Redstate

They have already realized this.  They realized it back in the 60s and 70s...

And they have chosen what side they will support...

Who is "they"? I thought liberals were the conspiracy theorists, yet if what you're positing is true, "they" have orchestrated the largest, longest-running cabal in the history of the modern world.

"They" are a bunch of companies who are, in the end, interested in what their pocketbooks look like at the end of the day.

Communism was difficult to defeat as an ideology - the "looks good on paper" problem.  But when it came to the actual states that practiced communism, it was possible to demonstrate our superiority, it was possible to show that communism held back their economy.

How do you (or Green) propose we make the analogous point?  Waging a media war is all well and good, but we didn't win the Cold War by having better propaganda, we won it through results.

I do think it helps when visible Muslims get vocal about how the tenets of radical Islam are inconsistent with the real Koran.  But like most religious debates, it's silly to think you'll achieve total victory just by persuading the other side.

they are reporters and editors with agendas. This pathetic myth of "corporate owners" setting news policy is just laughable.

The cold war was won because the internal contradictions of communism proved to be unsustainable in the information age. The structural problems with communism could be hidden From their own subjects prior to mobile communications technology. Success or failure had nothing to do with our media's attitudes.

Islamofascism thrives because of information technology.  It makes it easier to spread the message (truly or falsely) and to communicate with each other. But the core of radical Islam is also terribly out of synch with modernity, and it will eventually implode because of that.

The only role the Western media plays in this is in actively diminshing our will to fight. That is important, but the fate of Islamofascism is sealed regardless of what self-anointed newsroom twerps think.  

It matters for two reasons.

I believe that Islamofascism will not ultimately succeed. But there are several areas where the media, and the left, and their ready willingness to attack freedom, and the US in particular, do most certainly make a difference:

First, whether or not Islamofascism is completely defeated and discredited or whether we end up with a long, uneasy 'truce'; decades  of constant, low level attacks on the West. The actions of the press could well lead to the latter rather than the former.

Second, how long it takes and how costly it is in life and treasure. Right now their actions are, I believe, delaying the inevitable defeat of Islamofascism. Their actions detract from our ability to pursue this end and give encouragement to the enemy that they might ultimately be able to get us to 'withdraw.'

-------------------

is run by people who cut their teeth in the struggle to defeat the US in Vietnam, the people who 'brought down' a president, et al. They are the primary 'reporters' and editors of today's press and they have not outgrown Woodstock.

Corporate interests who think that liberal bias sells well might be victims of a collective illusion. Roger Ailes looked at the situation a few years ago where all the major TV news networks were completely ignoring conservative viewers, saw a huge untapped market, and created Fox News. It is now by far the most-watched cable news network, and Ailes has probably gotten very rich, while all the liberal media are competing with each other over a market share about equal to that of Fox News.

There may be other reasons why media try to shove liberalism down people's throats--if they become uninformed enough, they'll swallow (and buy) anything. Or maybe they get special favors from their Democrat friends in government (such as PBS funding and National Endowment for the Arts).

But money doesn't drive ALL ideological biases--why do so many conservative books end up on the New York Times bestseller list, even though the New York Times refuses to review them?

First, the Cold War pitted two different philosophies of government realized by two actual states.  Communism is not dead.  And the information age did not cause the implosion of the former Soviet states.  I don't get what point your trying to make.  Mobile communication technology in 1988 was a joke, and its implementation in the Eastern Block nil.  The structural problems were hidden from the people by control of the press.  

I don't think Islamic Extremism thrives on IT.  They use whatever tools are available.  The first WTC bombing certainly didn't require IT, and the movement was strong already.  

As far as the Islamo Fascists using the media, it goes beyond diminishing our will to fight.  They treat it as propaganda within the Muslim world.  Why are many prisoners trained to claim abuses?  Specifically things like being exposed to women, kicking the Quran, forced to eat pork?  Is that to diminish our will to fight?  No, their purpose is always to force a wedge and gain the support of more disaffected within the Muslim world.  Remember, the main objective of the Islamo Fascist is not to fight the west, it is to gain control of the Islamic world.

the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans get their 'news' from the print press and the network news programs. Cable news still constitutes a very small segment of the source of news and the Internet a small fraction of that.

