Ed Schultz Show goes to Crawford Wednesday and Thursday

[Gnarlodious]

>  Sorry to be so sensitive. It just seems that there's always
> some attack going on, on this board.
Really? This is downright mellow on this here board. I could name any number of boards where it is vicious and nonstop :=)

______________
• K5ZN

[barooosk]

> Who is "Ed Gallagher"?
>
> Mike Gallagher wants people to enjoy freedom but not
> exercise it.
>
> As far as talk radio is concerned, he is nonentity - a minor
> leaguer.  He is carried by Salem Radio, a bottom of the
> barrel operation supported by preachers buying brokered
> airtime, consistently ranking at the bottom in every market
> in which they play.  Gallagher is so bad that Salem's owned
> and operated station in Philadelphia bumps him to the middle
> of the night so they can carry Laura Ingraham from a
> competing syndicator.  

You are so right.  The last time I looked, Gallagher was only carried on low rated Salem Radio Network.  The Network reaches about 70% of US and gets an average 1.0 rating.  Also, Gallagher is apparently not very well liked by Salem because he is usually carried overnight, which means that his rating is probably closer to 0.1 than 1.0.  What's really strange is that the Talkers Magazine "Reseach Project" has Gallagher listed at the 7th most popular talk show host (tied with Neal Boortz) and ahead of such talkers as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory, and, of course all liberal radio talkers.  Does anybody think that the Talkers Reseach Project has any credibility. Can you take any reseach seriously that uses the following criteria.

"The numbers indicated in the section Top Talk Radio Audiences By Size are estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports and information provided by Arbitron. These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals."

... What does "Talkers magazine analysis of Arbitron reports" mean

... What are "other reliable indicators in rated and non-rated markets"

... What are "estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports (isn't this illegal) and information provided by Arbitron.  (Is this the 12+ ratings that we all can get from several websites.)

... Finally, the sourcing states "These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals." (In other words -- we're guessing!!!)

[barooosk]

This is the same post that I just placed on this thread.  It is more responsive to the post below.

The last time I looked, Gallagher was only carried on low rated Salem Radio Network. The Network reaches about 70% of US and gets an average 1.0 rating. Also, Gallagher is apparently not very well liked by Salem because he is usually carried overnight, which means that his rating is probably closer to 0.1 than 1.0. What's really strange is that the Talkers Magazine "Reseach Project" has Gallagher listed at the 7th most popular talk show host (tied with Neal Boortz) and ahead of such talkers as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory, and, of course all liberal radio talkers. Does anybody think that the Talkers Reseach Project has any credibility. Can you take any reseach seriously that uses the following criteria.

"The numbers indicated in the section Top Talk Radio Audiences By Size are estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports and information provided by Arbitron. These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals."

... What does "Talkers magazine analysis of Arbitron reports" mean

... What are "other reliable indicators in rated and non-rated markets"

... What are "estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports (isn't this illegal) and information provided by Arbitron. (Is this the 12+ ratings that we all can get from several websites.)

... Finally, the sourcing states "These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals." (In other words -- we're guessing!!!)

Here's the post claiming that Talkers has rated Gallagher at the 7th most popular talk show host.



> And you have just demonstrated how little you know about the
> radio business better than I ever could.
>
> Here are the Top Twenty Talk Hosts in the country by
> AUDIENCE size, not personal opinion. And this is not some
> conservative bloggers list, but the list of  Talkers
> Magazine , the dominant trade magazine for ALL of talk
> radio, not just conservative talk radio.
>
> 1) Rush Limbaugh 14.75 million
> 2) Sean Hannity 13+ million
> tie 3) Howard Stern 8.25+ million
> tie 3) Michael Savage 8.25+ million
> 4) Dr. Laura Schlessinger 7.50+ million
> 5) Laura Ingram 5.0+ million
> 6) Jim Bohannon 3.75+ million
> tie 7) Mike Gallagher 3.50+ million
> tie 7) Neal Boortz 3.50+ million
> Clark Howard 3.25+
> tie 9)Glenn Beck 3.0+ million
> tie 9)Don Imus 3.0+ million
> tie 9)Bill O'Reilly 3.0+ million
> tie 9)Doug Stephan 3.0+ million
> tie 10) Dr. Joy Brown 2.75+ million
> tie 10) George Noory 2.75+ million
> tie 11) Kim Komando 2.0+ million
> tie 11) Michael Medved 2.0+ million
> tie 11)Dave Ramsey 2.0+ million
> tie 11)Jim Rome 2.0+ million
>
> >He is carried by Salem Radio, a bottom of the barrel
> operation supported by preachers buying brokered airtime.
>
> Well, it's a Christian organization if that's what you mean.
> And as you demonstrated, they endure a lot of prejudice
> because of that.

