Netflix flushes Rush

Discuss

134 Responses to “Netflix flushes Rush”

  1. Bangorian says:

    Outstanding.  Now let’s keep the pressure up on the other advertisers.  This is the only way to have an impact on Limbaugh-level arrogance –

    • Teller says:

      Douche on Douche:

      “Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout”

      - Bill Maher tweet

  2. EH says:

    Which ad network is it?

  3. Rhett Holechek says:

    Would it be more effective to put the pressure on Netflix for advertising on that affiliate?  Eventually, the affiliate may drop Rush.  I guess it does the same thing, but with a bigger stick.  Nice to see the system “working”.

    • Terrin Bell says:

      That might not be realistic. Clear Channel has a huge share of the radio market. In some areas it holds monopolies. Asking Netflix to not advertise on Clear Channel would really be putting it at a disadvantage if it relied on radio advertising because there wouldn’t be alternative channels. People should 1) contact clear channel (which is a big Republican supporter), and 2) tell companies not to advertise on the Rush show. 

  4. Kaptiv8 says:

    Bravo Netflix for responsive customer service and bravo Twitterverse for spreading the word. Ah the world we live in. :)

    • Lobster says:

       Netflix can’t really afford to keep losing customers right now.

    • This is not responsive customer service. This is a terrible response. They need to post it on their blog, tweet about it, post on their FB (where literally thousands of people have taken to complaining), etc.

  5. Andy Murdock says:

    Too late, I already cancelled my NetFlix last night. I also realized I hadn’t used it in over two months.

  6. I’ll believe it when….they make a PUBLIC announcement like the other sponsors have.  So far two Netflix mouths have contacted two bloggers?  pffft….

    • marilove says:

      Why would they lie about this?  Why are you so paranoid?  They never even advertised on his show, so what’s the point of making a public announcement about something they never did? They corrected a rather small mistake. Done. Not sure why you are still whining.

      • brunocerous says:

        I don’t think it’s paranoid. It’s a weak response to a story that’s getting national exposure. Just look on Google Trends. I’m not reactivating my Netflix account yet.

        • marilove says:

          I just don’t know what you expect them to announce.  “HEY!  We have never advertised with this guy!” Okay?

          • foobar says:

            I’d like to hear them commit not to do so in the future, and to pull advertising from any venue that he’s on and not just the time slot.

          • marilove says:

            Um, they did pull the advertising from that spot and said it was a mistake.  From what I can gather, they have no plans on advertising with this guy.

            I still don’t know what else you expect them to say or do.

          • Terrin Bell says:

            foobar. 

            Netflix didn’t intentionally advertise on the Rush show. What happened is the Rush show in every local market is combined with local content that also includes local advertising. Radio stations if they don’t always have a time slot booked they will play a commercial for an existing sponsor. Also if a Station makes a mistake and doesn’t play a commercial when it is supposed to, it will play a commercial at a later time when it has an open slot. Further, why single Netfix out to publicly announce not to do something in the future? Rush’s show unfortunately is popular. Many of the same fans probably are Netflix customers. If Netflix wants to stay around, Netflix needs those people’s money as well. I for one would like Netflix to stay around. 

            Finally, Clear Channel owns a whole lot of radio stations. It supplies the Rush show. In some markets Clear Channel has a monopoly. It would be hard for a company like Netflix not to buy advertising from Clear Channel. 

        • foobar says:

          I would make Netflix choose between Limbaugh’s supporters and his opposers. They’re particularly vulnerable to this line of attack because the vast majority of their customer base is not going to like him.

    • Brian Boyko says:

      When one of those bloggers is Cory Doctorow, that’s a major media release.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I think that Netflix has finally figured out that every time they make any public statement about anything, they lose 5% of their subscribers and their stock price plummets.

      •  This.

        It’s a tricky thing to handle anyway.  They’ll have a lot of subscribers that like Rush, as well as having a lot of subscribers that detest him. 

        It’s awkwardly political, considering all they’re really trying to do is inform the public about their product – they’d probably rather not express particularly strong opinions either way as to avoid alienating any of their audience.

  7. Jason says:

    Where’s the official communication? Where’s the tweet, where’s the Facebook post? Why not make it clear, Netflix, instead of communicating through unofficial proxies?

  8. Brian Damage says:

    I’m so far left I’m borderline communist but even I am starting to find BoingBoing’s editorialpolitical bias tiresome.   I actually agree with the bias but I’d prefer more evenhanded, fact-based journalism.  Maybe this just isn’t the right website for me; I’d prefer the benefit of the doubt that I’m sufficiently intelligent to draw my own conclusions from raw data.

    • Mark Szabo says:

      Like Rush, BoingBoing is entertainment, not news. Think of it as a more outraged Jon Stewart.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       Make sure you make a big announcement when you leave for good.

    • m1kesa1m0ns says:

      Maybe you are missing the larger point? The man is more than an a righty ideologue. He’s a misogynist douchebag. You don’t have to be a lefty to be outraged by that.

      • Brian Damage says:

        Oh, the point isn’t lost on me.  BoingBoing does effectively communicate the news, but this story is a good example of having to infer the subtext to understand what’s really being said.

        It’s way overstated though.  Does Mark buy products from every business that doesn’t advertise on Rush’s show?

