Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Topics that dealt with the Jargon section have been moved to Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show now that it has been split off to form its own article, with the exception of the split proposal itself, which has been copied there.

Third Wikipedia mention

Is there anything to back up the statement that Limbaugh said he would add words to Wikipedia? Did anyone out there hear him say it? It seems a little trivial for a national talk show host. DJ Clayworth 19:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I heard it. From now until the end of the month, anyone can hear it by subscribing to Limbaugh's 24/7 service and listening to the audio archives for May 3. (Limbaugh's website maintains the previous four weeks' shows.)
As for its triviality: the hoorah from Rush's first mention of Wikipedia is still fresh, so it served as a sort of inside joke for regular listeners. It was also a one-sentence, five-second aside; it isn't as if Rush wasted 5 minutes of air time on it. Honestly, the mention would be too trivial for Wikipedia if it weren't about Wikipedia. — DLJessup 23:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
He also used wikipedia as a source when talking about how petroleum is formed. I don't recare the exact date. He said something to the effect of: "According to wikipedia..."

Conversationalists across the fruited plain

On the America the Beautiful article, I recently added a "popular usage" section and to that I placed Rush's "Greetings, conversationalists across the fruited plain" as having borrowed on the hymn. In that article's talk page, I said that I created the new section because the existing sections did not properly lend themselves to what's there. (For example, a parody song by George Carlin is in that section). The "jargon" article mentions "fruited plain, the" as an entry. Another editor suggested it belonged in the parody section (a section that is nonexistent). I stayed with the NPOV both in my article edit and my remarks on the talk page. Curious what comments are here. Fwgoebel 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'm not a big fan of pop-culture / trivia lists within the articles. That article looks like it has a large and basically useless "takeoffs" section. I wouldn't add Limbaugh to the list I would remove most of the list from the article as trivia, per WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. That said, the Limbaugh ref is probably just as notable as all the others. --Dual Freq 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The lead section is a fawning passage to the importance and significance of the show, and really does not have anything to say about the show itself. It doesn't even identify it as a conservative talk radio show, and even goes as far as to name-drop Air America, as if it had any relevance in this article at all, let alone a basic introduction to the show. As such, I'm tagging this article as NPOV and ask its editors to consider writing this article not for your benefits but for the benefit of the hypothetical person who has never heard of the show, as any other encyclopedia article should be written. hateless 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the intro has been rewritten to address these concerns, so I've removed the NPOV tag. —Doug Bell talk 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters as a WP:EL

The dossier has been repeatedly removed these links without giving a single reason on the talk. One user stated reasons for removing was removed biased "watchdogs" per WP:EL / NPOV. WP:EL is very clear: Websites that review material and offer analysis, but who's material "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail..." is acceptable. There is NOTHING in that section about avoiding links because of "POV." As this is a major website, that high number of traffic hits with reliable reporting there is no reason to exlude.

However, please explain what part of WP:NPOV you cited in order to remove it. In future, with the exception of vandalism removing material that was added by established users should discussed and not to start revert war. Arbustoo 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the language change it is WP:OR/WP:POV to claim theses are "press releases." Articles by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters cannot be called "press releases" because a wikipedia user claims they are. Further, it is not worded in a neutral manner. Arbustoo 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than discuss the issue the user refuses to address his claims. Arbustoo 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That user tried to remove the material again.

Tape Delay

I have removed the reference to the program being aired on tape delay because WBAP now carries the program live and I am not aware of any major market radio station airing the program on tape delay to properly cite a tape delayed station. Checkmate911 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I put it back: There are other markets not listed in the article, including Syracuse, NY (one hour delay) and Rochester, NY (two hour delay), that do such. I don't feel it's necessary to make a full listing of them all as to do so would clog the article. On top of that, with the size of Texas, and their being more than one time zone in the state, it's difficult to know if it's being delayed (as the Rush website doesn't state it's a delay, it just displays the local air time). Perhaps a link to the stations (on the guest side, of course) would be in order. Fwgoebel 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

strung out sentence needs clarification

in [updates] section: ... Rush has started using the Mighty Mouse theme song, "Here I come to save the day!" and by the way, Hanoi John served in Vietnam. I'll guess that end of sentence is rush's appending comment to lyric snippet?... therefore should be quoted like this: 

Rush has started using the Mighty Mouse theme song, ' "Here I come to save the day!" and by the way, Hanoi John served in Vietnam.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2z2z (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Operation Chaos

I have removed the words "The goal of Operation Chaos is to expose the hypcrosy of the Obama campaign. Convention]]" from the Operation Chaos section. Not only does this passage contain a typo and an incongruent sentence fragment, but it also has a NPOV problem: it presupposes that the Obama campaign is hypocritical. The goal of Operation Chaos ("a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots") is clearly and factually stated in Mr. Limbaugh own words further down in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malatinszky (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Added this line to the article:

"According to CNN exit polls in Indiana, 13.4% of Clinton primary voters would vote against Clinton and for McCain in the General Election, if Clinton is the nominee (compared to 4.5% of Obama voters who would vote for McCain in a hypothetical matchup between McCain and Obama)."

