98 major advertisers say no to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and other right wing radio shows

After witnessing the effectiveness of consumer boycotts against The Rush Limbaugh Show, corporate America has announced it is pulling support of right-wing talk radio.

Ninety-eight major corporations, such as Ford, GM, Allstate, and McDonald’s, have told Premiere Networks (which distributes Limbaugh and many other right-wing radio shows) that they want to advertise exclusively on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).

As John Avlon of The Daily Beast says, "This is big."

201203101439(Photo: Reuters) [Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al.] are playing to a (sometimes literally) dying demographic. Rush & Co. rate best among old, white males. They have been steadily losing women and young listeners, who are alienated by the angry, negative, obsessive approach to political conservations. Add to that the fact that women ages 24–55 are the prize advertising demographic, and you have a perfect storm emerging after Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke comments.

As pressure grows for advertisers and radio stations to drop Rush & Co., there will be much talk about the dangers of censorship, with allies talking about a left-wing “jihad” against Rush (language his brother David Limbaugh has already used).

But the irony is that the same market forces that right-wing talk-radio hosts champion are helping to seal their fate. Advertisers are abandoning the shows because they no longer want to be associated with the hyperpartisan -- and occasionally hateful -- rhetoric.

Rush Limbaugh Scandal Proves Contagious for Talk-Radio Advertisers


  1. Yeeeppppppp….


    In 5…4…3…2…

      1.  I’m waiting to see how long it takes them to try their own boycott and start exhorting wingnuts to stop shopping at anyplace that advertises on MSNBC or The Daily Show –

        Except that I imagine more than a few conservatives own stock in the major corporations that advertise with those shows, as well as the ones who are ditching Rush FuckKnuckle. A backlash boycott will only wind up further hurting them financially, which is where their ethical center is usually located anyway. The pragmatic, self-protective moves and bullshit excuses they’ll soon be making for why they’re balking at “taking a moral stance against liberal advertisers” will be fun to see and hear, as well as parse and analyze.

        1. Look around the conservative blogosphere.  It’s already started, at least in the more extreme blogs; the extremists can’t believe that businesses are rushing to defend a lying slut.

          1. Yeah, conservatives have been boycotting speech they don’t like for years and years, so they can hardly complain about employing it as a form of protest.

    1. The right wing hates the free market. Their ardor for it goes as far as empty rhetoric to win elections. When in power, the actions they take to support free markets are very, shall we say, selective.

  2. If this actually means we may finally see the end of right-wing radio (the extreme kind, anyway), I’m very happy.

    The cynic in me suspects they’ll find a way to hang on for a while longer, though.

    In any case, the next few years will be a great opportunity for more mildly right-wing media people, because radio stations will need something to replace Rush et al. with. Could we see a conservative-yet-reasonable NPR-like broadcaster take over? Something we communists might actually listen to in order to get a different perspective? I suspect not any time soon, but maybe eventually.

    Next target: Fox News. Wouldn’t be surprised if right-wing AM stations broadcast the Fox News audio to fill dead air as Limbaugh, Beck, etc. disappear from radio.

    1.  ” Something we communists might actually listen to in order to get a different perspective?”

      I read the FT and the Economist for just this reason. Also, the WSJ, apart from editorials, is often refreshingly reality based.

      1. Good point, I read the Economist too and enjoy their perspective greatly – especially when I don’t agree.

        It would be great to have something like that widely broadcast in the US, though I suspect some of Limbaugh’s listeners are unreachable by reason.

  3. Ha ha, it is delicious that these hypocrites don’t know what to say when Adam Smith’s invisible hand is up their ass. Sorry guys, the market has spoken and it’s saying loud and clear that people are sick of your close-minded, hate-filled garbage.

  4. Hey Folks, if you would like to hear more of the process and backstory of how this all came together, check out this episode of In Deep with Angie Corio. I talk about how I developed the “Spocko Method” with advertiser alerts explaining why these hosts are hurting the advertisers brands.

    It is not a boycott in the traditional sense, it is convincing advertisers that they should look at what the host is saying, their internal states values, and see if their is a match. If their is not, they can decide to pull the ads. Then they need to know this is NOT censorship. Rush or whomever can say what they want, only they are not funding it.

    Also I make a point to never threaten advertisers, they are your allies. They are being support e of their

  5. Other fine, patriotic American companies will stand up to support these vital programs. Makers of hair oil, rat poison, inexpensive adult diapers, bunion pads, that sort of thing.

    1. Haha. Aren’t old people and their associated physical infirmities disgusting? Personally I think anyone with medical problems, young or old, should just die and leave the rest of us alone…

  6. I guess I should celebrate and get over my sadness that major advertisers did not realize before today that Limbaugh is a drug-addled doctor-shopping hate-filled asshole.

  7. Women age 25-54 are the prize advertising demographic…since when? Men, especially younger men, are much harder to reach. W25-54 make/influence a lot a purchase decisions, true, but advertising is valued according to supply and demand, like everything else. 