        Maybe I’m reading too much into a post that’s technically just giving a bump to highlight another agency’s story, but over the years I’ve grown impatient with biased news.  BoingBoing hasn’t decreased in quality but I guess my needs as an information consumer are just changing.

      • billstewart says:

        Do you really get to use both of the words “misogynist” and “douchebag” in the same sentence?  Feel free to substitute a non-gender-based generic insult for the latter, though.

        But yes, this particular event seems a lot more inappropriately personal an attack than his usual “feminazi” sorts of misogyny.  He’s said enough rabidly offensive things over the years that I’m not sure if it breaks into the top 10%, and I’d have hoped that decent advertisers would have dumped him years ago, but if it takes this to get their attention, we can hope they’ll at least dump him now.

        •  Since when is ‘douchebag’ gender specific?

          You’re probably thinking of a vaginal douche; but you get anal douche’s as well – a douche is just something that flushes a bodily cavity.

          There’s enough inequality in the world without forcing it in.

    • bklynchris says:

      I wouldn’t care what BB had to say about Limbaugh in general.  But that you defend the man when he has made clearly misogynist and libelous slander makes me wonder what you actually have issue with.  Unless, you are saying Limbaugh never said this.  I listened to the part of his broadcast where he clearly said this and his intent was quite apparent.

      So don’t let the delete button on your bookmark tab hit you in the ass on your way out.  I don’t think your brain could take any more bruising without rendering you, I don’t know, really hard to be around?

    • Bonobo says:

      Thank you. I like BoingBoing a lot and I don’t intend to stop reading it, but I do get tired of having to sort through the comments and sourced articles to get the actual story. I would guess that 90+% of the readers agree with the liberal viewpoint, so you don’t need to obscure, or use attention grabbing headlines to convince us.

    •  It’s a liberal blog – not an unbiased news source.

      You’ve got to take it for what it is.

  9. ialreadyexist says:

    Random Conservative Blog: “What’s all the fuss about Rush?  Why don’t all you liberals complain when one of YOUR friends does the same thing?  Because you guys gave them a pass, we won’t complain now.”

    Random Liberal Blog: “What’s all the fuss about [insert next asshole to make a dumbass comment]?  Because you guys gave Rush a pass, we won’t complain about this jackass now.”

    And so the cycle of hate continues.  Good job!

    • MrEricSir says:

      This isn’t a political thing, it’s a douchebag thing.  Just because Rush is a political commenter doesn’t mean everything he says or does creates a partisan division.

      • ocker3 says:

         Exactly. It’s not a matter of “he’s a conservative, let’s hate on him”, it’s a matter of “he launched a sustained, personal, completely unjustified campaign of vilification against a woman brave enough to speak up for her beliefs, let’s hate on him for That”

    • lorq says:

      Given the clear option of whether or not to continue to support a company that supports Rush, the only responsible option is to withdraw that support.

    • bklynchris says:

      Wait, what…huh?  ANybody referring to any of my friends as a slut or prostitute (unless they self identify as one, though has yet to happen), they are no longer my friends.  Its the content.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      STACKS of Conservatives have spoken against Limbaugh in this matter, sure, they weren’t as vehement as some here, but many saw clearly he was out of line in any context. 

      Shamefully, the GOP frontrunners were especially easy on him in their rebukes of his misbehaviour.

  10. iamlegion says:

    That’s really good news – my family uses this service a lot & I’d hate to have to ditch it.

    Now, if you can just get Netflix to fire the team that sodomized the Wii app in its last update, we’d be getting somewhere!

  11. brunocerous says:

    Great news! Thanks to Boing Boing for the update. But where is Netflix’s official statement for non-Boing Boing readers?

    • flarktobble says:

       What official statement would that be?  “We, from this day forward, will continue to not do that thing that we previously had not done,” sounds odd to me.  This isn’t netflix burying a public statement, it’s a direct response to an assertion that they believe is in error.

      • brunocerous says:

        A statement would be a press release, an official blog post, a Tweet, a Facebook statement. 

        •  I would imagine that not every one of Netflix’s customers cares to have their Movie provider become entangled in a debate over the opinions of a radio host.

          I think addressing particular outlets, like BoingBoing, is far more sensible; otherwise they’d be opening an an unsavory dialogue between their mixed-demographic customers.

          Netflix’s job is to give their customers what they want (movies); not to burden them with their opinions.

      • Actually, yes, that would be the smart thing for them to do.   Fair or not, the perception is that they are paying to advertise on Rush’s show. They have a twitter account, facebook page, their own website and the option of sending out press releases as ways to communicate with the public on this.  

        Instead, they have a guy email boingboing?  Seriously????? In the context of everything Netflix has done wrong in the past few months this is the best their official PR people can do?  Netflix had ads running on Rush’s show as recently as YESTERDAY in some markets.   They need to get out in front of this story.  Just a brief one-or-two-sentence statement would be fine, instead we have zilch.  Bad PR, bad marketing.

        • ocker3 says:

           If a journalist writes a story about your company, and you think they got their facts wrong, you contact that journalist and give them your side of the story. E-mails are traceable, and in some ways a more verifiable means of communication than phone calls.

          Contacting Cory directly is pretty damn effective method of communicating your message to the masses of people unhappy with this, he’s a contributor to this wildly popular blog we all love, right?