I cited a CNN poll which has the raw data, but in case anyone is confused, you have to do a little math to get the 13.4% number. ( according to the CNN poll, of the 17% of voters who would vote for McCain over Clinton in november, 41% voted for clinton in the primary. Because 52% of respondants to the exit poll were clinton voters, that makes (41% * 17% / .52 ) = 13.403846 ... % of Clinton voters would vote for McCain, according to the exit poll. Nathan44 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan's Bake Sale

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan's Bake Sale, a stub article was merged into this main article. The lack of citations that was a problem in that article are now a problem in this one.--The Jacobin (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song Issue

Virtually all of this is made up. Limbaugh probably pays royalties to whatever record company owns the song, like any song played on the radio. I have no idea whether Chrissie Hynde donates the profits to PETA, but she definitely doesn't get any money directly from Limbaugh. The radio business just doesn't work that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.47.105 (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

found this dotdotdot page: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923659/really_randoms_chrissie_hynde_ricky_martin_jimmy_page this url is also a ref or outlink on another wikipedia page (i think chrissie hynde page)

i also wonder why other surviving members ( i think only the drummer) or estates of pretenders members wouldn't have legal interest in royalties? 2z2z 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh pays an animal rights group, who he has denied to reveal, per the agreement with Hynde. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack The Magic Negro

Incredible! Wikipedia has no mention of the offensive, racist "Barack The Magic Negro," song that Limbaugh has been playing on his program? Why is Wikipedia sanitizing Limbaugh's article? What's next: dropping all mentions to his Oxy addiction? Why on earth are Republicans spending time on "Conservapedia," when Wikipedia itself is so extremely biased in favor of the Right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.155.6 (talk

Give it up... You're not gonna convince him. Liberals believe what they wanna believe, and nothing'll ever change. During the time he was playing that song all the time, Rush explained over and over and over again that he didn't coin the phrase, and he wasn't calling Barack a magic negro, he was making fun of the fact that the L.A. Times called him a magic negro. If he actually listened to the show, he'd know that. In that light, why is he even reading this article?12.26.68.146 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is satire based upon words of the L.A Times. Wikipedia is hardly right slanted. I would call it mildly left myself. 68.177.12.38 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center 68.177.12.38 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Update Songs

Speaking of sections lacking citations, I just removed the whole Updates Songs section, as nothing was cited. I'd guess that the whole section is OR, so if you'd like to add it back, please prove me wrong and cite it to appropriate secondary sources. LOLthulu 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Show

I have merged content from a POV fork, to be deleted. This makes the whole article less biased, and includes some responses by Limbaugh himself. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. the article was Reception to The Rush Limbaugh Show. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And how does simply moving a collection of partisan accusations from Obama supporters and self-proclaimed progressive organizations make them any less biased? WP:NPOV calls for representing views in proportion to their provenance, not representing people solely in the words of their opponents. --Allen3 talk 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Then the critcism section should be shortened, not eliminated. I will try to remedy that. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've re-inserted some material and citations as a "Political incorrectness of the Show" section. I think this makes the article more balanced. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not what you personally feel is balanced, but the use of comedians and openly partisan sources to replace the reliable sources required by policies such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Stephen Colbert, like all comedians, intentionally distorts the truth for humorous effect. Media Matters and the White House Press Secretary in turn have known agendas that inhibit their ability to act as fair and neutral observers with respect to Limbaugh in question. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources calls for articles to "be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Basing an entire section on a person trying to crack jokes and two others who have not so hidden grievances with the article subject fails to meet this standard. --Allen3 talk 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I tried to fix it. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this as a source for Gibbs' criticisms of the Show: Fox News report of March 4, 2009? Bearian (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This link appears to be from the FOX news desk (as opposed to one of FOX's many commentators) as is thus as acceptable as any other main stream news source. --Allen3 talk 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, considering how much the show is criticized by so many different reliable sources, Allen3 seems to be misrepresenting NPOV policy to mean the exact opposite of what it really says. NPOV doesn't say we can't use partisan sources, in fact to even have any semblance of NPOV on this article for a highloy partisan political show we need contrary partisan views to be represented or else this just becomes a puff piece pushing Limbaugh's views onto the encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there are clear NPOV concerns here, I also believe that it is better to solve the verifiability and BLP issues first. There is no point in arguing what material provides the best balance when much of the material being argued over does not meet Wikipedia's policy requirements for inclusion (i.e. this is a debate about information presented in the References section not the criticisms section). Doing otherwise just means that you are implicitly stating that Stephen Colbert has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. --Allen3 talk 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"political incorrectness of the show"??

Judging by the actual content of that section, it appears that "political incorrectness" is being used here as a euphemism for racism. Remember, euphemisms (per Wikipedia: Weasel Words) are discouraged on Wikipedia. I'm going to change it to "Perceived Racism of the Show", which is not a euphemism, but an accurate description of what the controversy is about. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh Called Joan Walsh A Magic Honky

I'm not going to add this: [1] to the article just yet, but if it gets as much media attention as his previous controversies, I may reconsider. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perceived Racism