    1. Males 18 to 35 are usually described as “all important”.  Maybe that’s only for movies.

      1. For “all important” read “easily separable from larger-than-average disposable income”. 

      2.  It really depends. 18-34 men are great for “positional goods” (designer goods that convey status through price), and for consumer electronics.

        Women head-of-households are the key market for consumer packaged goods.

        The most prized targets are people making a transition from one “lifecycle” to another — eg expectant/new parents, imminent or recent grads, newlyweds, newly retired, etc. The idea is that if you can establish a relationship with someone just as they’re entering a new phase of life, you can command their loyalty throughout — IOW, whatever your diaper your newborn with on day 1, you’re likely to continue to diaper with for the next 50,000-80,000 changes.

        1. That’s a good point – the value of a demographic in building long-term sales. Despite that value, Rush might not get a lot of money for them, because there’s a lot of supply of these “eyeballs.” 

        2. whatever your diaper your newborn with on day 1, you’re likely to continue to diaper with for the next 50,000-80,000 changes.

          So… let’s say (to pick a high number) ten times per day for… 15 to 22 years? Or 20 times per day for 7 to 11 years?

    1. Are you serious? The stars have just aligned perfectly and we have set a precedent in politics, finally drawing a line with the indisputable force of the free market no less. Have your snark, but I for one am celebrating, and seeing what I can do to help make this the standard.

    2. I’m hoping this signals a push for political punditry to be more civil.  I’m too cynical to believe it, but I can still hope for it.

    1. Well, there is that new strategy of appealing to those young, smartalecky “netizens” with things like Reason TV clips that rail in clever ways against Big Government, I mean, the “nanny state.”

        1. They try to lure you with almost sensible, innocuous stories about bad laws regarding food carts/trucks, then the next thing you know you’re screeching about unions and giving the Koch bros. a bj. :)

  8. One of the voices I hear in my head says “oh, man, maybe this will end the demagoguery on the air waves, hooray”, while another one opines that “it will never happen, the attention span of the average american has already been exceeded by this whole affair”

    I half hope I’m right.

  9. Rush has always portrayed himself as a personality who’s been broadcasting his show from a bunker in a remote part of the country.  That’s never been true, but it may someday become true. 

    1.  I also have never taken any advertising from companies who have accepted “bailout money”.

      It’s an easy thing to do when none of them have ever offered me any money.  Much like none of them ever offered Limbaugh any money, so “refusing” their “advertising dollars” doesn’t mean much does it?

  10. I’m a customer of some of these companies, and I’m going to write notes telling them I applaud their choice to avoid these polarizing and mean spirited avenues of discussion.

  11. I love how all of these advertisers jumped all-in with Rush Limbaugh or any other controversial personality and then get shocked when they do their thing. Did they not expect Rush to be a hate monger or Stern not to be a potty mouth? It’s like putting a man in a cage with a tiger and getting pissed when the tiger eats him. 

    1. It’s probably less that they were shocked by what anyone said, and more that a bunch of people complained to them about it. I doubt companies care what the people on the shows they advertise on say unless many consumers are threatening to boycott. 

      It’s like advertising your wares at an event where a man is put in a cage with a tiger, and then not doing so when your customers tell you how much they hate gladiatorial sports.

  12. Soon to be heard on the Rush Limbaugh show:  “And your pledge of only  a dollar a day gets you both the tote bag AND the umbrella…”

  13. “corporate America has announced it is pulling support of right-wing talk radio.”

    Awesome. I knew people would like corporate America, if they just gave ’em a chance!

  14. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. WOULDN’T happen to a nicer guy.

    It has also been pointed out that, unlike ads from the politicians themselves, there is nothing requiring stations to carry ads underwritten by PACs. Time to start holding the stations accountable for fact-checking such ads and rejecting any that are flat-out wrong.

  15. well, why dont we wait and see what and who is on the air a month from now. And more  crucial to the topic: who is sponsoring them. I would be very, very surprised if Limbaugh is off the air a month from now. Not taking a side, Im just very skeptical about standing triumphant over the corpse of conservative talk radio this soon.

    1. I agree. He still has tons of listeners. So there’s too much money to be made off his fetid carcass to toss it aside just yet.

  16. You’re cheering the anticipated silencing of a commentator you disagree with; but just a few stories later you’re touting a documentary featuring controversial comedian Lenny Bruce and his contribution to free speech.  Tell me how that’s not a hypocritical position…

      1. I’m not speaking to Rush’s talent, popularity or lack thereof.  A true liberal embraces free speech independent of popularity or content.  In the 60’s there were many who cheered Lenny Bruce’s obscenity conviction and were hoping he would never be heard from again.  However, that thankfully wasn’t the case and we can still enjoy his works. 

        If I don’t want to listen to Bruce, I can turn off my device.  If I want his works removed from public discourse, I’m trying to prevent YOU from hearing him and I would never be that disrespectful.  That’s the common denominator of all who would burn books or otherwise silence debate; they don’t want others to hear things they themselves disagree with.

