Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am
Contact:

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Rich Schultz » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:12 pm

If Rabble wants to use advertising dollars as an indicator that some guys are real smart and other guys can't figure it out, I thought it might be helpful to point out using that indicator indicated the opposite of what Mr. Rabble thought he was indicating.

Earlier in the day Mr. Rabble volunteered to keep an eye on my credibility so I figured I would return the favor.

Bill Maher, by the way got an entire show (Politically Correct) canceled when Fed EX and Sears were offended by him. (And what decent person wouldn't be).

"Do you believe that FoxNews is unbiased or do you think they tilt a bit to the right?"
pjbogart

I'm sorry, Mr. Bogart. Is it obligatory to fill out the questionnaire and provide references before a discussion can proceed?

David Marshall
Forum Addict
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby David Marshall » Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:51 pm

Rich, thanks a bunch. You contributions to this thread really help illustrate the depressing notion that I was trying to get at in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=54275

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3541
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby DCB » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:53 pm

pjbogart wrote:And using Jon Stewart's interview with Chris Wallace as proof that Stewart hides behind his comedian status is disingenuous...etc

True enough. And I mostly agree with the 'etc'.

But not even the most relevant point. To me the main issue is Rush's position as the voice of the Republican party. If he were just some random shock-jock shooting his mouth off, nobody would care.

But the Republicans know they have to kowtow to his agenda. When confronted with his mean-spirited comments, both Santorum and Romney were afraid to come out and "he's a nasty dick".

If some reporter were stupid enough to ask a Democratic politician something like "Do you agree with Stewart's association of Sarah Palin with Herpes?", what kind of response would you get?

So the analogy is stupid.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7017
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby pjbogart » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:56 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:"Do you believe that FoxNews is unbiased or do you think they tilt a bit to the right?"
pjbogart

I'm sorry, Mr. Bogart. Is it obligatory to fill out the questionnaire and provide references before a discussion can proceed?


It's a pretty short questionnaire and I think it's a fair question. I'm perfectly willing to admit that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are liberal shows mixing politics and humor. They probably aren't the ideal place to arm yourself for a serious debate. If you're not willing to admit that FoxNews tilts to the right and therefore isn't completely "fair and balanced" then I don't know why anyone would take you seriously. I could start a political argument at a professional wrestling tournament, but it seems hardly worth the effort. Victories can never be stronger than your opponent, can they?

If you'd like me to expand my questionnaire, I'd be happy to oblige. Do you agree with Meade that Adolph Hitler was a liberal?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13511
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby snoqueen » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:56 am

Here's another interesting angle:

Is there a point beyond which a show, or an entertainer, will tilt and start to lose so many advertisers that management says "clean it up or get dropped?"

We see for now there is, though it'll vary by the show, the network, and the advertisers. So what we've got here is an effective, decentralized, publicly controlled moderating mechanism. And I mean moderating in several senses.

Will it work indefinitely, or will advertisers divide themselves in two factions like just about everything else? Will advertisers decide it doesn't matter that much and quit paying attention? Or will people give up and quit paying attention to who advertises where? And will wealthy patrons bail certain entertainers out, which is never impossible these days? We'll find out.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Huckleby » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:12 am

snoqueen wrote:Is there a point beyond which a show, or an entertainer, will tilt and start to lose so many advertisers that management says "clean it up or get dropped?"

We see for now there is, though it'll vary by the show, the network, and the advertisers. So what we've got here is an effective, decentralized, publicly controlled moderating mechanism. And I mean moderating in several senses.

Why in Sam Hades would you want to clean up Rush Limbaugh? Do you really want to see his show "moderated", or is your goal to see him taken off the air in as many places as possible?

The Rush Limbaughs & Glen Becks of this world are not a threat.

I was slightly troubled that President Obama called the agrieved woman to offer his support, altho I get the political angle. I am also suspicious of the intensity of revulsion displayed by many, especially older, commentators. Chris Mathews was trembling with anger. Isn't this all a echo of the old stereotype of the female as the weaker sex? Also, the intensity reflects the deeply engrained value that a woman is defined by her virtue, therefore calling her a "whore" is like a knife to the heart.

Well, I'm glad that the woman appeared unshaken, and she stayed on a proactive message.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Huckleby » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:18 am

pjbogart wrote:Oh, and from my occasional forays into the inanity that is Rush Limbaugh, one of his most common local advertisers is some Middleton law firm that specializes in representing men in divorce proceedings. 'Nuff said.


would your view of a law firm that specializes in defending divorced women be the same?