          • Sigh… no.  I love boingboing but it is no substitute for posting it on netflix’s facebook and twitter pages, and sending out a press release to all mainstream news organizations (CNN, New York Times, USA Today, NBC News, etc etc).  

            boingboing is maybe the 50th or so organization I’d contact.  UNLESS I was trying to downplay the whole thing and get out of having to condemn Rush’s comments (thus potentially alienating right-ring radio listeners I’m guessing?)

            It’s pretty weird that boingboing appears to be the only place Netflix has commented, don’t you think?

          •  @facebook-661242656:disqus

            “thus potentially alienating right-ring radio listeners I’m guessing?”

            And what’s wrong with that?  Why are non-right-wing radio listeners the correct customer?

            As I mentioned above, they’re not a political organisation for crying out loud they’re a streaming service.

  12. brunocerous says:

    I’m not reactivating my Netflix account yet. Going to give my new Kindle a try for at least a month.

  13. mister says:

    They still purchase advertising from Clear Channel, the company that gives Rush Limbaugh his soapbox & pays him millions.

    • twianto says:

      This is like saying you support Bill O’Reilly by watching The Simpsons. Yeah, same owner, but given that the Murdoch empire produces decent stuff too and that CC syndicates all kinds of shows, including left-wingy stuff… not quite sure what your point is.

      • mister says:

        There is a difference between watching/listening to programming and supporting its sponsors. For me, anyone who advertises on Clear Channel or Fox is less appealing for me to do business with as a result. Doesn’t matter which program they sponsor. David Koch sponsors Nova on PBS, which doesn’t really affect my opinion of the program, but I won’t be buying any of his Brawny brand paper products either. I’ll keep watching Nova though.

        • twianto says:

          So pray tell, how do you advertise effectively on radio nationwide (today) if you leave out CC? By the same token, how do you launch a print or TV advertising campaign if you blacklist everything Murdoch (including the Journal)? How the heck do you even begin to tell your shareholders that you won’t advertise your demographically targeted product on that left-wing radio show just because the same network also syndicates Limbaugh? Do you also boycott every advertiser on the Daily Show ’cause Viacom (parent of Comedy Central) has a history of abusive DMCA takedowns?

          Sorry, but that’s just not feasible in today’s consolidated media landscape. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

          • mister says:

            “So pray tell, how do you advertise effectively on radio nationwide (today) if you leave out CC?”
            The simple answer is, you don’t. I can appreciate the challenges of executing an effective advertising campaign “in today’s consolidated media landscape”, but I can also tell you that when I see sponsors supporting media outlets I believe are contrary to the public good, my opinion of them is diminished & I’m less inclined to do business with them. The advertising they are paying for is, in my case, having a negative effect.

          • twianto says:

            Fair enough.

            Just keep in mind that CC is a business. They don’t say “hey, how ’bout we start an arrogant asshole radio show”; they see a successful radio show and decide to syndicate it because they think it’ll make them a lot of money. They also produce a lot of good content and shows that may coincide with your political leanings.

          • twianto says:

            Also, the way those radio shows work is that Premiere (CC) doesn’t provide any editorial input. They just take whatever the hosts give them and stuff ads in the breaks between segments. It’s not like the hosts are salaried employees or anything; they just sign a contract to produce shows, that’s all.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      I believe it sufficient to make Limbaugh’s slot unattractive to any ad buyer, not ad sellers. 

      Thereby your purpose is clearly delineated as Rush Related. You don’t get lost in the noise.

  14. Teller says:

    Next up for boycott: All Foxconn products. Keep the activism activisming!

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Yes and stop using your stapler because it was made in China too.  Kind of two very different issues and circumstances….

      • Teller says:

        Only paper clips from now on!
        Yes, two different issues: one’s a crude, libelous mischaracterization; the other involves working conditions and suicides. The former from an ideological enemy; the latter from the maker of Precious.

        • msbpodcast says:

          Uh, the paperclips are made in China too.

          Most office sundries at Staples and the aisle “end cap” specials at Wal*Mart are Chinese in origin.

          • Teller says:

            Cold dead hands on your iWhatever? There are no Activists. There are only Selectivists.

        • I actually agree with the ideology you’re putting forward, but if you really want to avoid exploiting people and the environment you live in, then I hope you’re living on your own in the woods, entirely self-sufficient, and of course, not using a computer, or an internet connection for that matter.

          Even commenting on BoingBoing involves someone or something suffering, somewhere.

          You’re not making a political stand, you’re parroting a company name you heard on the news – it’s not impressing anyone.

          If you’re getting at that tired old argument that Apple is abusing people then you’re better off looking into the issue more closely. The irony in your argument is that they’re likely one of the better electronics manufacturing companies. Human rights abuses are important, but that’s clearly not what this is about.

          • Funk Daddy says:

            “I actually agree with the ideology you’re putting forward, but if you really want to avoid exploiting people and the environment you live in, then I hope you’re living on your own in the woods, entirely self-sufficient, and of course, not using a computer, or an internet connection for that matter.”

            All good is negated by any evil, eh?

            /Absolutism Fail, try again.

  15. Mary Bahr says:

    When I called Netflix today the service rep read the announcement you see above from Boing Boing. I asked him to clarify if they continued to get general ads that might end up on Rush but he said they are blocking any more ads from appearing on Rush.   I agree that we should try to pressure Clear Channel as well because they host his program but what is an effective way to go here? 