        So your answer doesn’t help, grimc.  Please convince me that silencing those you disagree with is good…

        1. What about women’s free speech? I mean, the purpose of Rush Limbaugh’s tirade was to silence Ms. Fluke and any other women who might be called on to testify to congress.

          Calling women who advocate for keeping abortion legal “murders” and women who advocate for contraceptives “whores” is slander designed to deter women from speaking out on those issues.

        2.  Lenny Bruce was arrested and tried for saying obscene things. He fought for his right to say those things. Rush isn’t arrested or (at least legally) tried. He is merely feeling the economic backlash of opening his mouth too much. Taking away his money isn’t the same as silencing him. In fact, if he ends up being taken off the air, it still isn’t silencing him. He still has the internet and any other media outlet he can buy to be heard.
          However, freedom of speech does not include entitlement to money for saying it, or a pulpit to say it from.

        3. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns and operates one.  If Rush wants to fund this himself,  he’s certainly entitled to be as much of an idiot as he wants (and others are entitled to object as much as they want.)  If he wants to be paid — or, for that matter, listened to — he has to consider what his audience will support emotionally and/or financially.

          A boycott is ENTIRELY within the rules of the game. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to object to speech we find offensive.

          The question isn’t whether people disagree with him, it’s whether he has overstepped a line where even those who might agree with him find him unsupportable. And that seems to be what is happening. Finally.

      2.  Limbaugh is EXACTLY the type of person who would ruthlessly censor and silence Lenny Bruce, while fighting like hell against anybody who would expect Limbaugh himself to subscribe to the same standards that he would force on to someone like Bruce.

        That’s the Big Difference. And if you think it isn’t, you don’t deserve somebody like Lenny Bruce in your life.

    1. Limbaugh has every right to his free speech, and listeners have every right to explain to the advertisers that they’ll take their ears elsewhere if they have to keep listening to his hateful drivel. Nobody is shutting Limbaugh down, but if he can’t sell his trash talk anymore, who will pay for his radio slot? Someone who can still attract advertisers.

    2. Who exactly is “you”?  This is Mark’s post; the Lenny Bruce post is Cory’s.  Unlike Mr. Limbaugh’s supporters, people here have independent opinions.

      1. By you, I was referring to Boing Boing.  I apologize if I assumed the two posts were at least connected somewhat ideologically, especially if Cory has a different take on Limbaugh’s potential silence. 

        By the way, I would myself a “supporter” of Rush and I have independent opinions.  If you were truly independent yourself, you wouldn’t assume all people who listen to Rush would possess the same negative attribute; that would constitute prejudice…

        1. you wouldn’t assume all people who listen to Rush would possess the same negative attribute; that would constitute prejudice…

          No, that would constitute the ability to put two and two together and get four.

    3.  As near as I can recall, Lenny Bruce never tried to silence testimony before congress by repeatedly characterizing a witness as a slut or a prostitute. Free speech indeed.

    4. Since when does free speech mean you have to get paid to speak? Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he likes, and I have the right to tell his advertisers I won’t buy their products. 

    5. Limbaugh will in no way be shut up. He will be just as available as anyone else on the internet. He will simply get paid less. This is in no way censorship.

  17. It sounds like 98 corporations will be asking for bailouts soon …

    … unless this is another hoax.

    1. How do you figure? From a business perspective, these corporations have decided the furthest fringe that Rush et al cater to are not worth the social cost of associating their product with madness only truly appreciated by gazing into the eyes of Cthulu. Seems like a simple trade off. Unless you mean to say the GOP will seek to “punish” these corporations for their insubordination, in which case, that would be extremely interesting to see.

  18. re: ” “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial”

    Who decides what is “offensive or controversial”?  So media should be sterile and superficial? Nothing to make one think too much? Do you black list a program from one controversial topic? And I am not talking about Rush’s idiotic slandering. I’m talking about programs (of any political slant) with a controversial topics – which is pretty much all of them.

    It seems to me the people putting out the memo know the request is bullshit when they say, “Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public.”

    In other words – just about everything out there.

      1. Yep.  Feel free to contact those advertisers and tell them you’ll boycot if they _don’t_ support Limburger. I think you’ll find that when people are voting with their buying preferences, you’re outvoted on this one.

        (Clint: Sorry about the confusing wording. We’re in agreement. My suggestion to try a counterboycot — go ahead, just try, I dare ya — was directed to those who are defending Limburger.

        1. Do you have a point? Feel free to contact Mcdonald’s and tell them you’ll boycot them if they support cheesburgers. I think you’ll find that they cater to the majority of their customers, not to the one person with an opinion different from everyone else. This isn’t the government. This is business. Business does what its customers want. I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. I get what you are saying, but it ceases to be any kind of point for me.

  19. Bringing Stern into this is very strange indeed since he already lost his job due to a withdrawal of advertisers and now depends on subscribers at his new job.  To claim that’s a double standard in relation to Rush can only mean you’re surprised Rush hasn’t lost his job YET.