Despite declining circulation numbers and dropping viewer numbers, the MSM still holds sway as the source of most mis-information in this country. The only comforting factor is that their credibiltiy is right down there in the basement with the Congress.

And a lie repeated often enough and vigorously enough can indeed become the 'truth.'

First, the MSM is totally corrupt as pointed out above. Secondly, the cold war involved state level governments that held rational views of self preservation. The GWOT, or more correctly, the war on radical islamic fundamentalists will only be "won" when the leaders of that faith reject the concept of jihad and start integrating their religious tenets with the requirements of fucntioning in a civilized society. Until then, the negative impacts of the jihadists, such as WTC, Spain, Bali, London Underground is to track down every terrorist cell, extract every bit of information from the members using every form of interogation required and either kill them for the vermin they are or, incarcerate them for life.

How is the pathetic myth of "reporters and editors with agendas" any less laughable than "corporate owners" setting news policy?  If anything, it's less believable because you would have to buy into the fact that thousands of reporters and editors have the same agenda and are pushing it together without any kind of known organization.  The concept of a steering force coming from a single entity at the top of the corporation seems like a more easily grasped concept.  

Conspiracy theories aside, it is absolutely money that steers news organizations, just as money steers all corporations (and people).  If you're selling advertising time, you are going to have to avoid offending them.  So I think that plays a part.

I replied to a thread about the Media.  "They" are, quite obviously, the Media.

And, um, well, only thing left is the "DUH"

if we weren't simultaneously treated to abu ghraib, black sites, gitmo, etc...  This administration is doing just fine losing credibility without the media's help.

to expect the MSM to engage in the information war in favor of the US, for two reasons:

1)As noted above, the MSM is currently controlled by the crowd that covered Watergate/Vietnam and regarded those failures as their own greatest accomplishments, and would love to relive the destruction of a Republican president and the military humiliation of the US.

2)The islamoterrorists will always have the propaganda advantage because all they have to do is continue to exist in a struggle against the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, and MSM will portray them as successful for "exceeding expectations". Additionally, MSM is much more interested in destroying the "myth" that America is a glorious and good nation than focusing at all on the terrorist ideology (remember, the are the Religion Of Peace)- witness the primary focus of GWOT reporting: whether we are "torturing" these A.Q. jackals.

If our side can figure out how to better get our message out by talking over the MSM, great. But I see no reason to expect reporting to be helpful to the US in any way.

this type of story, the use of white phosphorous in Falluja, is that it is true (see page 2, "Howitzer Ammunition").

We do use white phosphorous, it is a screening agent and it is the only chemical that can create enough smoke from a 81mm or 120mm mortar, because of their throw weight, to make it worthwhile.

White phosphorous is a chemical.

A side effect of white phosphorous is that it is an incindiary though the writers have confused it with napalm to a great extent. If you can't get it off you (like it comes in your foxhole) or your try to put it out with water it is pretty nasty stuff.

Shouldn't the job of the mainstream media be to report facts?  Do we really want a media whose job it is to report the message the government wants to put forward?  Call me naive, but if we want the world to think that we deal fairly with people and have high moral standards, shouldn't we deal fairly with people, have high moral standards, and let people report what they report?

As for the chemical weapons thing, the "dispelling" link you included basically says "phosphorus is not a chemical weapon".  Okay.  So maybe that lets us Americans feel better about ourselves.  But do you really think that the technicality that this substance which melts people's flesh off isn't "a chemical weapon" is going to win us friends anywhere else?  Now, if the stuff wasn't actually dropped on people, fine.  Report it.  But if it was, whether it was a chemical weapon or not, that method of dispelling it doesn't hold a lot of water.

Simply not true. Were your thesis true in even the tiniest bit, huge media corporations like the NYT and Washington Post, would not boost Democrat candidates and causes across the board. In fact, the Mary Mapes story simply could not have occurred.