  16. Mason Gentry says:

    The title of this post is false. Netflix didn’t “flush Rush”, as they never willingly advertised on his show. As Joris Evers states, the two times it happened were a mistake by a local station. 

    It’s clear that BoingBoing hates Rush (as do I), and I think its fine to show your bias. But when you start manipulating facts to serve the narrative that advertisers are abandoning Rush, it makes you look bad. 

    Other advertisers are indeed flushing Rush. But not Netflix. They were never on his show to begin with. 

    • twianto says:

      Bingo. I think it’s extremely important that BB make *very* clear that Netflix did not advertise with Limbaugh specifically. As it is, the headline strongly implies this (wholly untrue) stance.

      Please fix, thanks.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      Not a mistake.

      Netflix did willingly advertise there as a result of the manner in which their advertising is disbursed as they are wholly responsible for wherever their agenst, third party or in house, cause the ad to appear.

      Netflix appears to have taken or suggested it will undertake small effort to make sure that it does not happen again. Thereby, probably with an internal discussion followed by a call to their ad company(s) they proactively restrict their ads from that slot.

      This theory people have that being unaware of your ads means being free from responsibility for their appearance and, if it upsets people, the context they appear in is as near as I can guess some weird corporate acceptance of the Sin of Omission.

      If stepping on a crack really did break your mother’s back, you watch your fucking step.

      • Mason Gentry says:

        I never said they were free from responsibility. Yes, if an ad for Netflix was played on Rush’s show, ultimately they are responsible for it. And as Joris states, “we have instructed our ad agency to make sure that this error will not happen again.” Cool, problem solved.
        The phrase ‘Netflix flushes Rush’ has nothing to do with the above.  That phrase implies Netflix had a pre-exisiting relationship of some kind with Rush, which was not the case. Again, it’s BoingBoing slightly twisting the facts to fit their narrative. That’s all I’m saying. 

  17. Lobster says:

    I hate Rush.  He’s a disgusting individual who profits off the fear and suffering of others and I think he (and all of his ilk) are bad for this country.

    That said…  are we all really THAT offended over what he did, or are we just using this as an opportunity to get rid of a terrible human being?

    Either way, sometimes if you can’t make the murder charge stick, you get the guy on tax evasion, right?

    • Christopher says:

      Yes, as a matter of fact, I am THAT offended by what he did. This is hardly the first thing he’s done that’s offended me, or even the first thing he’s done that’s offended me this much, but this is the first time I remember there being this much attention being given to one of his incredibly outrageous, offensive, and just plain stupid remarks.

      I don’t know that saying “if you can’t make the murder charge stick, you get the guy on tax evasion” is entirely accurate, since I think comparing Limbaugh to Al Capone is unfair. As far as I know Limbaugh really hasn’t killed anybody, and I don’t know if he’s really affected the national discourse or if he’s just sewn seeds of stupidity in already fertile ground. But I am happy to see a lot of people standing up and saying that someone who says something that inaccurate deserves to be held responsible.

      And let’s not also forget that even as we discuss how offensive and inaccurate Limbaugh’s remarks were there are also “rallies for Rush” and even members of Congress and presidential candidates who are out there saying that what he said was correct–even if they wouldn’t have used the same words. Or at least they wouldn’t use the same words near a microphone.

      • Lobster says:

         OK, that’s fine.  You have the right to be THAT offended.  I’m personally more offended by his constant pro-war, anti-Muslim nonsense but we’re different people.

        Whether or not Rush has killed anyone really depends on your definition of culpability.  There’s no blood on his hands, most likely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if sentiments he’s espoused have encouraged people to do things that ended up in a death.  But what’s the line between “protected free speech” and “inciting violence?” 

        • Christopher says:

           I have to admit (and perhaps feel more than a little bit ashamed) that I’m not that familiar with his “his constant pro-war, anti-Muslim nonsense”, mainly because the only exposure I get to Rush is a case like this when he says something that actually gets attention in sources I read and/or listen to.

          And I couldn’t say honestly whether his anti-Muslim, pro-war rantings are more or less offensive than his blatant sexism in this particular case. Since all three spring, I assume, from the same misplaced anger and ignorance that he gets most of his material from I’d think they’re all equally offensive, although I don’t know if all three are equally likely to incite violence.

          I do remember when I heard him refer to Halle Berry and Obama as “Halfrican Americans”, and I asked a friend, “Why aren’t people outraged by this?” My friend replied, “Because it’s what people expect him to say.” And I thought then and now that just because it’s expected, just because it’s a minor variation of what he’s said for years, doesn’t make it acceptable.

          As for the line between “protected free speech” and “inciting violence”, again, I feel like I’m falling short. It’s something I’ve given a fair amount of thought, and I do think words have consequences, but I’ve never come close to an answer. If you have then you’re smarter than I am, although there’s a very good possibility that you’re smarter than I am even if you haven’t come up with an answer either.

  18. Xenophore says:

    Any company that boycotts Rush Limbaugh for his comments about Sandra Fluke is completely hypocritical if it does not also boycott Bill Maher for his even more misogynistic comments about Sarah Palin.