  20. “[…] alienated by the angry, negative, obsessive approach to political conservations.”

    Slippery Sigmund ;)

  21. So let me understand this. You believe that it is a good thing that major corporations should control what is communicated in the media to a greater extent than they already do? What happens if they start championing a cause you don’t agree with?

    1. You believe that it is a good thing that major corporations should control what is communicated in the media to a greater extent than they already do? What happens if they start championing a cause you don’t agree with?

      If corporations start? Funny thing is, they were, and they still do.

    2.  They are choosing what they will pay for. Is that not what Rush himself stands for? These corporate people are choosing not to pay for the bad press that they don’t want.

      I hope you’re not suggesting that the market is in some way unfair and Rush’s show is in some need of SPECIAL  protections.

      1. No, it certainly doesn’t need special protections.
        However, you should be more careful of legitimising influence by proxy, as this can work both ways.
        I personally think the best way to guarantee free speech is to pay for output. That way, if you don’t like it, you can stop buying it.
        If however the output is ad supported, or license fee supported, then you can’t easily express your approval or disapproval. You have to go via a proxy, and then it will come down to who has more influence, not who holds the majority view. On this occasion, the outcome is favourable, but the mechanism used to achieve it is more likely, in my view, to pander to extremists in the long term. After all, what is easier, persuade a large number of people to agree with you, or hassle a corporation so that they feel “this isn’t worth it, let’s run for cover”?

    3. I just don’t buy the stuff they make.  I haven’t bought a Murdock owned newspaper in a while.

  22. Lets not get confused here, these people are loosing thier advertisers not because of their politics but because of the way they express them.

    Being conservative or right wing does not mean you have to start calling women sluts. That is not politics, that’s just being an asshole.

  23. This is getting ridiculous.  Why would you take away ads from all right wing programs? I mean this is medieval, guilt by association and war of ideologues.

    I don’t have anything against them taking off ads from Limbaugh for his comments, but this is ridiculous!

    1.  There has been a noticeable rise in the harshness of the language of public political discourse in this country for many years, and this is not the first time it has been decried. But this time the language used in a political commentary was so egregiously over the top that public outrage became public action. Perhaps punching these “political commentators” right square in the wallet can reduce the incendiary language. Perhaps (and  I chuckle at myself for my starry-eyed optimism) political debate can back down from its current state of primarily being the hurling of insult and calumny and actually become a discussion of ideas. Ok, I know, that asks far too much.

      1. Yeah, but why target right wing only? And I’m a libertarian I don’t like all these neocon warmongers, but if we talk about faul language the left pundits are full of it !!!

        I have a feeling like this is a political assault on right wing talk show hosts and I don’t even agree with their notions!

        1.  I’m with you. While I’d be less upset if an asshole like Bill Mauher (sp) was on a list like this – it still wouldn’t be right.

          We saw this before – when they black listed actors they thought were commies.

          1. I’m not for giving anyone a pass on bad actions. This is not about foul language, this is about using a bully pulpit as a platform to attack a private citizen in an attempt to silence her and derail ongoing political discussions. The exact language  used is incidental, and had he referred to Ms Fluke as a woman of low morals and criminal sexuality rather than a slut and a prostitute the attack would have been just as over the top. The ongoing and endless ad hominems that make up what passes for political discourse for some pundits is reprehensible, no matter what their political affiliation. As to why those on the left would target those on the right…I think that answers itself.

        2. Of course, all political ideologies have their share of loud and annoying hosts. However, the Republicans are actually dangerous in their notions. Jon Stewart and Colbert aren’t dangerous, they’re loud and funny, but the ideas they preach aren’t trying to regress us to the stone age and they’re comedians first.

          Libertarians speak about their ideas, however unlike Limbaugh, Hannity and friends, they have basis for their ideas other than hate and bashing the other sides. Just take a look at the GOP candidates, they’re both uninformed and dangerous to the well being of our society.

          I’m glad that right wing talk shows are being squelched.

  24. I realize that corporations are now considered to be persons (at least insofar as is beneficial to them), but I think it’s folly to applaud them here. There was nothing personal about this. Only business. And business is about managing capital and resources–including human resources.

    The chance that there were any moral deliberations involved are slim to none. Why else, as others have noted, were these corporations advertising during Rush’s airtime to begin with?

    It’s good business to rile up the consumers–from mere mouth breathing to frothing–but only to a point. Get ’em too zealous, and they may turn against the corporate department marketed to us as “government”. Don’t prod ’em enough though, and they’ll lapse in their labors, service, and consumption.

    IMO, the roles of the mouthpiece, sock puppet, and aspiring demagog are not at all endangered due to this. The smoke-filled backrooms where deals are made and fates are decided? Yeah, Rush’s cigar is likely to be glowing brightly in one, even (especially?) now. What he’s said won’t be unsaid, and the shitstorm of publicity and furthering of the public divide will pay dividends not solely measured in money.

