You are very wrong. How many people need to tell you this?
Rush Limbaugh was very well known already by 1993.
Stop being so stubborn and concede the point already.
From this already posted link
At his peak in the 1990s, The Rush Limbaugh Show was drawing as many as 20 million listeners a week.
If this isn’t trolling, it sure passes for it.
What point? I’m 52 and I never heard of Limbaugh in '93, but everyone knew of Stern. 10 years later way more people heard of Limbaugh but in '93?
He may have had 20 million on am radio, but outside of that conservative am bubble no one knew about him until after 9/11. Thats when he got huge.
I relate it to YouTube stars now. Some have millions of subscribers on that platform but are not in the general populations mind.
So they may be huge on that platform but not really huge in the grand scheme of things. Limbaugh became huge after 9/11 then eveyone was hearing about him regardless of media platform.
Your head must have been just as far up your ass in 1993 as it is now.
I’m starting to rethink the trolling accusation. You might actually be this stupid.
OK, you won’t listen to others, so CITE please?
According to Wikipedia:
After his abrupt firing, Stern moved to WXRK where he remained for 20 years until December 2005. During this time, The Howard Stern Show was syndicated to 60 radio markets and gained an audience of 20 million listeners at its peak.
20 million people is Stern’s high-water mark. Which he achieved
But for Limbaugh it’s “niche am radio crowd”?
You’re just making things up.
But if we’re just taking random datapoints as facts, I was a teenager through most of the 90s. I had never heard of Howard Stern until the movie Private Parts came out. I absolutely knew who Rush was as I paid a small amount of attention to the political discourse of the time.
And as others have said, my perception is that Limbaugh’s significance was on the decline by the time Bush was elected. The Clinton Administration represented peak cultural relevance for Limbaugh. And the numbers seem to bear that out.
You may not have become aware of Limaugh until you emerged in 2001 from whatever rock you were living under but that doesn’t apply to the rest of the population.
Apples and oranges. Cumulative counts of people clicking on a link at their convenience over an indefinitate period of time is a far cry from tuning into a weekly radio program, which nearly 10% of the US population did for Limbaugh in the 90’s
The book Private Parts came out in 1993, I bought it then and still own it. Huge to me is the zeitgeist, no one was buying or would buy a book about Limbaugh in '93, let alone watching a movie about him 4 years later, 20 million so-called listeners or not. Stern was huge then, Limbaugh was not.
Most people had never heard of Limbaugh during this time. His fame comes post 9/11.
Do you just want to just keep lobbing softballs at us all day?
From here again
Limbaugh also wrote seven books; his first two, The Way Things Ought to Be (1992) and See, I Told You So (1993), made The New York Times Best Seller list.
His books were not in the popular culture then, so not huge. But I will concede some people bought them. But I’ve also already conceded that he was known and had a following, so what are we really talking about here?
It’s really a True Scotsman fallacy. Sure both Stern and Limbaugh had huge, similar audience numbers and wrote best sellers in the 90s, but the latter doesn’t really count because of reasons.
Counterpoint:
I would think it’s even worse, clicking a link actually takes some effort, some decision must be made.
I remember most people back then just tuning their radio to one station and leaving the dial there. From your logic for all we know most of the 20 million were just people tuning into local news and leaving the dial on that channel when Limbaugh came on.
Then Neilson was like what radio station do you listen to?
What we are talking is that you personal recollections aside, all of the evidence points to Limbaugh being at his peak in popularity in the 90’s. That many of your statements have been proved to be factually incorrect, and that you have provided no evidence to the contrary, other just repeating the same incorrect statements.
Even way back in the 90s, more people listened to radio in the car than at home. Car listeners tended to have 3-6 radio stations they jumped between. No doubt one was their favorite, but what you said is again wrong.
CITE? Because I know this is wrong. Even then they wanted to know what time you listened to what stations.
IIUC more than that, they sent you a diary to log everything you listened to and/or watched.
Correct, that is how it worked.
People would lie and say they were listening to Limbaugh, even though they had never heard of him.
Either that or split_pj is a big fat liar.