    • JG says:

       That may be true, but Sarah Palin is a very public figure who chose a path known to result in intense scrutiny and a need for nomex underwear.  The comparison isn’t particularly valid.  It would, however, be nice if people could stop attacking each other in this manner.

      • Funk Daddy says:

        This is an excellent point. While S.Fluke willingly stepped before Congress to address an issue it was not as a public official who wished to be elected to such high office that all in the land would be affected. Also Palin is a terrible person in many ways.

        Limbaugh saw S.Fluke as both worthless AND possibly a good target for hateful bullying, someone he could focus the wrath of his followers upon in support of their ODD desire to control contraception access. 

        S.Fluke / S. Palin = Apples / Oranges.

      • Lobster says:

         And Sarah Palin is also objectively an idiot. 

    • rattypilgrim says:

       I stopped watching Maher a few years ago. He can be very funny but also very annoying, even maddening with his sexist name calling. I know he just donated 1 million dollars to the Obama campaign but back in the day he leaned too much toward the Libertarian for my tastes.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      I don’t pay for HBO.  Therefore, I’m boycotting Bill Maher.

      Good enough for ya, or are you going to move the goalposts?

    • grimc says:

      You should contact Netflix and tell them to pull all their ads from HBO. It’s so crazy, it just might work!

    • tyger11 says:

       Maher’s comments about Sarah Palin have nothing to do with her being a woman, but with her being a terrible human being that happens to be a woman.

      • billstewart says:

        I haven’t listened to Maher enough after he moved off of regular TV channels to know what he said about Palin, but he has made enough sexist remarks over the years that it wouldn’t surprise me if he said some about her.

        That’s separate from whether he’s called her an incompetent vain idiot, or joked about whether you can see Rush Limbaugh from her front porch, or accused her of killing Bambi’s mom.  It’s not the highest form of political discourse, but most politicians get hit with the first, and she invited the others herself.   Probably the news/entertainment person who did her the most actual damage was Katie Couric, by showing the public what she’s like when she’s offstage and doesn’t have a teleprompter and trying to hand her friendly softball questions which she fumbled.

    • Lobster says:

       Just because they’re hypocrites doesn’t make them wrong.  If it’s right to boycott Limbaugh and Maher, then it’s more right to only boycott Limbaugh than it is to boycott neither.

  19. sidb says:

    Mine stays cancelled. They may not support Rush, but a share of every dollar I give them will still be used to support SOPA 2, etc. Hollywood does not get my money, and Netflix gives lots of money to Hollywood.

  20. LogrusZed says:

    I can’t believe how many people are willing to give them a pass before they come out specifically against Limbaugh’s language.

    The notion that the use of blind marketing “Well we gave someone money to advertise our show so we’re not responsible so while our commercials DID appear on his show, and we paid money facilitate that we’re not responsible. Also we’re going to be tepid in our response and not indicate that we disagree with hate-speech.” mitigates responsibility is a line that some of you are choosing to buy.

    They are responsible for where their money goes. They aren’t rubes being duped like some hick being sold mutual funds by a city-slicker huckster. They buy this kind of advertising because it’s slight discount AND because it insulates them from responsibility.

    Seriously, if they can’t be bothered to make a statement against Limbaugh’s language they must think the convictions of some so-called progressives are pretty weak; and looking at the thread they are probably right.

    • twianto says:

      How exactly is relying on an agency irresponsible? I’d rather they do what they are good at and leave advertising to the advertising experts. It’s called efficiency and just plain good business sense. They acted when they were alerted to a problem.

      • LogrusZed says:

         Netflix has a PR department, they are capable of issuing a denial, which was misleading in its initial form; saying “we don’t advertise with so-and-so” is not the same as saying “we bought bulk advertising but did not intentionally advertise with so-and-so”. Limbaugh has been a scumbag for decades, he’s the flagship program on pretty much every radio network that carries him, if you are buying advertising on radio networks that carry him and call yourself a pro in PR/Marketing then you should know enough to state beforehand “We don’t want to be on Rush or Savage’s show”.

        You use the word “irresponsible”, which has a different semantic value than my use of “avoid responsibility” btw; were you trying to shift meaning or are you unaware of this?

        Now I can’t tell if you’re a big Netflix booster, a Rush supporter, or what. If you’re a supporter of Limbaugh then you should understand my desire to vote with my dollars, his audience is big on boycotts (JC Penny/Ellen, etc.) if you’re a Netflix booster…well, why? I said this previously: It’s just videos and movies. Fluff. Shit nobody NEEDS. If ever there was something that you could dump as a consumer over principle this is it. It isn’t even that great of a service or that hard to replace.

        If Netflix supports Limbaugh’s language or sentiment then they can continue to remain silent and I’ll save some money if they don’t let them come out and say it.

        • twianto says:

          Netflix did good. Haters gonna hate.

          They are just a company, and a good one at that.

          That is all.

        • Daniel Smith says:

          If I read you correctly, you want every company that produces products that you might want to buy to vet your political opinions and act proactively to ensure those products are not advertised in a way that might be associated with someone you don’t like?
          Which would require them to pay somebody to do research to ensure this happens, do polling, search the internet for offensive people to avoid, all that kind of thing. And since they are, in fact, a business, they would have to avoid all advertising venues that might offend any of their potential customers. I really don’t see this happening, or even desirable.