    Sorry McDonalds et al., but nothing has changed in my regard for you.

  25. Rush is the stepchild of FCC deregulation that opened the floodgates to conservative and greedy corporate America to dominate our “public” airwaves. Any “local” host that did this in decades past would’ve been fired due to local listener outrage covered by local press. 

  26. Years ago a radio station in the San Francisco area ran a talk format that had consistently good ratings. It was dropped and replaced by an MOR music format. The reason was that advertisers were reluctant to run spots never knowing what they’d be adjacent too. A mouth-jock could say something defamatory that would reflect on an advertiser. Having figured that out 30 years ago it tells you ad agencies have very short memories. And consider, how many more gold coins and hand guns can you sell to this audience?

    1. I’ve been listening to SF Bay Area radio for over 40 years and your story doesn’t sound familiar. What station?

  27. The original basis of Mark’s post is this advertising placement memo:

    To all Traffic Managers:

    The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory.
    More than 350 different advertisers sponsor the programs and services provided to your station on a barter basis. Like advertisers that purchase commercials on your radio station from your sales staff, our sponsors communicate specific rotations, daypart preferences and advertising environments they prefer…They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public.”

    Read that memo carefully. It’s not just Rush that’s affected, it’s all political speech. Both sides  lose as advertisers reduce their exposure to alienating either portion of their customer base.  It’s as predictable an outcome as a sunrise and yet I was labeled a troll for stating the obvious a few days back. You might want to listen to Bill Maher’s thoughts on your boycott:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15cG8SihV8Q

      1.  But – This is not about SILENCING Limbaugh, or anyone else.

        It’s about putting corporations, who hold too much influence over the public political discourse by funding it’s most outrageous practitioners (at the cost of other, less inflammatory broadcasters), on notice that from now on it will cost them to do so.

        If that dials back the deliberate obfuscation of vital facts and realities that right-wing radio is so expert at, and allows more honest and trustworthy viewpoints to not be drowned out, then that’s a good thing.

        1. Advertising money is kind of the carrot hung in front of the intemperate-radio-host horse, right? Shrinking the carrot doesn’t seem like a bad idea.

        2. This is not about SILENCING? 

           If  the goal was just to “dial back”, he apologized.

           But that wasn’t enough. The left wants him off the air. This is most definitely about silencing him.

          It’s censorship no matter how you try to guild it and it cuts both ways. HBO is now under attack by the right because they disapprove of Maher. 

          This whole affair has become absurd as both extremes duke it out. The net loser is going to be political speech.  

          1. You call what he released an “apology” ?

            Try to see it this way:

            You call my polite, community-minded daughter a “slut” because she disagrees with you.

            You sneer at demands that you apologize, so I kick you in the balls.

            You “apologize”, and then turn around and say that it’s her fault that you called her a “slut”.

            I kick you in the balls again, harder. So does her uncle and several of his friends.

            You then accuse US of trying to censor you, and that YOU’RE the victim in all of this.

            Tell me… At what point do you accept ANY responsibility for what’s happening to you ?

    1. It’s odd how everyone defending Rush in this thread seems to think that everyone who is happy about advertisers pulling support would care about anything Maher says.

      Is Maher somehow supposed to be the anti-Rush?  I don’t think he’s a nice enough guy for that.

      1. Bill Maher had that 9-11 thing, so he’s the standard-bearer for the Bad Left. Since he’s a comedian, he’ll consistently say things that don’t go over, which gives his opponents cause to maintain the stereotype. “BUT BILL MAHER” is the thought process.

  28.  In the last couple of years it seems there is been a build up of assaults on our rights to free speech and Access to information, this is after we were promised transparency in government. If you look back to a couple of years ago you’ll see that politicians wanted to silence talk show hosts because they were exposing what the government was up to, once they are silenced government and business can pass laws to close off the other routes of information that we have.

    Access to that information has put a crimp in their plans for ACTA and SOPA. Big business and the government are trying to make end runs around the Constitution  by passing bills that will ultimately limit our rights to information and free speech.

     This incident should have demanded  an apology from Rush, instead it’s become a banner program to eliminate freedom of speech in the form of talk show hosts, as with anything else, if it offends you, just turn it off.
     This just like walking up steps, we lose bits of freedom a step at a time, when they get to the top of the stairs we will have no freedom left.

    1. it’s become a banner program to eliminate freedom of speech in the form of talk show hosts

      Y’all keep using that term, “freedom of speech”. I do no think it means what you think it means.

    2. Freedom of speech is not the same as “freedom to have 98 corporations pay you for your speech”.  Are you really that small in the brain?

    3. Except, Limbaugh himself is already completely in favor of denying that same right to Free Speech to anyone who disagrees with him. Don’t forget that Limbaugh was in favor of SOPA and PIPA, as long as it would be selectively applied to people that he and his friends didn’t like.

      This is a pretty fucking clear-cut case of one asshole’s endorsement of unfair practices turning around and biting him in the ass.

      Are there authoritarians who will consider this an opportunity to further their desires to strip away our rights? Yes, there are. They see EVERYTHING as an excuse to strip us of our constitutional rights. That doesn’t mean that they will SUCCEED.
      Plenty of Americans are aware of the irony in Limbaugh being groin-kicked by the Free Market he defends, and they are also aware of the connections between Limbaugh and those same authoritarians. They are alert to the dangers of further, more bitter irony if they allow an economic boycott of a bastard who over-reached to be twisted into a rights-denying piece of legislation by those who have always benefited from the antics of that same over-reaching bastard.

      The Bottom Line is – We cock-blocked SOPA and PIPA, and we’ll do the same to any sonofabitch who tries to punish us for dropping the hammer on Limbaugh.

    4.  This incident should have demanded  an apology from Rush

      Rush did issue an “apology”.  His wording showed that he was absolutely convinced he did nothing wrong, and he used the “apology” to continue to attack the strawman argument he created by attacking Fluke in the first place.

      Rush has the freedom to do this, and say these things, naturally.  However, everyone who is disgusted with him also has the freedom to speak loudly about it as well.  Sometimes that speech is in the form of saying that we don’t want to fund companies who funnel money towards Rush, and that we’re willing to stop buying products to accomplish that.

      If Rush loses the megaphone he’s been using to shout louder than everyone else, that won’t mean his freedom of speech has been eliminated.

    5.  I’ll take Limbaugh’s freedom to spew hate and raise you my freedom to tell those I spend my money with that I’ll stop spending it with them if they keep subsidizing such verbal diarrhea. Nobody is trying to gag Limbaugh, they are just saying they are tired of paying to hear him and others like him. Freedom is a funny thing that way. 

  29. Over the last 20 years or so, ownership and control of the radio industry, with the blessing of the FCC has become concentrated into the hands of a few corporations deticated to maximizing advertizing revenue while allowing only marketing-proved content to to be broadcast to listeners. This has eliminated regional and cultural differences in programming so that you hear the same music and programming where ever you go. The exception was public broadcasting stations. But that too is now becoming standardized and managed by a few, politically connected executives.

    The reality is that censorship by media executives now exists where content is so controlled whereby no one is exposed to ideas and speach contrary to the what scientific research and advertizing revenue permits. This may explain why internet content is becoming more and more popular, while newspapers and other traditional news and music distributions institutions are following the way of the buggy-whip companies.

  30. I think this was bound to happen eventually.  It seems like Beck in particular was always trying to up the ante, get more and more outrageous, to where he jumped the shark, and even Fox News dropped him.  Similarly, Rush has been able to say whatever he wants for years with little concern for who it offends, so he was bound to eventually cross a line even he couldn’t repair with an apology. 

    What I find more disturbing is how many other conservative pundits jumped on the bandwagon, defending Rush and repeating his language.  I don’t know whether they take their cues from him (considering how admired he is in that crowd), or if he actually got those “slut” talking points from some conservative think tank, but so much of the conservative punditry/blogosphere were all in lock-step with each other.  I’m guessing they have all just bought into this mind-state where they think either “what is the proper conservative viewpoint here?” or perhaps “well, if liberals are FOR this then we must be AGAINST it.”  Even Ann Coulter has said denigrating things about women over the years, which really makes me think they are slaves to an invented political creed, and don’t actually think about whether what they believe is true or not.  It reminds me of Mao and the Soviets.

    Whether I am pragmatic or just pessimistic I don’t know, but I tend to doubt these boycotts will really change anything in the long run.

    1. A single boycott won’t change anything.”But if one and one and fifty make a million…”

      It’s a start. Let’s see if we can make it a sustained action.

  31. Y’know, I’m sorta amused. The Right has been insisting that money is speech, because they want to use their money to push their messages.  With this incident, they’re now trying to argue that money is _not_ speech and that withholding it is unjustifiable.

    Can’t have it both ways, folks. Freedom to speak includes freedom to withhold speech.

  32. In abstract I’m actually for controversial speech, including “Hate Speech” but I’m no fan of Rush and see through him and the others.

    “One man’s opinion”, (as another of them says to avoid slander suits) Rush and the others aren’t “Right” per-se but rather are “Sock Puppets”…  If somehow like in Seuss’s Grinch that stole Christmas something warmed their heart and it grew, well they’d not get word ONE on the air.  Again, “One Man’s Opinion” but that if they started changing “Right winger to Liberal” even though (at least short term) it’d be incredible for ratings, they wouldn’t get word one on the air.  They stop reading the script from the elites, out the door with a pink slip and thousands of wanna-be’s can take their place…

    The real push should be to get Clear Channel broken apart by “Monopoly” laws.  Anti-Trust rather.  If what they have isn’t a monopoly, nothing is.  And they use it to just output what they feel as part, “One man’s Opinion” of a political agenda.  A real simple one “Distract the public and overall support the short-term profit of the rich elite”…  OMO again…  And the end result is a “Paylist” on the music channels so repetitive you can set your watch by it and then the “Variety” of the hate speech “Talk show” channels mixed with sports and religion.   Oh, and the commercials.  Most of them, it’s 20 minutes or more out of the hour and because they are owned by the same company, you can’t change channels to avoid them!