The idea that editors and reporters don't belong to professional organizations (with structure, BTW)is just bizarre. More importantly than that being hired and promoted and receiving professional awards is a function of the stories you do. So yes, there is an organization much more monolithic than "corporations" who at least compete with each other.

is

you would have to buy into the fact that thousands of reporters and editors have the same agenda and are pushing it together without any kind of known organization.

so difficult to grasp? People don't necessarily need some top-down organization if they all share the same "values" or beliefs. The people writing and editing these stories all fairly senior; they come from the Vietnam/Watergate eras. They share those experiences and from that one can postulate that those experiences 'color' their views.

That is not to say that they don't have an organization promoting their 'values'; look at the flap several months ago about the Newspaper Guild (reporter's union) and their president's remarks about US troops targeting journalists.

I agree with Carlos and would add to it that the U.S. government makes it easy for the Islamofascists and MSM to pin negative propaganda on us. Yes, a lot of things are either distorted or blown way out-of-proportion.

However, there is truth at the bottom of a lot of charges. Abu Ghraib did exist. So do secret prisons and foreign renditions to third nations for aggressive interrogation. Are they as bad as all that? Probably not, but the mere fact that our hands are dirty doesn't help us our case.

It is tactically sound to attempt to get as much information as possible. It may be strategically unsound if the purpose of our conflict is to stop jihadists while simultaneously not going to war with the entire Muslim world. (Most of whom are just people trying to get along in the world.)

The same is true, in my humble opinon, of using air and artillery strikes in Iraq in urban environments. These are public relations nightmares. Since I'm fluent in Polish, I read the Polish news sites and see huge, glaring pictures of destroyed houses and civilian-looking casualties.

These could all be lies and distortions. But does it really matter? If the media battle is really so important, are we not hurting ourselves by creating these pictures? Again, this could be tactically sound behavior with a sane rationale, force protection, that may be a public relations nightmare.

We can't have it both ways, in my opinion. We can't behave as if public opinion in the Muslim world is irrelevent (not to mention our own), yet decry the fact that we are losing the propaganda war. I think that our overall strategy needs to drive our tactics, which might mean foregoing certain avenues in favor of getting better coverage.

Even if, by the way, the U.S. MSM did decide to spike stories that might be damaging (or to simply cease making stuff up, that would be good too), the international Media are out there and will pick up any slack. That said, I don't think it's enough to simply try to 'get away' with things on the sly. Whatever you don't want out there, will get out there. Rather, I think that by simply sticking to our own ideals we can create a value-ladden story that will 'outsell' our competition any day of the week.

Try this on for size, "They don't care about innocent lives, but we do. We value Iraqi lives more than these 'Iraqis.' For that reason, we will immediately take the following steps to minimize the loss of Iraqi life in U.S. military operations." And then we stick to it. That is great media and big thinking.

presumes that you actually believe what the press et al told you about Abu Grahib, Gitmo, etc.

This administration is loosing credibility not because of the truth of the press stories, but because they are not effectively rebutting the lies and misrepresentations.

because you can take almost any set of facts and arrange them with assertions and, voila, controversy.

Churchill once said that 'In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.' Something similar can be said about lies; A successful lie is always surrounded by a set of truths.

There are stories with very questionable factual standing on both sides.  And the media pursues it.  I think what you're looking at isn't so much a "liberal bias" as a media that was raised, as it should be, trying to find news that is newsworthy.  Scandals, government incompitence/hypocracy...it's all stuff they should be going after, although they probably get a little over-zealous and trashy about it.

Now...there are studies put on by various biased parties that claim the media is liberal or conservative.  There are newspapers whose editorials tend to support democrats or republicans.  But the same news media that was fooled by the forged Bush service documents was fooled by the forged Niger documents.  The same media that has dogged Republicans involved in this leak investigation dogged Clinton for Whitewater.  In reality, aside from Fox News which clearly is in its own category, I think the liberal/conservative media bias is a fiction in itself.

but my recollection of the press 'pursuit' of the Swift Boat story was more directed at discrediting them than with some neutral reporting or comparison of the various camps' positions.