I think this section should be removed. The examples given are typical show satire, and are only offensive to those that don't listen to the actual context. Rush jokes about this himself, commenting on something he just said being "fodder" or "media show-prep" for the evening news. Far too often the media will snip out whatever sounds most offensive and air it, rather than explain the joke or context behind anything. Liberal media does this, you know it, I know it, and that section of the article should not fall into that silly game. Thoughts? Gpia7r (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal media", my foot. When Don Imus (a liberal), made racially offensive comments as an attempt at satire, he was rightfully fired from his show. But Rush Limbaugh makes equally offensive comments nearly once a week, and he gets a free pass because he is a conservative and therefore can get away with saying anything in the name of "satire", at least in today's media environment. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a victim of media bias; he's actually a beneficiary of it, in my opinion. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This was actually just discussed on yesterday's show. You really have no solid sources to back it up. It's all about context, and to someone that wants to take it a certain way, no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise. Most of this crap (Barack the Magic Negro) was taken from other sources, then parodied on the show. He didn't write or create that. You know that, right? Gpia7r (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your past edits and talk-page content don't help your NPOV case. Unless you can prove that the content of the show has a racist inclination, it will be removed again as it is, like I said, media taking it all out of context. Gpia7r (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And the more I look at the section in question, the more ridiculous it looks. It has blaitant lies in it (stereotypical African-American "right on?!", this "voice" is not exclusive to any ethnicity, as anyone who listened to the show would know.) Also, the citations and sources for the information are hilarious in that you truly think they're neutral enough to be reincluded. Gpia7r (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Going through your contributions, your purpose is clear. I'm removing the section. The onus is on you to provide an actual fact in context, thanks. Gpia7r (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Remember WP:NPA. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'm not attacking you personally at all. I think you have a conflict of interest with this topic. You are free to believe what you like! I'd never hold that against you. But, when it comes to facts, I'm not going to agree with the addition of potentially negative information that is very often reported by both written and televised media in a wrong context for their own political gain. Both sides do it, I'm not saying it's just the "left" or the "right." Gpia7r (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on talk pages. I had to look in the edit history to see who made that last edit. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my fault. I've been missing my signature a lot today for some reason. Gpia7r (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces Radio controversy

This article failed to explain too much about this controversy. I guess it assumes that readers like me are already familiar with the situation, which I'm not. It doesn't say exactly what is controversial about it. Did he say something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.91 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I lived in Germany for 4 years private Citizen, not military, and having 107.8 the US radio staion (they're on the evens not odd's for the 1/10th of a Megahert)

Having NPR's news, although the same guys would call it AFN news, but it is the NPR guys, and Rush, and sports like the Superbowl really just made my day. for a while there I couldn't speak German at first, and I was just felt so disconnected except for AFN Radio Therubicon (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, "What's the Controversy?" it is simple: Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative. In 2007, Liberal Democrats in Congress tried to have his radio show removed from the Armed Forces Radio lineup -- one of his three hours is broadcast to servicemen (and women) and to Liberals, that is one hour too many. They also feel that our service men and women just can't get enough NPR radio, which is of the Liberal persuasion. Hope this short explanation helps. "Very Interesting", a line from Laugh-In. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Staff

Does anyone want to make a guess as to what Rachel's role on the show is? patsw 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think she transcribes the show and/or what callers are saying since Rush has a hearing problem, as you must well know.
Plus she probably searches the web for current news in certain categories. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bo" Snerdly appearance on July 24th

On today's episode, "Bo" was on air for roughly 5 minutes with Rush discussing the Cambridge police incident. As the show is still going on, this could be added onto possibly... but it will be referenced when the official website is updated with a log. Thanks. Gpia7r (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelled, Snerdley, not Snerdly. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Put an "Esq" on if you want.

Why Merge?

This page was creeated in an attempt to avoid the focus of the show's page being solely on show jargon. Since this page's inception in 2005, it would be perceived that this page would only become larger in size. There is no need for this page to merge back to the show's Wikipage if this page keeps expanding. I am sure that this would take up more than half of the entry of the show's original page. When pages get excessively long, "Wikisurfers" will not want to read the page. Eventually we may just have to list the jargon and have separate pages for all of them, regardless of how much input there is on each. Even if it takes up more space, unless we have pages listed alphabetically (e.i.: Rush Jargon A; Rush Jargon M-P), I am certainly all for keeping this page. Thank you --Dallezam (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The key problem is that most of the content, like what you just added,[2] doesn't have any secondary sources. If we limit it to those entries that do have adequate sources there'll only be a few entries, which won't be too much to merge back.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make an appeal for better editing and more editors, that's fine with me, but you started an AFD. In the AFD I make the case that the article is an exception to WP:RS. patsw (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't start this AfD.[3]   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). patsw (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The AfD has been closed with the decision to merge that article into this one... before that is done, please discuss at Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show#Merger the best way to do such a merger (what needs to be cut, what gets merged, etc). Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We have been able to trim the list somewhat... so it will be a bit more manageable when the merger takes place. let us know if there is more that can be trimmed. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


The merger was reviewed and endorsed... so I completed the merger.
The Jargon article has been redirected to the jargon section of this article.
The key from now on is to resist the temptation to add the latest amusing bit of jargon from the Show... limit the section to the most notable examples and require citation to reliable sources that are independent of Rush himself... we need sources that show how other people have noticed that Rush used a particular bit of Jargon. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: Just so we don't loose the Jargon article's talk page... I have saved a copy at Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show/Talk Page from Jargon Article‎ Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

In the Operation Chaos section, the following sentence says that:

However, the state of Ohio later stated that they would not prosecute anyone over the operation, saying that it would be virtually impossible to enforce such an action because of the "right to assemble" in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Is there any reference that could confirm this? Editor8472 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Source: Limbaugh’s Lying Voters Under Investigation - The Nation 3/25/2008[4]--Infohack (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Content in this section that cannot be sourced per WP:RS needs to be removed...none of the citations -- realclearpolitics, dailykos, youtube and rushlimbaugh -- even remotely meet the criteria for independent, objective news sources, especially for such a controversial subject as Rush Limbaugh. Please really review and cite specfic Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you want to keep this content. Flowanda | Talk 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see rushlimbaugh.com is not a reliable source for attributing what Limbaugh himself says on the air? Please. RealClearPolitics.com is now affiliated with Time Magazine.[5]DailyKos is like it or not one of the most prominent political forums in the nation. YouTube is cited a gazillion times on Wikipedia and offers nothing more than visual documentation. Methinks someone is confusing "Wikipedia guidelines" and "censorship" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The youtube video is an audio clip from Mike Malloy, a commentator and Limbaugh competitor, neither a reliable source nor objective. Biccat (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the Mike Malloy reference with a ref to an actual recording of the segment of the show where Rush says the words about rioting and burning cars. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest.Malatinszky (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


methinks, youthinks have nothing to do with sourcing per Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability. Rush Limbaugh, YouTube, RealClearPolitics and other similar official/opinion/personal websites do not meet WP:RS for third-party, independent articles published with editorial oversight. Since Rush Limbaugh is a notable figure, any notable action and results should be easily documented per mainstream media articles meeting WP:RS and not need to be cobbled together from clearly POV sources. If the section cannot be sourced correctly...and to the stricter policies at WP:BLP, it should be removed. Flowanda | Talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also define the what exact censorship you feel you are experiencing in editing this article. Flowanda | Talk 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show on rushlimbaugh.com and YouTube audio clips of actual recordings of the program are reliable sources to document what was said on the show. Malatinszky (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the words "Since then much progress has been made as he has stated multiple times on the air. Hillary Clinton now legitimately has a chance to win the nomination. His goal is to also make the two use up money and "mud sling" each other." These statements have WP:V and WP:NPOV problems.Malatinszky (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


The Operation Chaos section has a sentence about the Texas primaries that troubles me. It says "Statistics released by the state of Texas show Hillary Clinton won the primary due to a large number of Republicans crossing over to vote for her." I'm beginning to think that this is simply not true. I've tried and failed to find a citation supporting this, but I did find a CNN exit poll at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM, which on page 4 of 6 says that of the 9% of voters who voted in the Democratic primary despite being Republicans, 53% voted for Sen. Obama and 46% voted for Sen. Clinton. This suggests that as a matter of fact, Obama was helped by crossover Republicans more than Clinton. Thoughts? Delete? Malatinszky (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't make much sense to me that this section, dealing primarily with Operation Chaos should begin with a discussion of the DailyKos issue, which is secondary to the topic. It should be less prominent in the article and presented as background, not in the intro.--Infohack (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The last citation needed for Op Chaos could come from today's show 7/14/2010. Rush said "McCain was our nominee, and this audience normally wouldn't care about the Democrat primary, so we got 'em involved and kept them interested." Clearly, that would be after others dropped out. So this link could serve as a documentation. It doesn't mention Romney by name, by captures the idea. Op Chaos started after the Republican candidate was decided when the competition winnowed down to McCain. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071410/content/01125117.guest.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.220.236 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

EIB's fictionality?

In the second paragraph the article reads: "The Rush Limbaugh Show is part of the fictional Excellence in Broadcasting, or EIB Network, as well as the equally-fictional Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies." I don't think that EIB is fictional, it just isn't a real organization. Anyone agree? And can anyone think of a better word for this sentence, or a better way to phrase it? SirParagon 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

EIB is an invention of Rush Limbaugh's own mind. In the early days of his show, it was nationally syndicated by EFM (I don't know what that stands for). But today it is a product of Premiere Radio Networks, a division of Clear Channel. The article should state the show is "part of the Premiere Radio Networks, but Rush Limbaugh identifies his program as part of the fictional EIB Network." Goeverywhere 04:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This section in the article reads very well now. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Limbaugh has stated in the past that the EIB(Excellence in Broadcasting) Network is the name he chose for the *network* of radio stations that carry his program when asked by one of his business partners. It is not a fictional entity, rather, an actual NETWORK of 500+ unique stations that carry his program. EarlWhitehaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.33 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh Sponsor?

Hey what is the company with the "double B" logo on Rush's chair? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh selected the term, "Excellence In Broacasting" when syndication began for The Rush Limbaugh Show — so what you see is his logo. It is branding and PR for his company. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Of course, it is on all the items in his online store.

NPOV in Jargon

I realise this is a controversial page, so I thought it might be wise to post these corrections in talk before editing:

""Environmentalist wacko" (A militant environmentalist activist, or group thereof (such as Greenpeace and ELF)"

- This term isn't just used on the show to refer to militant groups, but any group/individual involved in environmental activism.

""Feminazi" (a portmanteau of "feminist" and "Nazi" that Rush uses to describe a specific subset of radical feminists);[22][23][24] The term is only applied to those who want to ensure that the maximum number of abortions take place."

- Again, this term is used with significantly less discrimination than is suggested here (just look at Sandra Fluke). The last sentence is grossly NPOV and needs to be removed immediately, unless a reliable source can be found.