    • marilove says:

      So are you going to wait to purchase anything or do anything ever online until every company you do business with says publicly that they are against Limbaugh’s language?  Why are you giving Netflix such a hard time, but not, say, Target?

      Do you shop at Target, btw?  Might want to do some research on what anti-gay groups they support.

      • LogrusZed says:

         Point in fact I don’t shop at Target but that isn’t that relevant as I’m fortunate not to have kids or need to be a big consumer and if you’re someone with a family in an area where Target is your only reasonable option I won’t shit on you over it, same with Wal-Mart or other similarly problematic retailers.

        Netflix isn’t necessary, you don’t NEED streaming videos or DVDs coming to you in the mail. I made this pretty damn clear in my first comment on this subject yesterday: You can easily find other sources (often much better sources) of the media that you can get from Netflix.

        When I was a kid we gave up grapes over principle. ALL grapes. We didn’t get grapes elsewhere, because grapes were grapes. All I’m having to do here is, to carry the metaphor over, get my grapes from somewhere else. Turns out they are either the same quality grapes or often fresher grapes.

        Seriously, what combination of apathy and laziness does Netflix depend on from the consumer for them to not even come out and say “What Limbaugh said was fucked up. Not cool.” Even the Republican candidates have said mildly tepid things against Limbaugh’s language.

      • Actions are about context. The context here in this moment is pressure on the facist mouthpiece of the 1% who spewed his hate a little outside the bounds of plausible deniability from a legal and ethical standpoint. Taking advantage of the moment is critical to chipping away at the facade of lies that float about on the airwaves like pollution for the soul of America. There is no way to vet every profit motivated entity that serves our every need and I dont think anyone is claiming to. If your calling those who are giving Netflix a pass, but not sustaining purity across the board, hypocrites then you are partially correct. Its hypocritical only in the sense that it remains a gesture for change while real change still languishes in the hearts of the dispossessed. The action of attacking the mouthpiece when he is down does some good but is not complete by any means. Getting off the grid, supporting local businesses and putting the benefits to community above the benefits of profits is the only way one might know for sure that the labor and process behind the product(s) were equitable. How we, the industrialized and networked world return to a localized economy with no far away sources of the material things that inhabit the physical space of our lives is an unknown to me truly. It may take severely horrible world events to bring about an end to globalized profit maximization on the back of labor and the environment. International Union solidarity is still in its infancy and consistently broken up by militarized corporate interests.  So marilove if you want the head of Target on a platter best study Marx and Engels or better yet go shake hands with your neighbor and ask them what they are planting this spring.

      •  No, I stopped shopping at Target 2 years ago, after finding out about that.  They are literally up the street from me, but I drive an additional 10 miles to do my grocery and clothes shopping elsewhere, specifically because of their political donations.

  21. hypersomniac says:

    I thought Rush was just given some award by the Canadian Arts?

    • Funk Daddy says:

      I’d guess it was Satirist Fodder of the Year, but there are several Canadians, notably Victor Toews or Fordeux, the wonder twins who would be granted that honour before Limbaugh. 

  22. I enjoy my netflix but if they were giving ad dollars to facists I was going to have to cancel. thanks for the updates!

    • msbpodcast says:

      Rush Limbaugh is NOT a fascist. 

      Fascism is a system of organizing economic activity whereby capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by the state, as opposed to Free Enterprise, where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by private owners, and Socialism, where capital goods are owned by the state and controlled by the state.

      Rush Limbaugh is a fat, stupid, opinionated, sexist, troglodyte ass-hole and not any kind of systematic organization, or systematic or organized, or rational.

      Please get it right.

      • Funk Daddy says:

        So what have you in the GOP, a party that would and has formed governments that are widely controlled by those who privately own goods and service providers yet use the state they control to assure the economic dominance of those in power, themselves? A false free enterprise with corrupted class mobility is as fascist as any out and out fascist government in history.

        Further, no individual is of themselves a systematic organization but should they support such they may be referred to as adherent to that system e.g. I am a proponent of democratic organization with social programs and would probably be referred to as a Social Democrat if someone had to peg me. But I am not a Social Democracy.

        People mess up with fascist, socialist and communist on a regular basis when using them in a derogatory manner, but given Limbaugh’s absolute willingness to use the State wherever possible to selectively further private interests while claiming be otherwise, a fascist he can be pegged.

      • I feel as if your confusing how to apply the ideological term fascism to the real world. To say Rush is not a fascist but he is a “fat, stupid, opinionated, sexist, troglodyte …-….” is counter productive and highly subjective. How does your description of Rush connect the phenomena of his air-wave presence to history? Rush is a fascist mouthpiece of the 1%. I can call him a fascist because the logical endpoint of his racist, xenophobic, corporatist and puritanical spittle is a system commonly defined as Fascism. Regarding your “please get it right” I would say- I am right. While your definitions are technically correct your comprehension of my practical application of the terminology appears confused.

        • Daniel Smith says:

           Characterizing Limbaugh as a “fat, stupid, opinionated, sexist troglodyte asshole” may be subjective, but as msbpodcast points out, it has the advantage of not trying to redefine words. Fascism is decidedly not the goal these particular assholes aim for. Unfortunately for all of us, assholes come in many flavors (sorry for the imagery), not just fascist. Limbaugh definately falls into the elitist moneycrat wing of assholery that absolutely does NOT want the state controlling the market, which makes him not a fascist. Besides, I think one can state quite objectively that he is a fat, sexist, opinionated asshole, and it isn’t much of a reach into the subjective for stupid and troglodyte.