The mainstream media wrote not one word concerning the Swift Vets until John McCain denounced them, at which point they all piled on to help denounce them. Neither John Kerry nor any of his staff have ever shown that a single word uttered by the Swift Vets was false.

A runaway Talking-Point-o-Matic™.

Swift Boats: you may not like what they had to say but their critique of Kerry has stood up. As to the media coverage, the Swifties made their announcement in May. There was no media coverage until August when Kerry denounced them and scored an own-goal.

Forged Niger documents? When did the media cover them as anything but forgeries? Byt the time they were revealed just about everyone knew they were forgeries?

Whitewater: Ken Starr got 15 felony convictions.

Nick, would you like to state for the record your take on whether "a single word uttered by the Swift Vets was false."

Now from what you read in the international press, do you feel that they are more on the side of purely anti-war liberalism or anti-US foreign policy?  From my meager knowledge of warfare, it is a brutal, ugly thing.  It is not civil or fair.  Yet the very nature of human struggle inevitably results in warfare.

In my simplistic evaluation, you can not escape negative press as they are not driven by a rational philosophy.  But since we are testing counter 'propaganda', I would put forth continual coverage of mass graves, torture chambers, execution ground.  Every DOD press conference should start with video of another one of Saddam's death chambers.  Every presidential briefing should reveal a little more of the devious horror the Iraqi security apparatus inflicted on its own citizens.  Just keep doing it, even if the MSM does not pick it up.  

I find it amazing that the Administration does not get this aspect of warfare.

Are the most damaging kind.

I just got home and saw the news coverage of the bombing attacks in Amman. We have reporters, commentators and pundits saying things like: 'Jordanian police will secure the crime scene'; 'if Jordan asks the FBI is willing to go to Jordan and help with the investigation'; 'we need to gather the evidence'; blah, blah, blah.

If I hear the phrases 'crime scene' and 'law enforcement' and 'bring these terrorists to justice' applied to these terror attacks again my head will probably explode.

We absolutely must get past the idea that these attacks are just a different variety of knocking over the Seven-Eleven. These are not crimes, these are acts of war. We simply have to stop thinking of them in law enforcement terms.

/threadjack

My take is that after calling the Swift Vets "liars" as loudly as they could from Hardball to Crossfire, and threatening bookstores and television stations with libel and slander suits, the Kerry forces have never actually done squat.

Different rules apply when you testify under oath than when you howl like a jerk on Crossfire. The Kerry folks did plenty of howling, but zero testifying. Not so the Swift Vets. Virtually everything in Unfit for Command is backed by a sworn affidavit signed by one or more of them. If Kerry's got something that would demonstrate perjury besides a loudmouthed James Carville braying like an ass on national television, he should show it to us.

The Swift Vets did nine television ads and five mini-documentaries. Which of them do you think contains a falsehood? On what page of Unfit for Command is there false statement?

On the other hand, did or did not John Kerry testify before the U.S. Senate that American troops were committing war crimes on a daily basis, at a time when American POWs were still being held by Hanoi?

Did or did not John Kerry meet with enemy negotiators in Paris while still a reserve officer in the United States Navy? Did he or did he not present the enemy's case to U.S. officials when he returned from Paris?

Did or did not John Kerry try to present himself as a "war hero" to American voters on the basis of a mere four months in Vietnam, while accidentally failing to mention his much longer career as an anti-war leader? At a minimum, was that not an attempt to deceive people about who he was and what he stood for? Is the man not fundamentally, at core, a liar? Can anything even remotely comparable be said about any of the Swift Vets?

If Kerry's got something that would demonstrate perjury besides a loudmouthed James Carville braying like an ass on national television, he should show it to us.

He plans to do so at the same press conference where he will detail his pre-election 'secret plan' for success in Iraq and turn over his complete service record.

...contains nasty chemicals but it is not a chemical weapon as defined by the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is not banned by any treaty, and is not an illegal weapon if used for its intended purpose.

Of course the media should report the facts.  They should also report the truth.  When a media outlet says that chemical weapons were used in Fallujah, they are reporting neither the facts nor the reality of what took place there.  No one is suggesting that their job is transmit the government's message.  The point here is not to let the enemy's message be transmitted unchallenged.

