
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: From a strictly business perspective...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» "...you can't really say he's overpaid...
Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: "...you can't really say he's overpaid...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mcyclemama on May 8, 2009 7:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the matter, the right wing rich assholes feeling a little of the pinch of the economy and not giving as much to that syndicate? Or is it that some of their listeners are starting to come to their senses and analyse the crap that comes from Clear Channel. If only that were the case. In addition, die FAUX NEWS die!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on May 8, 2009 8:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The money circulates. And if he doesn't spend it all, remember Economics 101....... Savings = Investment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: Lilly
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: No such thing as 'Overpaid'
Posted by: kelly.nickell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on May 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 8, 2009 10:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No charge. Free. Here ya go!
How is that making them money? Other than it might make the ratings better for the ad revenue.
Clear Channel was stupid to boost his pay that much.
Oh, who am I kidding? Clear Channel is a stupid company that should be broken up because it is not serving the American people very well.
BREAK THE RADIO MONOPOLIES!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 8, 2009 10:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He waddles around his house wondering which nerve endings to pleasure.
I doubt he reads anything other than his own press.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MeyravLevine on May 8, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Limbaugh's tax bracket is same or not much higher than the tax rate of hard working middle class is the problem.
No need to have salary caps. Just raise the tax rate for those making over $1M and up from 60% to 90%, and there will be no need to worry about how much fat hate-preachers get paid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 8, 2009 4:41 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
going after the Seals for 'gunning down minority teenagers' does not bode well when those 'Teenagers' were the ones who attemtped to committ an armed hostage attack. Besides the Reality is that in their country, there is no such thing as the 'teenage' years that is merely a Western luxury our kids are afforded- they have a rite of passage into adulthood once they hit puberty. So in a way, Rush not only insulted the Seals, but also the Pirates.
Then Rush decided to once again go after Colin Powell, who as a Lefty I Know was used by the Bushies to sell their illegal invasion- Powell was the only one left with any real creditability- so they Duped him. If they didn't give Congress all the Intell, I'm betting they didn't give it to Powell either.
so now Rush has not only gone after the enlisted ranks (like the ones unjustly called 'rouge 'at Abu Ghraib), but our expert marksmen and rescuers of the Ship Captain,And four Star General- hellova job supporting the Troops, Rush. Please TELL US once again what a 'Patriot' you are, how you support the Troops. Apparently only when they can be used to increase your Ratings and your pocket book.
Frankly,Rush even an 'Against the Wars' Liberal must disavow you for your shameless disrespect for those in Service to this country. Disgusting and Pathetic, as usual.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socrates2 on May 8, 2009 5:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When all governments back in the 1930's nationalized the broadcasting band of the electro-magnetic spectrum, ours decided to grant _monopolies_, defended and policed by government, to whomever solicited a license to operate a particular frequency in a geographical area.
Originally anyone who "promised to serve" the public airwaves and not broadcast obscene material got a license for a couple of bucks. The big cost and initial investment was the transmitter and antenna. After that it was gravy all the way. And the gravy only increases exponentially depending on the market size and the wattage (reach of signal).
You _sell_ sponsors "air time" by the second to raise listener awareness of their product. The more listeners the more you can charge per second. As an example, next time check out what a Superbowl 30 second commmercial costs. By the way, radio technology is so primitive and _cheap_ compared to television. That means, other than the low-maintenance transmitter, low overhead at the station's end. All that money is pure, monopolistic profit! Programming has its costs (ASCAP/BMI royalties for music), but the station gets its money back _many times_ over.
And, as these monopolies are so lucrative (especially in larger markets), at one time a rule limited the number stations one corporation or individual could own.
Those limiting rules were done away with, as was the Fairness Doctrine--whose un(?)intended result has been the ubiquitous, on-air presence of over-rated right-wing windbags the masses either love or hate.
That said, Rush may or may not be worth the price to his Goebbel-esque ringmasters, but at one time they believed so. My question is, where were the _anticipated monies_ supposed to come from that were destined for Rush? And why is this money suddenly and mysteriously unavailable under the Obama administration and when the GOP is on the run, thanks to the past 8 years of misrule?
There is more to this _gambling on future revenues for Rush_ than meets the eye. Perhaps Rush's sponsors are indeed going broke and are cutting back on ad dollars.
On the other hand, Rush unashamedly waved, cajoled, and sold the GOP party-line and its hawkish views. The official view has changed and Rush is a liability, a 400 mill liability. Like Father Coughlin, perhaps Rush is starting to believe his own oral fantasies. And as someone once commented, Rush needed the embrace of a lot of Oxycontin before he could sleep at night...
I have to pity Rush at some level. Despite his obvious ability to absorb, regurgitate, and glibly sell _cherry-picked_ facts, Rush will always remain a _shallow_ human being. I find it difficult to believe than an individual with authentic self-insight, empathy, and understanding into the human condition could actually believe what Rush preaches.
Rush is fundamentally a comedian, but a one-trick pony, good for a week or two of laughs before his message recycles itself. And recycles itself and recycles itself and ...
"My condolences, Mr. Limbaugh; the reactionaries lost _this round_."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nice.
Posted by: LeaderofMen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: konawriter on May 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on May 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on May 9, 2009 10:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgroarke on May 9, 2009 1:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on May 10, 2009 4:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of you seem to be coming from the premise that the ONLY motivation for clear channel is they make that much off him, so Rush should get it. Since when do businesses like clear channel, with a political agenda, make decisions based on logical business practices? Their motivation is always something else.
Radio does not live on hosts alone. You gotta have the people who punch the buttons and get the tub of lard onto the air. Only if Rush got a raise while all jobs were kept could anyone argue that Rush brings it in and therefore deserves it. He ain't bringing it in or they wouldn't lay everybody else off!
Giving one person everything while neglecting everybody else is not a sustainable business model. Good! Let the bastards sink. I think America would be better off if right wing radio went bust.
Lub,
Granny
Granny's crazy videos Go get a chuckle!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 10, 2009 10:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 1rufus1 on May 10, 2009 11:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelman on May 11, 2009 5:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about the angry viciousness and inappropriateness of that comment. Bush had eight years to have equal comments made about the kook hosts of hateful lefty Air America. None were made. Repeat, none were made, ever.
You see, there are no taste or ethical boundaries for the secular socialists. They get a pass to do this sort of tacky stuff week after week. The Dufus actually laughed. You can bet he will not smooth it over either. What does that tell you about the true nature of the man?
Its a tradition of national democrats to have others throw the spears or to just say anything they like…knowing the biased media will change their diapers as needed. Dumbing down the culture is democrat domain.
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
Can Obama and Dems Overcome the Right's Talk Radio Monopoly?
Why We're Addicted to Disaster Porn