          • “Limbaugh definately falls into the elitist moneycrat wing of assholery that absolutely does NOT want the state controlling the market, which makes him not a fascist.”

            -ok more wrongheaded ideological linguistic technicality hair splitting that turns people away from the tools of ideological contextualization of current political events.

             Rush is an authoritarian nationalist wrapped in a flag  America God and Guns, Kill em All buttneckist who foments political violence to the extreme. He pitches to the everyman his particular brand of snide irreverant hate as a form of blue collar empowerment. If you dont think fascist is accurate, label him a corporatist or a neo-fascist. I dont see any alternate suggestions here, just an attack on the word by way of adhering to its definition outside of a contemporary political context. So if not a fascist then what would you argue he is? Is there anything you contribute beyond nay-saying on fascist label and a string of ironically limbaughish sounding personal attacks of fat stupid asshole etc.

          • Daniel Smith says:

            Words have meanings. If you think asking that words be used in a context that fits their meaning is confusing, just imagine the confusion when people start using words for concepts that aren’t in their definition. I’m sorry you find it wrongheaded to point out that you are using the word for other than its meaning, even when your objection is dressed up in language like “ideological linguistic technicality hair splitting”. As near as I can tell, your definition of fascist is little different than the common definition of the word “asshole”. Perhaps you would care to enlighten as to what the definition would be under an “ideological contextualization of current political events”.

          • Funk Daddy says:

            “Limbaugh definately falls into the elitist moneycrat wing of assholery that absolutely does NOT want the state controlling the market, which makes him not a fascist”

            Exceptions abound, the moneycrats you reference will hold that opinion for as long as they do NOT control some aspect of the State. 

            Where they do control or are able to influence the State they use it in the precise same manner as your technical fascist.

            Professed libertarianism for the sake of opposing political rivals is not libertarianism.

            If you choose to ignore the actions of Limbaugh’s chosen party, which he anoints libertarian, then I suppose he is not a fascist. If you look at the policies, where their control of the State jails more of the middle and underclass while empowering and enriching their own elite, all through governance, you reveal the goal of a fascist state.

            Witness the current copyright battles raging. Or mandatory sentencing, or any of the numerous efforts of Limbaugh and his cohorts, including their attempt to control birth control.

  23. Rachel Mastrapa says:

    Goodwill was on the list.  I donate to them regularly so I sent them an e-mail and a letter in the mail.  I already received an answer:

    Dear Rachel,Goodwill is a non-partisan nonprofit organization. Public service announcements are not paid advertisements and should not be considered endorsements of a particular political or ideological point of view. The Goodwill public service announcement, that aired on WMAL or other stations affiliated with the Rush Limbaugh show, aired without Goodwill’s knowledge or consent. No further Goodwill public service announcements will be aired without our permission.Thank you for your email,Goodwill Industries Customer Service

    • LogrusZed says:

       Goodwill is actually a pretty problematic company. They tread the line as close as possible when it comes to the notion of “nonprofit”, the execs make very huge salaries and while it is true they hire and train a lot of special needs people, so does McDonald’s; meaning they train their own workforce and they get a PR boost and a subsidy for the employment of the disabled. They also channel funds into expanding into areas with existing thrift-stores, sometimes charitable thrift-stores and sometimes for-profit thrift stores get put out of business.

      I’m not a theist of any sort but I do my donating and shopping with a local Catholic thrift-store (William Temple House) because all profits go to things in my community (a domestic violence shelter and counseling services for anger management, victims of abuse, and drug rehabilitation).

      If you’re really interested in working with a good-dooer in your local community there might be other options that are better for you than Goodwill; but if you’re strapped and Goodwill is your only or best option then you got to do what you got to do, still better than most big-box stores (just not as charitable as they would like to be perceived)

      • penguinchris says:

        The quality (from the customer’s perspective) of thrift stores varies wildly. When I lived in SoCal I went to thrift stores all the time and Goodwill had by far the best ones – but also some of the worst. Salvation Army had one decent one, but most weren’t worth going to. The others (including local church-affiliated stores and so on) were mediocre at best. Here in Buffalo, it’s completely different and the Salvation Army stores are the ones I go to the most. In NYC SA and Goodwill are about even, and other local stores are usually worth checking out as well. In the SF area the local stores are definitely the ones to look at.

        If you’re shopping at thrift stores out of necessity, then it doesn’t really matter because you can’t necessarily be choosy. But in some places if you’re boycotting a particular thrift store chain out of principle you may be missing out on the best stuff (like Goodwill’s Classic Closet store in Huntington Beach where all the stuff rich people in the beach cities donate ends up).

        • LogrusZed says:

           I have noted repeatedly that people are going to do what they need to do and I won’t dump on anyone, especially economically disadvantaged people, setting aside more lofty aspects of an ethic I hope we all strive toward out of need.

          I’m really lucky in that I don’t have kids to dress and live in a community that actually has a really great thrift-store like WTH that is a true nonprofit that gives to the community in such a meaningful way that ALSO has really good quality merch and great prices.

      •  Goodwill no longer employs as many special needs and elderly people as it used to.   I don’t shop there as often as I used to for that reason.