If you have a different feeling about each, what do you suppose causes that?

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3541
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby DCB » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:50 am

Huckleby wrote:
pjbogart wrote:Oh, and from my occasional forays into the inanity that is Rush Limbaugh, one of his most common local advertisers is some Middleton law firm that specializes in representing men in divorce proceedings. 'Nuff said.


would your view of a law firm that specializes in defending divorced women be the same?
Does this hypothetical law firm associate itself with an angry women who denounces all men as Nazis, pigs, and/or sex objects?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8788
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:22 am

Huckleby wrote:The Rush Limbaughs & Glen Becks of this world are not a threat.

Shirley Sherrod would beg to differ with you.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Huckleby » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:22 am

DCB wrote: Does this hypothetical law firm associate itself with an angry women who denounces all men as Nazis, pigs, and/or sex objects?


OK, you are inditing the law firm for advertising on Limbaugh's show. Fair enough, I believe in guilt by association. But pj claimed that since the firm defended men in divorces, this was the icing on the cake. So my question is fair, and I'm interested in an answer, leaving aside Limbaugh's pigishness. (should that be spelled with two g's? Anyone? Anyone?)

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Huckleby » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:26 am

rabble wrote:
Huckleby wrote:The Rush Limbaughs & Glen Becks of this world are not a threat.

Shirley Sherrod would beg to differ with you.


Shirley Sherrod was hardly damaged by that affair. Free speech worked like a charm, Andrew Bartbreit was disgraced in most people's eyes, and Shirley Sherrod was cannonized, with a new life of opportunities.

You may be correct that sometimes people are hurt by smears, I can't make a blanket statement. But mostly the mud-throwing falls flat.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8788
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:45 am

Huckleby wrote:
rabble wrote:
Huckleby wrote:The Rush Limbaughs & Glen Becks of this world are not a threat.

Shirley Sherrod would beg to differ with you.


Shirley Sherrod was hardly damaged by that affair. Free speech worked like a charm, Andrew Bartbreit was disgraced in most people's eyes, and Shirley Sherrod was cannonized, with a new life of opportunities.

You may be correct that sometimes people are hurt by smears, I can't make a blanket statement. But mostly the mud-throwing falls flat.

The Sherrod incident highlighted one thing: our leaders on both sides are scared to fucking death of those talk radio guys. The big deal is that her bosses were so influenced by talk radio that they fired her over the phone while she was on the highway. And while there's been plenty of lip service to the notion that we've changed that attitude, there's not much to indicate that it's actually changed.

You might think that's not a threat. I do. As soon as part of the media can produce immediate, rushed, ill-conceived reactions to their output, we're in trouble.

If the right needs to create some chaos as a diversionary tactic, they can do it in a few minutes. Our only hope is that they're too disorganized to do so, and that's not encouraging.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 22611
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:58 am

Rush Limbaugh loses seventh advertiser

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, appearing Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation, said he didn't believe Limbaugh was sincere in his apology. "I don't think he's very apologetic," the Texas congressman said. "He's doing it because some advertisers took their advertisements off his program. It's his bottom line that he was concerned about."

Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks has Limbaugh on contract through 2016. The AP says the company stands by Limbaugh.

"The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement e-mailed to AP on Sunday. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9382
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Huckleby » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:03 am

rabble wrote:The big deal is that her bosses were so influenced by talk radio that they fired her over the phone while she was on the highway.

I wouldn't say it was talk radio so much as the internet and the cable news and our instant response culture.

rabble wrote:You might think that's not a threat. I do. As soon as part of the media can produce immediate, rushed, ill-conceived reactions to their output, we're in trouble.

If the right needs to create some chaos as a diversionary tactic, they can do it in a few minutes. Our only hope is that they're too disorganized to do so, and that's not encouraging.

It's not just the right, of course. All political perspectives have easy time stirring up shit storms now.

I'm not sure how much of a threat we face. Newspapers had zero journalistic ethics in the time of Abraham Lincloln, they were totally in the tank for their priorities. Country survived that.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8788
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:09 am

Medved has an interesting take on the apology.

He only did it to shift the topic of health care to something easier to argue. With his remarks, Rush shifted the conversation to birth control access, which is a losing stance for the right. By apologizing, he took the focus OFF birth control, which gives the conservatives an advantage.

According to Medved, Rush is taking one for the team. He's not really sorry. He's just doing what's best for his true cause.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests