Rush Limbaugh puts the conservative media revolution in historic context. No wonder the liberal media has given up on its pretense of being "objective."

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.

Read the full article by Rush at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426529/rush-limbaugh-national-review-conservative-media-revolution

4 comments:

  1. Conversation:

    The other night I phoned a former Republican member of Congress with whom I'd worked in the 1990s on various pieces of legislation. I consider him a friend. I wanted his take on the Republican candidates because I felt I needed a reality check. Was I becoming excessively crotchety and partisan, or are these people really as weird as they seem? We got right into it:

    Me: "So what do really you think of these candidates?"

    Him: "You want my unvarnished opinion?'

    Me: "Please. That's why I called."

    Him: "They're all nuts."

    Me: "Seriously. What do you really think of them?"

    Him: "I just told you. They're bonkers. Bizarre. They're like a Star Wars bar room."

    Me: "How did it happen? How did your party manage to come up with this collection?"

    Him: "We didn't. They came up with themselves. There's no party any more. It's chaos. Anybody can just decide they want to be the Republican nominee, and make a run for it. Carson? Trump? They're in the lead, and they're both out of their f*cking minds."

    Me: "That's not reassuring."

    Him: "It's a disaster. I'm telling you, if either of them is elected, this country is going to hell. The rest of them aren't much better. I mean, Carly Fiorina? Really? Rubio? Please. Ted Cruz? Oh my god. And the people we thought had it sewn up, who are halfway sane -- Bush and Christie -- they're sounding almost as batty as the rest."

    Me: "Who's to blame for this mess?"

    Him: "Roger Ailes, David and Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh. I could go on. They've poisoned the American mind and destroyed the Republican Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Readership should know that this is a fantasy conversation. Fantasy. Real conversations go something like this: "Bush did a much better job in Iraq than we were told by the media. So good, in fact, that Obama could actually say, 'Iraq is strong, stable and sovereign.' "

      And, "what a mess of the economy and the middle east .b . . . . . . OMG, Hillary will only continue these failed policies. We are all sooooo screwed !!"

      Delete
    2. Have you heard the latest? Bennie's newest: Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Grain Pyramids.

      "In the end, does it really matter what Carson thinks about the Egyptian pyramids? There will always be science deniers, there will always be people swayed by pseudoarchaeology, and there will always be people who believe what they want no matter the facts. It does matter, though, because Carson is vying for the job of representing the United States. " -- FORBES

      Delete
    3. I believe the Egyptians built some of the pyramids for grain storage. Maybe they stored their grain in stone buildings. Whatever. The discussion has nothing to do with Carson's ability to serve as president. And to label him a "science denier" when he is a world renowned surgeon is just plain crazy.

      People who support transgender populations are the real science deniers, not to mention the global warming alarmist who cannot predict anything with their models and theories . . . . clearly a science denying endeavor when one realizes that they have a "science process" that is cannot predict any serious weather event.

      Delete