I couldn't get past the very first claim, where a doctor who claimed to have treated Kerry cannot produce any documentation proving that he had done so. In fact, the documents in question are signed by others.

Previously, I wrote that in order to win the Terror War, we must "prove the enemy ideology to be ineffective," just as we did in the Cold War. In that conflict, we did so in three ways: by fighting where we had to while maintaining our freedoms, but most importantly by out-growing the Communist economies.

No surprise that you've all conveniently missed the key phrase in that paragraph. We did not have to fight in Iraq, we chose to. This is not open to interpretation any longer. There was no threat of imminent danger or urgency, particularly with regard to nuclear arms, and Saddam did not have any ties to terrorists who threatened us. At least to any degree greater than any other Middle Eastern country.

We did not have to fight in Iraq, we chose to. This is not open to interpretation any longer. There was no threat of imminent danger or urgency, particularly with regard to nuclear arms, and Saddam did not have any ties to terrorists who threatened us

If I knew last Friday what Saturday's lottery numbers were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I assume you have a Masters Degree in Revisionist History?

------------------

they handle the aftermath of a terrorist attack?  I would think it obvious that things like "evidence" would be needed to be used in an "investigation" as to who committed the acts.  In order to maintain the integrity of the evidence you need to secure an area from the public-- a "crime scene" so to speak.

"This is a war" is great rhetoric, but how does it actually have any bearing on the situation?  Assuming that tanks, cruise missles, infantry divisions will do any good against a few guys operating an underground movement in a crowded city, how will you know where to send them?

 

To the extent that 'securing the scene' provides information on how to find the people who plan these things so that we can hunt them down and kill them fine, 'investigate' away. The objective of investigating with an eye to hauling someone into court and sentencing them to 5-10 for conspiring to commit nasty acts is, in my humble view, a waste of d*mned time.

But the primary drawback to these terms and this attitude is that people do not grasp the seriousness and extent of what we are up against. In my view, as long as our leaders refer to these acts as if they were some form of robbing the neighborhood Quik Mart, people will continue to see this as no big deal. People understood after 9/11 because it is d*mned difficult to watch what happened and not grasp it the magnitude. But we now seem to be in 'don't alarm the straights' mode. This might also partially explain why you rarely see footage or photos of the World Trade Center attacks on TV or in the press; keep showing those tapes and people will get mad, and we can't have that.

and is not an illegal weapon if used for its intended purpose

How can it be an illegal weapon if its not (a) a chemical weapon as defined by the CWC; and (b) not banned by any treaty?

answer, obviously, for your ability to read or for your interest in or knowledge of the subject. From this post I'd surmise there is none of the latter two and the first is up for grabs.

under Article 35 of the Geneva Conventions is that a weapon can't be used which cause "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." It's roots are in the 1902 Hague Conventions (see Barbara Tuchman's "Proud Tower" for details).

This bans dum-dum bullets and has been used by the use of shotguns and the use of serrated-bladed bayonets.

There has always been discussion in the Army (at least since I was first associated with it) about whether shooting WP at troops (or M-2 .50-cal machineguns, for that matter) was legal. Strictly apocryphal.

there was a time when the claims of the SBVT were subject to actual scrutiny here, but that time moved on a couple months back.

in paragraph one is necessary if you don't intend to have a trial.

out a lollipop is not a resume builder in the medical profession. Why would he need to keep a record of it?

That's going to leave a mark :-)

If you're interested in actually scrutinizing the claims, Nick has set you up a perfect platform in comment #33.  I'm sure everyone is looking forward to reviewing the evidence you reply to him with.

Although if you don't have anything to offer beyond innuendo, I guess you could continue avoiding Nick's comment and just whinge a bit more in other parts of the thread instead.

to discuss the SBVT with Nick, of all people? I was just curious how far he'd go.

I guess I just tend to trust the people who actually served with Kerry over those who didn't. Not to say that everything Kerry said was the truth, either, but c'mon.

I can't remember if you were here then or not, but there was quite a long (and hotly debated) thread about the SBVT a long time ago... dunno if it's still available or not. Just FYI.