""The four corners of deceit": (used in the context of discussing global warming: Government, universities, science, and state-media)"

- This statement needs to be rephrased, as it is currently using WP's voice to express RL's opinion.

""The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals" (The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, noted for its size and for its controversial decisions that are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other U.S. circuit court.)"

- Again, RL's opinion in WP's voice is not neutral. If the page is making the claim as an encyclopedia, rather than stating the opinion of another person, the citation needs to link to a reliable source that confirms this (rather than the original opinion). As it happens, the statement is incorrect (see the 2011 data from http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/) and this should be noted in the article if the opinion is mentioned.

I'm also going to suggest cutting down on the last 'jargon' section, as it seems very bloated and unnecessary. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here, but there are several glaring issues with this page and I'll have a go at them myself if they aren't resolved soon.Snumbers (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Environmentalist wacko" - removing. It was even cited to an edu user's page, anyway.
"Feminazi" - trimming off the ending POV sentence. I do disagree with it being "used with significantly less discrimination than is suggested," though.
"The four corners of deceit" - tried to give it context, as attributed to the source.
"The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals" - not sure what to do with that one... It does have a reputation. I don't have time to fix it, so someone else can take a stab at it. :)
As for it being bloated, I agree. I wouldn't even care if it vanished, to be honest. But I'll leave further action on it to those more bold than I. Or I'll help re-edit if it remains.
- Xcal68 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ninth Circuit Court: it seems fair mention Rush's opinion alongside the fact that it is fallacious (the source I gave isn't ambiguous about that, it came 3rd in 2011 by some margin).
Feminazi: my biggest concern about presenting Rush's definition is that 'radical feminism' isn't really a cohesive, ongoing concern. From the sources I can find, it looks like he uses it mainly to refer to women's groups who argue for reproductive rights and PC language redefinition, niether of which are particularly radical. Obviously his own definition should be given, but I don't know how neutral it is to do so without scutiny.
Bloat: How about removing the catchphrases and just keeping the names he uses to refer to himself? These fit the definition of jargon a bit better.Snumbers (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Limbaugh Letter app

Just now, Rush Limbaugh announces the digital App for Limbaugh Letter. [6] FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To El Rushbo and Dittoheads, this is big news. Here is a more permanent link: [7] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a fan page!

This entire article reads like a fan page, not an encyclopaedic entry. I hope someone will be able to step in and present some of the very serious criticism of this guy without being subject to over-exuberant censorship. It's badly needed. Bobathon71 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Go for it! Keep in mind that the 'silent majority' in America is conservative. Do not offend us. Also keep in mind that fans will be reading Wikipedia. It is like Tiger Woods not endorsing Barack Obama in 2008 because half of those purchasing Nike were and are Republicans. State-controlled media (and sometimes Wikipedia) are liberally Democrat-biased and don't even seem to know it! At least they deny it. Let this not be Wikipedia. Keep in mind that criticism of especially living people needs to be just, fair, and legal, per Wikipedia standards. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There is ample criticism of Rush Limbaugh on the WP page covering him: including claims of inaccuracy, drug addition, deafness, Sandra Fluke 'controversy', Obama's policies, Phony soldiers 'controversy', Michael J. Fox 'controversy, and the Armed Forces Radio 'controversy', just to mention a few. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Ample for fans. Bobathon71 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Snerdley