[barooosk]

> Not every talk show is the 7th in the USA. That has to do
> with having ratings success in the big markets, which he
> has. The rest is wishful thinking.

Name the big markets where Gallagher is having ratings success.  And support this claim with data... not the bogus methodology used by the "Talkers Research Project."

[barooosk]

> Talkers methodology is disclosed over their rankings, although
> it does not reveal anything that could accurately be
> describe as a  "hodgepodge".  It does disclose that these
> are "estimates" and "rough totals".

Yes, and they also say that "do not represent actually totals.  In other words, Talkers useds the spaghetti theory of ratings. e.g. they throw some numbers against the wall a go with the ones that stick.
 
> If you have a more accurate objective source to rank talk
> hosts, I'll drop Talkers Magazine and switch to the one you
> suggest.

Just go the Radio and Records website.  Check the average ratings for the stations that Gallagher is on.  Factor in his miserable time slots. e.g. 2 am to 6 am on about half of the stations.  And you will find he is a lot closer to 0.5 than the 3.5 rating that Talkers projects.

[Wilkins_Micawber]

> Name the big markets where Gallagher is having ratings
> success.  And support this claim with data... not the bogus
> methodology used by the "Talkers Research Project."

Buy an Arbitron subscription in every market Gallagher is in just to answer your question? You must be high!

What reason do you have for disqualifying the only available source of information besides the fact that it drives you stark, raving mad that he's successful?

Only in a news/talk fan site like this is Talkers Magazine's status as the publication of record even questioned. In a professional forum, it's not.

[Wilkins_Micawber]

> The last time I looked, Gallagher was only carried on low
> rated Salem Radio Network. The Network reaches about 70% of
> US and gets an average 1.0 rating.

Last time you looked WHERE? Are sources alien to you guys? Where oh, where do you get this stuff? I asked dampier (or was it bierkenstock) to site his sources and he sent me a link to Wikipedia! I sourced my information. Do you make yours up? Where does it come from?! You guys spend too much time on http://www.dailykos.com/

>Also, Gallagher is apparently not very well liked by Salem because he is
>usually carried overnight

Do you honestly believe that hosts are carried in non-prime dayparts because they are "not liked"? Have any of you guys ever worked in radio?

>which means that his rating is probably closer to 0.1 than 1.0.

This is so silly I only post it because it is a sight to behold. Don't you think that Arbitron takes into account the daypart a show is on? Here's a guess.. but it's JUST a guess. I'll bet that 80% of his ratings come from a few of his larger markets.

Here's a shocker for you. Are you ready? Get a grip now, this is going to be tough to take. Before he was syndicated, Mike Gallagher was successful at WABC. Just so you don't have to look it up, WABC is in New York.

>Can you take any reseach seriously that uses the following criteria.
> "The numbers indicated in the section Top Talk Radio Audiences By Size are
> estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports
> and information provided by Arbitron. These figures are rough projections
> based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals."

(Sigh) If you had a clue, you would know that the Arbitron report itself has a page of such qualifiers, including this stunner:

"All Arbitron estimates are its opinions and are subject to the qualifications and limitations stated in Arbitron's reports. Due to these qualifications and limitations, the accuracy of Arbitron's audience estimates cannot be determined to any precise mathematical value or definition."

The whole damn business is built on imprecise estimates. Did you not know that?

I've already said I consider Gallagher a not-too-bright goofball so it's not as  though I am his apologist. But you guys (kids?) come in with political motivations and just attack anything that displeases you.

This is the third time Talkers has been dismissed because it ranks conservatives higher than you wish. But did you see up near the top of the list? Howard Stern!

I've asked each of you who has attempted to discredit Talkers because it came up with answers you don't like to suggest a better authority for this information. I'm still waiting.