The discussion, whether it was legal, or something else?

Just asking.

over the legality of those weapons revolved around the apocryphal idea that they could only be used against equipment and were illegal for use against personnel.

We don't have weapons that are limited in use to "equipment."

one are you referring to?

"Parent" feature.

for the reply.

Obviously U.S. troops could fire WP at enemy troops as a weapon as a matter of pure physical capability.  

Is the apocryphal idea that such use is "illegal" or that WP fired at equipment necessarily involves firing it at enemy troops and so the question is moot, or that anything given to a U.S. soldier in the field is not limited in use to equipment?  

I'm not trying to be obtuse or facetious here, I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying.

How do you propose that we determine who carried out the attack?  An investigation requires evidence, evidence comes from a "crime scene", etc.  It doesn't have to be evidence in a legal sense, I suppose, but I'm not quite sure what else you would call the things that help determine who did something.  Clues?

To carry it further we had the choice of either buying $300 billion worth of tickets or a considerably smaller sum to find the winning number in advance (i.e. continued inspections).

but as they said in the previous administration "no cigar."

Simply not true. Were your thesis true in even the tiniest bit, huge media corporations like the NYT and Washington Post, would not boost Democrat candidates and causes across the board.

I don't see why they wouldn't.  If the majority of your readership is liberal, why not cater to them?  It's good for your advertising value...  I think I'm missing what you're saying, here.

This administration is loosing credibility not because of the truth of the press stories, but because they are not effectively rebutting the lies and misrepresentations.

How do you determine which stories are true (Abu Gharib abuses, WP used in Fallujah) and which are false?

But you're right--go through the White House Press Corps transcripts and try to find Scotty saying "Absolutely not".  They very rarely deny anything outright.  And when they do react, it's often too late to contain the damage.

of getting a less than civil reply, one can safely assume that if it appears in the pages of the NYT, WaPo, LAT, et al, then it is probably worth questioning. If certain other names such as Al Guardian, Al Jazerra, Giuliana Sgrena, etc., are associated with it then you can safely assume that it's a lie.

I assume you have a Masters Degree in Revisionist History?

http://harpers.org/RevisionThing.html

You're both right.

wanted to be sure I knew what post you were referring to so I have a good frame of reference for gauging your posts/comments.

From your "Nothing in paragraph one is necessary if you don't intend to have a trial[,]" it appears you are in the "kill 'em all and let G** sort them out" camp.  Is that true?

How do you personally know who is accurate?  Is there some accuracy data, or is this just a gut-feeling?

I've never seen anything quantifying the accuracy of Al Jazeera.

essential difference between military action and law enforcement?

I think "proving" which terrorist group did something is simply dysfunctional they need to be treated as the same.

With terrorism, in particular, the active cells are supported by a network of passive supporters. The same was true of the RAF and the Brigate Rossa. Relying on the judicial system to deal with the couriers, the fundraisers, the safehouse operators hamstrings your ability to deal with the problem and it degrades the judicial system in the process.

During the suppression of piracy in the 17th and 18th centuries no one worried about which particular pirate ship had attacked your shipping. All pirates were in the same category, as enemies of civilization.

intelligence gathering that is used to support military operations, certainly not a "crime scene" and "evidence" to support a prosecution.

With that intelligence you take the fight to the people who hit you. And the standard you use is suspicion that they were involved. You take them off the streets and hold them incommunicado in unpleasant places, you kick it doors, you kill them in front of the TV set. You don't arrest them, you don't prosecute them. We could learn a lot from how the French suppressed the OAS.

Seems to me that someone made an intentionally bad business decision to forgo corporate profit in order to deny Rush profits and rating success.  Maybe someone here has a more sophisticated explanation of that decision which does not involve political bias trumping sound business practices.  Perhaps it was just a conspiracy by VCR manufacturers.

Excellent analogy. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Gunpowder is a chemical.  And a weapon.  Hell we've been using chemical weapons for centuries now.  Western civilization really is evil.

Seems to me that someone made an intentionally bad business decision to forgo corporate profit in order to deny Rush profits and rating success.