        • LogrusZed says:

          I’m not shocked by this but I am saddened that every poster I see on their windows and in the form of advertisement really promotes the idea that they do. But I guess why bother helping people when you can make a convincing poster that implies that you help people?

  24. WillieNelsonMandela says:

    The burden of a public statement or apology in this case lies on whatever news outlet falsely claimed that Netflix was a Limbaugh sponsor. Netflix did nothing wrong and has no reason to issue any sort of statement that might draw any further connection between them and Rush Limbaugh. Those of you giving Netflix a hard time over this would be better off boycotting the actual sponsors of the show.

    • allenmcbride says:

       It was the Atlantic, but they never claimed Netflix was a “sponsor”; they just listened to a broadcast and wrote down the advertisers they heard. I’d say Netflix did do something wrong, if not terribly egregious: They failed to do whatever they’re doing now that will, in their words, “make sure that this error will not happen again”. As for the actual sponsors, I didn’t see any others on the Atlantic’s list (who haven’t already pulled their ads) who would be nearly as likely to get direct business from as many Boingers as Netflix. But I’ll try not to do business with any, should I need a high performance HR solution or a mesothelioma lawyer. :-)

  25. skyhawk1 says:

    Bravo Netflix. I have taken my account off hold.

  26. snagglepuss says:

    I sent a polite-enough letter to Goodwill Industries complaining about their ads during Limbaugh, and after a few hours they sent me a letter assuring me that they had no idea that their ads were played during his show.
    They also assured me that no more of their ads would be played during his show. Good enough for me, as I admit that I have no way of verifying that claim, nor would I subject my brain to it.

  27. Felton / Moderator says:

    Thank the gods.  I’m barely into the second series of Doc Martin.

  28. hostile_17 says:

    Perhaps asking them before the pitchforks would have been more appropriate.

  29. Mordicai says:

    Qwickster on the other hand…LOVES RUSH.  #QwicksterWasEvil #RememberThat?

  30. Nanami says:

    Netflix never has EVER purchased advertising slots with Rush’s show.  Before or after this scandal.  So, Netflix should NOT be added to the list of advertisers who dropped Rush. 

  31. Jason says:

    Of the 86 ad spots on today’s Rush show on flagship station WABC, 3 were dead air (!), 77 were unpaid public service announcements (!!), and 9 were paid ads. (Used to be all paid BTW.) http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/limbaugh-down-to-one-paid-advertiser-in.html

    Of the 9 paid ads, three came from Netflix. 

    Now, I know about network buys. Thing is, why were all the other big buyers able to get their ads pulled, but Netflix couldn’t manage it?

    Coincidentally, Netflix never released an official statement – they just sent emails to two reporters.

    Frankly, I think you’ve been had.

  32. p0tp1ekitty says:

    From Jason:

    Of the 86 ad spots on today’s Rush show on flagship station WABC, 3 were dead air (!), 77 were unpaid public service announcements (!!), and 9 were paid ads. (Used to be all paid BTW.) 

    Of the 9 paid ads, three came from Netflix. 

    Now, I know about network buys. Thing is, why were all the other big buyers able to get their ads pulled, but Netflix couldn’t manage it?

    Coincidentally, Netflix never released an official statement – they just sent emails to two reporters.

    Frankly, I think you’ve been had.

    Exactly. I canceled my account with Netflix 3 days ago, and was sent a snarky little email:
    Netflix has not and does not purchase advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show. We do buy network radio advertising and have confirmed that  two Netflix spots were picked up in error as part of local news breaks during the Rush Limbaugh show. We have instructed our advertising agency to make sure that this error will not happen again.

    Ummm, oh please tell me another one… In the last 3 days they have run ads on Limbaugh’s show 2 different days. I have been a customer of theirs for about 8 or 9 years now, and do not appreciate being lied to. I intend to send them an email every single day until they pull their ads from Limbaugh’s show.
    BTW the email for the Netflix department that handles this is: pr@netflix.com

    • G says:

      Yeah, I gave netflix the benefit of doubt, and I feel I cannot trust them any longer.  It will save me about 400/year, and I am sorry I was ever a loyal customer now.

  33. LogrusZed says:

     You know you’re not even in the first fifty people to say this, right? I guess “dittohead” means parroting stuff over and over again but “parrot-head” is Jimmy Buffet’s IP.

    Secondly you’re pretty unaware of the reality that a lot of liberals (I believe your people call them ‘libs’ or ‘libtards’, because you’re so clever) are quite devided on issues of sexism when it comes from our own humorists and pundits so I’ll just tell you: We don’t all agree on Bill Mahers’ value as a social comentator, same goes with Ed Schultz, George Carlin, etc.

    One thing most of us do seem to agree on: While some Left-wing talking heads say the occasional sexist, racist, or homophobic remark Rush Limbaugh speaks almost exclusively in sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, nationalistic, elitist (anti-poor), language.

    So maybe comparing the one or two things you heard about Bill Maher against the multiple-decade career of stupidity of Limbaugh might win you some of your much vaunted “kudos” from your fellow Ditto-Heads you need to consider that you guys are mostly pretty dumb and easy to impress, so long as you stick to a reactionary script that doesn’t sound like it has ever been to college unless it was part of an MBA program.

Leave a Reply