    I think we should have many, many smaller stations that in any town above the cliche “One Horse” town have to COMPETE for ratings, advertisers, etc.   And I do believe in freedom of speech, even “Hate Speech”.  I’m sure Rush and those like him would still have stations, but just a handful of them in an area, like the south east.

  33. Why would they? Did Howard Stern or Bill Maher spend three days spewing inaccurate, malicious hate & bigotry, all at one private individual?

    … because you can’t equate that with a few snarky comments about a politician. No-one’s demanding an outright end to people being mean in public; but there’s a line, and Limbaugh unquestionably crossed it.

    Stern & Maher, though? I don’t see it.

  34. Limbaugh’s 3-day sexually-abusive tirade against a private citizen is the just the tip of a racist, homophobic, misogynistic 200-ton iceberg of seething hate. It’s finally starting to sink. Stern and Maher are merely sleazy. Also, they’re both libertarians, not Democrats, so they really are in your camp anyway. You can have ’em both.

  35. Based on the fact that Rush still has a job, not to mention Beck, Hannity, Savage, and the entirety of Fox News … I’m gonna go ahead and say yes, Maher would still have a job.

    And no, it’s not okay that Maher said that. It’s also not equivalent to what Rush said about Fluke.

  36.  But he didn’t though did he TeaTard?

    I’m really sick of you fools making your arguments upon contrived scenarios.  What part of he’s a “libertarian” & thus yours didn’t you understand?

  37. You can still disagree with Maher and understand that what Limbaugh did is worse. Do you feel that punching a person and murdering them deserve the same sentence, because they are both ‘acts of violence’?

    Seeing in black and white without perspective must be hard, do you find yourself bumping into things often?

  38. I have to say as someone who has been reading BB for close to a decade just quit while you aren’t getting buried in a flaming pile of replies…(and this is coming from someone who leans to the right.)

    -I come for the content, not the political commentary.

  39. Stern and Maher also do not repeatedly and intentionally flat-out lie to their viewers about political facts, important scientific realities and current social issues..

  40. If it’s their schtick, they’re proud of it, and they’re not going down like a ton of bricks, that suggests society does not currently deem them offensive or controversial.

    Or at least not offensive or controversial enough for movements to get them off the air to pick up any steam. Shades of gray an’ all that.

  41.  I’m not a big fan of either Stern or Maher –

    But Maher makes me laugh quite a lot.  He should – he’s a comedian.  Which is a far cry from the self-annointed defacto head of your entire GOP Republican party.

    But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of your weak FALSE EQUIVALENCE. It’s very entertaining to see you right wingers contort yourselves into the craziest positions to mitigate the vileness of Limbaugh’s actions & deny your culpability. :)

  42. He covered that by demanding that advertisers refuse to buy time on anything he’s associated with. In for a penny, in for a pound.

  43. More to the point- only one of these camps has made their misogynistic remarks in the midst of lobbying for legislation that strips women of pretty basic civil rights.  I think that’s what a lot of people are missing here, about why this time is different than so many of the past incidents.  

    Horrible, rude, offensive, misogynistic attacks are terrible.  But issuing them while advocating legislation that makes that misogyny real, that strips women of decades of hard won legal rights?  That’s really different.  And I think a lot of people are responding to that just as much as the specific epithets.  

    And that’s why Limbaugh’s “apology” rings so hollow.  An “apology” for his “poor word choice” in reference to a single person doesn’t really mean much if he’s still supporting discriminatory actions and laws targeting half the country.

  44. If you’re looking for a libertarian media figure, the only true figures I can think of are Penn Gilette and John Stossel. In order to be a libertarian you have to actually understand the philosophy; it goes beyond merely wanting to legalize pot. It’s easy for a douchebag to claim they are a libertarian for some cheap street cred.

    That being said, what makes you think that libertarians are in anyone’s ‘camp’?

    Consider the candidate whose message is gaining most traction with millions of people on the right: Santorum. He has specifically come out denouncing the evils of libertarianism repeatedly in the past. He is as anti-libertarian as you could get. So was Dubya, who is still widely popular on the right. 

    Or consider the widespread shutting out, denounciation, voter fraud, dismissal, etc. that the mostly libertarian Paul has received from the GOP/right wing in general.

    What makes you think that libertarianism has anything to do with the right?

    Right vs. Left is a divide and conquer tactic that keeps the people weak. Don’t be sucked in by it.

  45. That’s going over the top. 

    What Sandra Fluke was advocating was a law mandating (forcing) all insurance companies, public or private, to provide contraception care.

    This is, in effect, mandating what basket of services a private supplier provides.

