This topic has already been thoroughly investigated and the facts have been published here
A great read. I laughed. I cried. I nodded often.
As near as I can tell, Rush has 13.5 million (or so) weekly listeners; Katie Couric (the lowest ranking over-the-air network anchor) has 7.5 million (or so) daily watchers (37.5 million (or so) weekly). Please, feel free to evade.
Huh. So the consensus reality, then, is that Rush Limbaugh is not a very good newsperson? Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that globally, the overwhelming majority of news consumers reject him (that is, don’t listen to his show).
I guess there’s a consensus after all.
Daniel
No. It doesn’t. Attempts to claim otherwise are simply an appeal to authority, a classical logical fallacy.
Well, of course there is; very, very few people deny this. Do you think this has any bearing at all on the debate about anthropogenic global warming? If you do, this is a failure on your part to understand what your opponents in the debate are saying: the intersection between people who pay attention to consensus scientific opinion and people who believe that there is no higher reality independant of our opinions and beleifs that is immalleable and unmanipulable by them is small indeed.
Daniel
No, you quoted Limbaugh’s own boast, which includes no figures and no way of telling exactly to whom he refers when he claims a larger audience than all others. Give me a real cite.
I’ve changed my mind. This is a whoosh.
I always thought Rush was popular because of his inescapable sexual magnetism, not his accuracy as a news source.
Either that, or Britney Spears is about 20 times more accurate as a news source than Rush, according to Google.
No problem.
The question still remains: which of Scylla’s heads is the one we are dealing with over here?
Until that is settled, I will rather check what **Charybdis ** is up to…
… in the pit.
Perhaps if you share your source for those figures I will find it necessary to evade. Seeing as I shared my source for my claim and you have not I will just sit up here in my impregnable tower and throw produce at you while calling you ugly names in a french accent.
Scylla, I have opened up a Pit thread to raise accusations about this thread that can’t be tendered in GD.
C’mon down.
Wait until sweeps.
To be totally fair, Limbaugh is a more accurate purveyor of news than Ann Coulter.
And he does cover matters of more depth than Inside Edition.
======
Scylla, if your dictionary defines “consensus” as “majority,” you seriously need to buy a new dictionary.
Of all the radio or TV pundits I could choose to mute, I mute Rush’s show more than any other.
It’s still a self-selected sample, not a random one, therefore it’s a worthless barometer of public opinion. It goes without saying that the opinions themselves do not constitute any kind of test for Limbaugh’s accuracy anyway.
I don’t think you’re actually being serious with this thread, but I’m puzzled as to what point you are trying to make. Are you actualy pitting Limbaugh and just being very dry about it? If so, you’re in the wrong forum. What’s the debate?
Hey, if this isn’t a purposeful irony, I don’t know what is. If this is a cunning satire of some kind, kudos up until the assholery. 
Anyway, if you’re being serious, the logical fallacy of appeals to authority only prohibit one from divining certain truth, not likelihood. If one were to say global warming is fact because a consensus of scientists versed in the area think so, that would be an appeal to authority. But we can quite reasonably say that global warming is likely because of their views. Likewise, the fallacy may also apply when referring to an authority in a position different to the subject matter - by treating a scientists’s views on house painting as gospel, for example. Here, of course, we are treating people with training and experience in research and theory of global warming as people with better knowledge of research and theory of global warming - not a fallacy at all.
I thpit in your genereel deerection. THooey.
Katie Couric is of course on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. She does not do the show herself but is part of an ensemble, so she cannot claim the entire rating of the CBS Evening news as a personal endorsement.
The Rush Limbaugh show is Rush Limbaugh, so he can.
This was addressed in the link I provided, my dear Frank
“I have the largest audience of any media figure in the country today in a program of this type, in the Drive-By Media. My audience is larger than the Nightly News. If you combine their Nightly News audiences, you might have an argument there, but this audience is larger than any cable news show.”
Rush of course, was far smarter than you and addressed this objection long before you bothered to make it.
Like I said, the debate is over. We have considered every argument that you are going to make and already answered them. Consensus has been reached. I suggest you join it.
You’re not seriously trying to argue this point, are you Scylla?
There are some arguments in which this type of claim would be perfectly legit. Mainly, arguments that focus more on opinions rather than facts.
An example:
If a majority of people enjoy the way Stephen King writes horror novels, then one might be able to form a legitimate argument saying that Stephen King’s approach to writing horror novels is the “correct” approach. That is, if you’re going to write horror novels, maybe you should take after Stephen King.
The basis of this argument would lie within the formulated opinion(s) of millions of readers. Can anyone say for sure that his way is the “correct” way? Of course not, but at least it makes for good debate.
Now, if someone tried to use this information to claim that Stephen King was the highest-selling horror novel writer, the argument would fall flat on its face. Making that particular claim would require a consolidation of facts (i.e., number of books sold, by author). It has a correct, and an incorrect answer.
Based on the premise provided by Rush, he could concievably make the claim that he is the “most popular newsman”. What does he mean by “most popular”? Maybe name recognition, maybe total number of listeners; it could be any number of things. But he most certainly cannot use this information to make the claim that he is the “most accurate and most right”. That would require a consolidation of facts, as described earlier.
Unless, of course, he had released the statement yesterday.
LilShieste
Do Rush Limbaugh’s tears cure cancer? Sorry if I’m being random and silly, b/c I truly think this thread is in the wrong forum.
No. We cannot. Their views have no effect on the earth’s temperature (insert obligatory “blowing hot air” pun)