It seems that there are other opinions on who Snerdly is. For example, some believe he is simply whoever the show's producer happens to be. Does anyone have more information on this? Orthografer 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had a good source for this... I'm sure that one time I heard Rush explain that "Bo Snerdly" was a character that he created in his early days of radio. Whenever he would get a "brain-lock" and wouldn't be sure exactly what to say or where to go with the conversation, he feign a one-sided "conversation" with his broadcast engineer "Mr. Snerdly". Sometimes the stalling tactic would give Rush an opportunity to get his thoughts together before going on with the topic. Sometimes he would use it to deflect arguments that he knew his audience was going to have with him. He would present the counterpoint as if Bo was talking in his ear. That would give him a chance to refute the argument on his own terms before someone in his audience had a chance to make the point. If I had a good source for this, I'd put it in the article. I think it needs to be mentioned, but perhaps by somebody with more credibility than just my anecdotal recollections. Joe 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If I could add my two cents... Bo Snerdly is an actual person, but Rush's interactions with him during the show's live broadcast could indeed be questioned, even today. I recall having the very same "existence of Snerdly" self-debate while listening to Rush during my Jr. High and High School years (Rush's early broadcast years). It wasn't until Rush featured Mr. Snerdly on his television show that my suspicions - as well as many others - of Bo's existence were quelled. This was on Janurary 21, 1993 where Bo Snerdly read a (believed) self-authored poem on-air. (See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/best/angelou.member.html) You'll have to be a 24/7 member to view the video. Regardless, it is safe to state that Bo Snerdly is indeed the "Broadcast Observer" for Rush's show. At times, he is seen on the Ditto cam entering the studio to give or take an article from Rush. On some, even rarer occasions, "Snerdly" will fill-in whenever Rush unexpectedly leaves the studio during the show's broadcast hours. --Catboy02 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Program staff" section of The Rush Limbaugh Show explains who Bo Snerdly and other members of the staff are. patsw 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh has indeed explained the "Snerdly" character as a broadcasting technique to stall until he can get his thoughts together. However, there IS, I believe, a "program observer" who is referred to as "Mr. Snerdley." On a small number of broadcasts, you can hear a faint echo of the staff voices in Limbaugh's headset, so there IS somebody talking to him during at least some of his "stalling" sessions. Bjsiders 16:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that Limbaugh invents a fictional Snerdly for stalling and has explained it as such, I think you have misunderstood Limbaugh. There really is a Snerdly and his interruptions are real, and in fact, what they are saying sometimes can be heard over the air. In fact, I wish he'd give us listeners the option of hearing what the staff is telling him over the headset and on the computer in front of him. Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, and other have a much more relaxed format and the staff interacts with the host openly when the host is stuck for a word or thought. patsw 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll re-state. (1) Limbaugh HAS explained "Snerdly" as a stalling technique. (2) I think there is an actual program observing that he calls "Snerdly". (3) This person's interjections are heard, in some broadcasts, in Limbaugh's headphones. I'm not sure how you missed that in my comment, but hopefully that clears it up. Bjsiders 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To pick up the discussion of a few years ago, you may be interested in a few points Rush made in the past. He does not have staff on mic because of NYC union/tax rules. However, he does listen to his long-time friend, Bo Snerdley for his insights and feedback. Staff is on "the other side of the glass" and Rush will tell us when they become agitated from caller comments, etc. As is noted in the Article, Mr. Bo Snerdley has been promoted to 'Program Observer' (hence off-mic comments to Rush), and further promoted to "Official Obama Criticizer" since he is "Black enough" (a reference to a Los Angeles Times article.) You can search Google with 'Bo Snerdley photo' for 30,000 hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The section regarding "Bo Snerdly" confuses the character of Snerdly with the person of James Golden. I propose that this section be rewritten by someone familiar with both the pseudonym Snerdly and Mr. Golden to more clearly denote where Golden as Snerdly is the subject and where the subject is someone else under the pseudonym Snerdly. Drziegler (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it unbiased language to refer to Snerdly/Golden's commentary as a "rant"? 192.55.54.36 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In searching for info for your editing purposes, it would be helpful to you to spell 'Snerdley' correctly. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Affiliate stations

Rush's own website lists only 592 affiliate stations.

— DLJessup (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As noted, you can check current affiliate radio stations.
-- They come, they go, it's business. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Current radio station count 1/1/2013: AL(19) + AK(6) + AZ(13) + AR(12) + CA(31) + CO(8) + CT(4) + DE(3) + DC(1) + FL(29) + GA(22) + HI(2) + ID(6) + IL(18) + IN(12) + IA(12) + KS(13) + KY(9) + LA(9) + ME(4) + MD(4) + MA(4) + MI(28) + MN(1) + MS(10) + MO(18) + MT(11) + NE(8) + NV(4) + NH(6) + NJ(2) + NM(9) + NY(18) + NC(20) + ND(5) + OH(19) + OK(9) + OR(16) + PA(27) + RI(1) + SC(12) + SD(4) + TE(13) + TX(29) + UT(9) + VT(2) + VA(14) + WA(14) + WV(8) + WI(15) + WY(9) = Total stations (582) "Without comment", Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Snerdley threatened to resign?

I was listening to Rush on Fri. and I thought part way through it, he mentioned Snerdly threatening to resign over something. Here is the article in Rush's Stack of Stuff: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082109/content/01125104.member.html (Top one)

"RUSH: We hit a speed bump here at the EIB Network just in the last 20 minutes. Here's the speed bump, and Carson, H.R., has compounded the problem. Snerdley is not screening the program today. The program is being screened by H.R. Kit Carson, trusted chief of staff. And the first call today, it said up on the screen here the name was Dorothy, and she got sort of indignant, said it was Margie, and I said, "Well, Snerdley must be screening today because sometimes he gets names wrong." I got this note, "Hey, that's really nice, that's really cool, appreciate that," and then Carson said, "Look, all I was doing, it's my mistake, but I did it on purpose, I was dedicating screening today to Bo Snerdley." Well Snerdley heard about that and now I've got this note he's threatening to resign, and I just want to say, Snerdley you want to make this public, fine. I'll tell you what they told me at the Kansas City Royals when I was making $13,000 a year in the group sales department. I went and I asked, "Just a couple thousand dollars would make all the difference." "No. If you quit, we got people who will do your job for nothing." Hee-hee." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.244.25 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a joke. As of this date, "Mr Snerdley" is still there and the highest-profile person on the EIB staff. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck as guest host?

I recommend that Glenn Beck be removed from the list of guest hosts. I remember that he made an appearance as an interview guest of Rush's in the late 2000s. It struck me as odd at the time that he would give airtime to a radio host outside of the WABC family. 98.186.176.7 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources for any of the stand-ins. I've tagged it.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Last night I was reading an early Glenn Beck book, "The Real America — Messages from the Heart and Heartland" (c) 2003 by Glenn Beck, and there are pictures in the middle, including this caption to one: "After doing a total of maybe 40 hours of talk radio, I was asked to host a national show. Here, Stu and I are at Rush Limbaugh's EIB studio in New York." (They look very young and the EIB logo is on the wall and on the golden mic.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Theorem

News outlets have picked up on what Rush Limbaugh coins as, "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." But, of course, media outlets do not credit Limbaugh for thinking of this first. His Theorem is that Obama policies (including Obamacare) are very unpopular in America, but not associated with President Barack Obama, himself. Rather, he is seen as fighting the problems his policies cause. Today, Limbaugh modified his Theorem to apply to the elite leadership of the Republican Party, as he puts it. He says they run the party but blame Conservatives and anybody but themselves for their losses in elections. I searched the article here and find nothing on "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the Limbaugh Theorem persists: ("Obama inflicts pain for political gain, remaining above the frey.") http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/05/understanding_the_limbaugh_theorem_obama_inflicts_pain_for_political_gain — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Three-year contract with Cumulus Media

Here are my notes from the Rush Limbaugh Show, today: He begins, "Let's review."
"A few months ago, you couldn't turn on the TV or radio without hearing that I was finished. Politico/ABC/CBS/NBC/NYTimes/W-Post were saying I was bad for advertisers on 600 radio stations. Cumulus was going to cancel my contract on 35 stations, some in large market cities. "Limbaugh will be in your rearview mirror."
Left Media believed everything they heard on blogs because they wanted to believe it. Well, let's see: this week we completed our negotiations with Cumulus and there will not be any changes in the next three years. >>> "The only change is WABC to WOR in New York City, our own radio station."
— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [8]

There are other good articles and the Cumulus 3-yr contract is under-reported in our article. This news is not well-placed in the article. It is not reported that he picks up a Clear Channel station in New York City, WOR. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

    • By this I mean, the mention of 'Cumulus' only appears as a minor note in the Fluke (rhymes with Duck) 'controversy' saying the Cumulus caved. Where is the mention of the extension of the contract and Rush Limbaugh losing no stations as all the media predicted? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As I watch the article section "Show History" the last sentence says, "Limbaugh and Clear Channel signed an eight-year, $400,000,000 contract extension in August 2008." (with no citation.) What about the new 3-yr extension with Cumulus syndication? (What about citations?) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger: Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show was split from this article in 2005.[11][12] It has grown significantly longer, but there are only a handful of reliable 3rd-party sources for the entire list. I've patrolled the list a few times a year to remove totally unsourced entries, but what's left is mostly a list of terms that some WP editors have found interesting, with definitions that they've written and with no basis in on 3rd-party or secondary sources except in several of cases. That is contrary to Wikipedia's general principles as expressed in several policies, such as WP:PSTS and WP:OR. The current section here for "Jargon" says: "Limbaugh uses his own on-air jargon, some of which he invented and some of which he popularized." I propose that we supplement that with the few such phrases we can verify with secondary sources, like "Feminazi", and redirect "Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show" back to that section.   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the Television Show?

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm hardly finding any information on Wikipedia about Rush's TV show (Not even an IMDB link in the article or bio, only one for the person, not the show). It was on the air for four seasons (I think) and as Rush was fond of noting, it was holding its own in the ratings (And from what I understand, he was right.) I recall the first mention off it in TV Guide had the most unflattering photo they could find of him and a brief, somewhat derogatory comment writing him off. Since the show was on the air during the Clinton administration, they had an America Held Hostage Day #### opening, he would usually open the program with a list of topics on monitors on the wall (and the last monitor was usually a question mark.), and there were some amusing ads for the program. I recall one ad had several liberals in a group discussion admitting that the show was a guilty pleasure. Anyway, if the radio show can have its own article, then why should the TV show be nothing more than a couple lines in the bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.82 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservative authors like Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter wrote about the Rush Limbaugh television show, but in more general audience books about television in the 1990's the show didn't make much of an lasting impact, and later Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck developed their own more successful television formats. patsw (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, I think everyone can agree that Rush Limbaugh is not a physically attractive man. He has, as they say, "A face made for radio." This, I think, was a major reason his television show really didn't work. The arrangement now is that the hardcore fans can subscribe and watch him on a webcam but the masses can just listen, because his shtick is audible, not really visual.

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Right Radio" in San Francisco and "The Patriot" in Los Angeles

Headline: "CLEAR CHANNEL MOVING RUSH LIMBAUGH IN LOS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO"
http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/86875/clear-channel-moving-rush-limbaugh-in-los-angeles-san-francisco/
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

K-EIB 1150AM (radio) is still going strong in Los Angeles. Hannity follow Limbaugh. Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey, Carlos Amezcua, and other notables make the station great, in my not-humble-opinion. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The reception to the show is obviously far to extensive to constitute only part of a page. This is why I created a new page entitled "Reception to The Rush Limbaugh Show." Right now the article is in very poor shape as I alone have created it. I invite all to expand and improve upon it. Rome455 (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: It is no longer a Wikipedia page, FYI. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mention

I'll consider my call to El Rushbo my first contribution to Wikipedia :) EddieH 06:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh uses Wikipedia. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A very tiny nitpick, but it is Wikipedia, after all...