    It is in the same class as a law that mandates that all happy meals must come with french fries.

    Calling this a ‘basic civil right’ distorts and abuses that term, as progressives are wont to do.

    Is this really what women have been fighting for for decades? A law that mandates their insurance companies must buy them the pill? Is that really the core of the feminist battle?

    Especially considering it is a ‘basic civil right’ they have had for about three months or so, that was enacted in a totally unconstitutional manner.

    Maybe I am missing something in the story.

    I oppose the contraception mandate, but I do so because I oppose government meddling in private affairs; opposing it on moralistic grounds as Limbaugh and others have done is disgusting, ineffective, and hypocritical.

  46. Alright, consider a law mandating that cars must anchors for baby seats. There are any number of similar examples one could give.

    Would it be a violation of the civil rights of parents to oppose such a law?

  47. You missed the part where he called someone who was testifying to congress about something you and he disagreed with a slut and a whore.  You missed the part where he demanded that she post videos online of her having sex for him to watch. 

    It is much like some of your fellow right wing commentators trying to control the conversation by throwing out names of people on the left and a few buzzwords.  There was a chance to debate the topic of insurance covering birth control. There will be more chances. This isn’t one of them.

    This is about advertisers deciding that it is not in their interest to support people who make false equivalences and attack those they disagree with in what many of us consider vulgar terms.

    Do you have anything to add that’s on topic?

  48. You are missing something in the story.  Women are actually paying for health insurance that doesn’t cover health care that is unique to women. Men on the same plans are complaining because they don’t want to pay for women’s health care even though women are also contributing to the pool that covers the men’s health care.

    Yes, this is what women have been fighting for for decades: ending discrimination. But given your argument I can only assume that you also oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that mandates that businesses that provide services to the public can’t discriminate on the basis of sex.
    I take oral contraceptives as prescribed by my doctor and I’m a lesbian without ovaries. And the reason I don’t have ovaries is because I should have been taking oral contraceptives since I was 11 to prevent ovarian cysts. I had to have my ovaries removed and now I take oral contraceptives as hormone replacement therapy.

    Had you listened to Ms. Fluke’s testimony you might have learned that many women take oral contraceptives for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. Not that it’s any of your business, but now it is your’s and everyone’s business as I have to explain to everyone why I have to take birth control. I WILL start menopause (at the age of 34) if I have any lapse in my prescription. But lets not meddle in private affairs or anything.

  49. I oppose government meddling in private affairs

    In doing so, you support the church meddling in private affairs.

  50. “Maybe I am missing something in the story.”
    That it’s a religious freedom issue.

    Employment isn’t something that people can easily leave.  Therefore the argument is that it shouldn’t be something that allows others to dictate their religious convictions to you.  We try not to let companies discriminate on sex, race, or religion, so why would we let an employer say you can’t get certain medical treatments because they morally object to them?

    What the lady in was testifying about was that birth control pills have other medical uses.  She was testifying about her friend’s ovarian cysts, not her own sex habits.  So the entire slut/whore thing was completely fueled by misogyny.

    The insurance companies WANT to provide birth control.  Religious employers were specifically saying “We’ll only buy plans that don’t include it”

    Ok, so you might oppose Obamacare for whatever reason.  Hell, I think many other things would be way better, sure, but my preferences would mostly destroy a large industry, whereas Obamacare supports it, whatever.  But if you’re willing to take at face value that Obama wants people to have access to health care (not that we should, that’s a bigger question), then you should be able to understand fixing a loophole where some people are being denied healthcare they actually need for health reasons, because of someone else’s religious preferences that are outside of their control (especially if their options are “don’t get this care” or leave their job and don’t get any care because they can’t find work).

    It’s fixing a loophole in current policy.  A loophole that’s controversial because of religious and misogynistic reasons.

    Especially when viagra (also used to treat medical conditions) is covered.

  51. You have no responses to IphinomeIphinome, GrrrlRomeo, or GTMoogle, I see.  We’ll take that as a concession.

  52.  “What makes you think that libertarianism has anything to do with the right?”
    This is an easy one.  Libertarians caucus with the Republicans.  Mostly libertarian Ron Paul votes with Republicans 74% of the time.  The “Liberty Caucus” is a composed of Republicans.  So while you have the luxury of pretending independence, functionally, you’re working for the Man.

  53. If you’re looking for a libertarian media figure, the only true figures I can think of are Penn Gilette and John Stossel. 

    If you’re trying to sell an ideology, you may want to try to conjure up a better poster boy.  

  54. And given that Sasha’s avatar is “Ron Paul is a badass!”, I’m guessing that in the end he/she will be just be marking “R” at the polls….lol.

  55. Yeah and there is a difference with being mean to politicians  than it is being mean to private citizens. 

  56.  Adequately answered above. If you want to be listened to, it’s your job to say it in a way that makes the audience want to listen. Walking away does not constitute infringement of your ability to speak.

Comments are closed.