[MikefromDelaware]

I'm not a big fan of Mike Gallagher.  His show does air in the Wilmington market opposite Rush.  In my opinion, of the two, Limbaugh is better, no doubt.  However, if Gallagher is tied for the #7 spot nationally, that's not a bad spot to be in.  I'm sure any of us like to have our own national radio talk show and be tied for the number 7 spot.  Gallagher's face has been showing up more often on some of the cable TV shows.  He recently was a guest on Fox Newschannel's Hannity and Colmns.  He's been on other cable shows as well.  Like him or not, he's not doing bad.  Not every talker can be #1.

[barooosk]

I said
"The last time I looked, Gallagher was only carried on low
rated Salem Radio Network. The Network reaches about 70% of
US and gets an average 1.0 rating."

You said
> Last time you looked WHERE? Are sources alien to you guys?
> Where oh, where do you get this stuff? I asked dampier (or
> was it bierkenstock) to site his sources and he sent me a
> link to Wikipedia! I sourced my information. Do you make
> yours up? Where does it come from?!

Your source for information was the bogus "Research Project" published in "Talkers Magazine."  My source is the Arbitron numbers which are readily sourced on "Radio and Records" and a list of Gallagher affiliates that I maintain.

I said
"Also, Gallagher is apparently not very well liked by Salem because he is
usually carried overnight

You said
> Do you honestly believe that hosts are carried in non-prime
> dayparts because they are "not liked"? Have any of you guys
> ever worked in radio?

You've got to be kidding.  If Gallagher is scheduled on overnight time periods on the weakest talk radio stations (i.e. Salem affiliates) this is means that he is not very popular on those Salem stations.  I have worked in radio and we usually schedule weak programs at 2 am.

I said
"which means that his rating is probably closer to 0.1 than 1.0.

You said
> This is so silly I only post it because it is a sight to
> behold. Don't you think that Arbitron takes into account the
> daypart a show is on? Here's a guess.. but it's JUST a
> guess. I'll bet that 80% of his ratings come from a few of
> his larger markets.

Why don't you stop "guessing" and sourcing the bogus Talkers Magazine Research Project and explain this one.  How can Gallagher have 3.5 rating nationally when he is carried on a network with an average rating of 1.0 and he is scheduled on weak time periods?
 
You went on to say
> Here's a shocker for you. Are you ready? Get a grip now,
> this is going to be tough to take. Before he was syndicated,
> Mike Gallagher was successful at WABC. Just so you don't
> have to look it up, WABC is in New York.

Yes and he is now on the talk Radio version of WMCA which shares an average rating of 0.3 on two stations.  One of those stations only carried Christian talkers.

I said
"Can you take any reseach seriously that uses the following criteria. "The numbers indicated in the section Top Talk Radio Audiences By Size are estimates of national Arbitron numbers gathered directly by station reports and information provided by Arbitron. These figures are rough projections based upon a significant sample and do not represent exact Arbitron totals."

You said
> (Sigh) If you had a clue, you would know that the Arbitron
> report itself has a page of such qualifiers>

The only difference is that Arbitron is the standard and the only source, albeit a poor one, for reliable ratings which form the basis for how $20 billion in ad sales annually are divied up by 13,000 radio stations.  Talkers Magazine is the mouthpiece has no credibility in the ratings and advertising business

You said
>I've already said I consider Gallagher a not-too-bright
> goofball so it's not as  though I am his apologist. But you
> guys (kids?) come in with political motivations and just
> attack anything that displeases you.

No I am talking real ratings no using bogus sources.  And I not a kid.  I suspect that I am older than you.

You said
> I've asked each of you who has attempted to discredit
> Talkers because it came up with answers you don't like to
> suggest a better authority for this information. I'm still
> waiting.

Arbitron is the only valid source. Talkers is an extremely unreliable source.  They are so in bed with the conservative talkers.  Most of their columnists are right wing talkers like Lars Larsen, Rusty Humphries, Joseph Farah, and Michael Smerconish.  Also does anyone out there really think that Rusty Humphries, Tony Snow, and Bill Bennett have higher ratings than Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and Ed Schultz!!!

Once again I ask you to come up with some reliable source that shows Mike Gallagher is getting any ratings.