According to Limbaugh himself, every day he is on the air, the name of the show, officially, is "The Rush Limbaugh Program," not "The Rush Limbaugh Show." I don't know if that's too small a detail even for Wikipedia but I thought I'd let one of the more senior people handle it, considering it would involve moving what is probably a moderately-high traffic page (this one) and the dozens of pages that link to it. Mscudder 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the program is "The Rush Limbaugh Show." I suggest that we leave it as it is. Bjsiders 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that maybe Mscudder's observation - which is very correct - warrants submitting some sort of "AKA" or parenthetical mention on the mainpage???? Catboy02 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree... It deserves mention... 12.26.68.146 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done -- FYI, in case your wondered, the current Lede says, "The Rush Limbaugh Show (also called The Rush Limbaugh Program) is a conservative American talk radio show hosted by Rush Limbaugh on Premiere Radio Networks.[1] Since its nationally syndicated premiere in 1988, The Rush Limbaugh Show has become the highest-rated talk radio show in the United States." -- which covers both 'Show' and 'Program', in proper order. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trusted Chief of Staff loses battle to cancer

Kit "H.R." Carson left a 'big hole' in the EIB staff, says Rush. 

Headline-1: Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s Emotional Tribute to His ‘Trusted Chief of Staff’ Who Just Lost Battle With Cancer

QUOTE: "During his Monday radio show, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh delivered a heartfelt message in memory of Christopher “Kit” Carson, his trusted chief of staff,” who lost his battle with cancer on Monday morning. He was 56 years old. “We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York,” Limbaugh began. “Christopher Carson, ‘Kit,’ my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey after what really was a four-year battle, really valiant, never-seen-anything-like-it battle with essentially brain cancer. He thought that it was beaten back two years ago, but it came back again last fall with a vengeance.”" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: A Huge Void in Our Hearts

  • From the Rush Limbaugh website: [13] -- Good pictures, including his wife.

QUOTE: "We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York. Christopher Carson, "Kit," my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Other accolades noted by Rush Limbaugh

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

New EIB information today, for future editing

Rush Limbaugh explains how he prepares for daily shows. 

Headline-1: How Your Host Prepares

QUOTE: "CALLER: Well, thank you so much. This is an important question for me. I think it would be interesting for your listeners. A great mind like yours or a great athlete, when they're gifted and they train, as you know better than I do, they become the best. They're in the Hall of Fame. And so I was wondering, in your case, you must have been gifted, but how did you begin? Did you spend all-nighters? Did you memorize certain books? Did you drink eight cups of coffee a day and sleep four hours? And did you finally find a groove of how to study?" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing consideration.

Completion of 27 years

Each August 1st, Rush Limbaugh and his staff of about five celebrate another year of "Excellence in Broadcasting". He explains details in two segments, one on Friday[14] and one on Monday.[15] He says, "RUSH: How many shows in any medium have stayed on top as number one for 27 years? Not even Gunsmoke pulled that off or The Ed Sullivan Show. Not even the New York Yankees have managed that. Of course, it wouldn't have happened without all of you." (Read the two transcripts for insights to improve the article here.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Show led the Conservative-Media Revolution

Upon request, Rush Limbaugh details the loss of the liberal monopoly in media. 

Headline-1: The Conservative-Media Revolution Has Forced the Liberal Media to Abandon Any Pretense of Objectivity

QUOTE: "When I arrived in New York City 28 years ago to begin my national radio program, my objective was to have the most-listened-to show in the country. At that time, the national broadcast media included three television networks and CNN. That was it. There were 125 radio stations doing talk radio, and I started on 56 of them. No one had ever succeeded in syndicating a national daytime radio show, and I was predicted to fail, too.

But I didn’t. What was different about my show was that I was the only conservative voice in national broadcast media. I was it — just as National Review was the only major conservative magazine being published and read. I traveled 45 weekends each year for the first two years of my show to solidify my radio-affiliate relationships. Think Donald Trump’s stump appearances, 45 weekends a year in cities all across America. Crowds ranged from 2,500 to 10,000 or more. I made fun of liberals, espoused and explained conservatism, and promoted traditional American values. And audiences ate it up; they had been starved for it. In 1991, my substitute hosts were offered their own national shows as other syndicators got in on the action. Local-radio stations all over the country switched format to talk and hired conservative hosts. Today, there are more than 2,500 stations doing talk radio, the vast majority of which lean conservative. There is Fox News, which debuted in 1997. There is the conservative blogosphere, and there are more conservative websites than you can count. In 1992, I began hosting a national TV show and continued to do so for the next four years. Think The Daily Show, except that I was conservative and did not interview guests. There was nothing like it on TV, just as there was nothing like my radio show. So this has not been an AM-radio revolution exclusively; it has been a conservative-media revolution. And perhaps its greatest consequence has been the destruction of the Left’s national-media monopoly." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing

Jargon (new page?)

It seems that jargon should be moved to a separate page, considering its vastness. The primary focus of the Rush Limbaugh show is not its own jargon, so I don't think that the primary focus of the article on his show should be his jargon. What do you say?Tix 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

————

As the Nike ad says, I've just done it.

— DLJessup (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And we are back. ...
'Jargon' lines (highlights only) are back (only in this main article). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show was spun off from this article. The "Jargon" article is now the subject of an AfD which you can read about, vote, and comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show patsw 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The AfD failed.
— DLJessup (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And we are back. ...
'Jargon' lines (highlights only) are back (only in this main article). The link to the separate article redirects back to this article/section. To those that participated in the original edit-waring, it was a lot of fun and I really learned a lot. Thanks for the memories. I'll be watching. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show/Archive_1&oldid=1089168886"