Well, find them and file a lawsuit, shareholder.

Did you consider that perhaps Rush doesn't have the commercial television drawing power you think he does?  What was your analysis?  He certainly doesn't belong anywhere on prime time--there's no way he can compete with those shows.

When you fill a time slot, you want to maximize the relevance to the largest demographic, right?  This gives your ads eyes, and raises revenue.  What percentage of the population does Rush represent?  And now subtract the Rush Hate Factor which will make people actively not watch the station because of the show.  Yes, Limbaugh is a risk, just like you won't ever hear Stern on a conservative radio network, because he is a risk.

In short, I would expect prime-time broadcast televison to be full of broad-spectrum eyeball-gathering generally non-offensive fluff.  Everything else gets on late-night.

Fox News is well known to cater to conservatives.  Why can't Limbaugh get a show there?  The Daily Show pulls a million people an episode.  What left-wing conspiracy keeps it off CBS, NBC, and ABC?

What's the simpler explanation: high-ranking TV executives risk their careers by jeopardizing shareholder value because they disagree with Rush's politics, or that Rush Limbaugh made fringe television?

"Did you consider that perhaps Rush doesn't have the commercial television drawing power you think he does?"

I realize that radio ratings & audience do not automatically mean success in TV, but we're talking about Rush Limbaugh in the 90's.  He would have run circles around just about anyone they put him up against.

"He certainly doesn't belong anywhere on prime time--there's no way he can compete with those shows."

That was debatable in the 90's, and even more questionable today, IMO.

"What percentage of the population does Rush represent?  And now subtract the Rush Hate Factor which will make people actively not watch the station because of the show."

Again, you can use his radio audience as a rough gauge for potential audience and the effect of RHF.  I would contend that his radio popularity would have given him an immense advantage in ratings-building on a TV show in prime-time.  I would further contend  that the RHF would actually cause more people to watch the station.  Many radio stations around the nation that were smart enough to carry Rush would go under were it not for Rush's drawing power.  He is not an albatross.

"Yes, Limbaugh is a risk, just like you won't ever hear Stern on a conservative radio network, because he is a risk."

You will never hear Stern on a conservative radio network because he is not a conservative.

"Fox News is well known to cater to conservatives.  Why can't Limbaugh get a show there?  The Daily Show pulls a million people an episode.  What left-wing conspiracy keeps it off CBS, NBC, and ABC?"

I have not done a deep analysis of Rush's drawing power in the TV market, but I do know that he has said that he does not want to do a TV show again for many reasons including control of content and time scheduling issues.  Rush himself said he had some conflict with TV executives regarding the time slots that his show was placed in.

"What's the simpler explanation: high-ranking TV executives risk their careers by jeopardizing shareholder value because they disagree with Rush's politics, or that Rush Limbaugh made fringe television?"

I would go with the former, but let's not bring Mary Mapes and Dan Rather into this.

Again, you can use his radio audience as a rough gauge for potential audience and the effect of RHF.  I would contend that his radio popularity would have given him an immense advantage in ratings-building on a TV show in prime-time.

I'm not convinced either way, to be honest.  Like you say, they are two different mediums.  But more importantly, I'd worry they are two different demographics.  A lot of people listen to Rush, but it's often at work or in the car...  But do they want to listen at home in the evenings?  Why is Rush's radio show on during the day and not at night?

Does the daytime listening count as a "fix" for his fans, and is a nighttime Rush as well just too much?

I think these are really important questions to examine before choosing a time slot.  There are people (unlike you and me) who ask these questions for a living in order to maximize profit in the company.  They tend to be pretty good at it.

You will never hear Stern on a conservative radio network because he is not a conservative.

We're saying the same thing here.  (I should have said "liability" instead of "risk".)  But I'm taking it a step farther and saying that a conservative station playing Stern's show is jeopardizing their advertising space because they're playing a non-conservative show and alienating their listeners.

This ties in to the RHF, and stations not wanting to air the Rush Limbaugh Show for fear of reducing their value.

As for the rest of it, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the definite worth of Rush to prime-time TV. :-)