Rush Spots, the truth please

[badjef]

As for Mr. Burns' comments...... while I think that Rush's comments were insensitive, rude, and ill-advised... yes I think that we should, indeed invoke the laws of this country. Let's start with the First Amendment.

The first amendment does not allow you to impugn the reputation of a private citizen without implication. He lied about a private citizen in a way which could ruin the reputation of an innocent citizen. Do you really believe that the fist amendment gives you that right?

If only Richard Jewell were alive to answer that question. He was a private citizen who was slandered by almost everyone in the drive-by media. (Courts ruled he was a public figure, even though he didn't make himself public. How convenient.)

Should Joe the Plumber have been off-limits in 2008? He was a private citizen who did nothing more than ask a question to a senator walking by his house.

Sandra Fluke is not a private citizen. She's a professional activist. She's not "just some college student plucked from nowhere." (Why she was speaking at a hearing about the authority of the state over the church is still unanswered.) She's a cause celebre; her reputation has not been "ruined."

And yes, the first amendment allows entertainers to make flippant remarks about people. It's the same first amendment that allows David Letterman to make sick jokes about Willow Palin.

Maybe Rush should have taken Fluke's picture and dropped in a jar of urine, or covered it with elephant dung (both of which have been done to sacred objects, and been defended as "art" with 1st amendment protection).

Some people simply don't like Rush's politics, but that doesn't mean he has fewer rights than everyone else.

Some people simply defend Limbaugh no matter how repugnant his behavior. They're called "dittoheads" for a reason. They can only rehash the nonsense that he spews even when they know he's just flat wrong. Sure, he has a right to free speech. But that doesn't make him a kind, civil person or an effective voice within his party. This single controversy will impel a lot of women to line up behind Dem candidates at all levels of government...not because they're Dems, but because they're women. So go ahead and double down on Rush's rhetoric...please.

First off, Rush is an entertainer..not a voice of any party. Who used a poor choice of words and has apologized. As for women lining up for O'Bama over this, I'd look at the bigger picture..the economy, gas & oil prices, and the trillions of dollars of debt we've added since OBama took office. No one is taking away your contraceptives. But determining that you should pay for them, not a "government health care plan" which is now the law of the country..whicf means all of our tax dollars giving you a free ride for recreational activities.

"Ditto", that!

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The media slandering is what made him a public figure. In turn, that protected the media who did the slandering in the first place.

Try aruging before a judge that those who slander a private citizen, turning him/her into a public figure, are entitled to benefit from that evolution and thus avoid the consequences of their actions. See how far that gets you.

 

[Dick Skinner]

As for Mr. Burns' comments...... while I think that Rush's comments were insensitive, rude, and ill-advised... yes I think that we should, indeed invoke the laws of this country. Let's start with the First Amendment.

The first amendment does not allow you to impugn the reputation of a private citizen without implication. He lied about a private citizen in a way which could ruin the reputation of an innocent citizen. Do you really believe that the fist amendment gives you that right?

If only Richard Jewell were alive to answer that question. He was a private citizen who was slandered by almost everyone in the drive-by media. (Courts ruled he was a public figure, even though he didn't make himself public. How convenient.)

Should Joe the Plumber have been off-limits in 2008? He was a private citizen who did nothing more than ask a question to a senator walking by his house.

Sandra Fluke is not a private citizen. She's a professional activist. She's not "just some college student plucked from nowhere." (Why she was speaking at a hearing about the authority of the state over the church is still unanswered.) She's a cause celebre; her reputation has not been "ruined."

And yes, the first amendment allows entertainers to make flippant remarks about people. It's the same first amendment that allows David Letterman to make sick jokes about Willow Palin.

Maybe Rush should have taken Fluke's picture and dropped in a jar of urine, or covered it with elephant dung (both of which have been done to sacred objects, and been defended as "art" with 1st amendment protection).

Some people simply don't like Rush's politics, but that doesn't mean he has fewer rights than everyone else.

Some people simply defend Limbaugh no matter how repugnant his behavior. They're called "dittoheads" for a reason. They can only rehash the nonsense that he spews even when they know he's just flat wrong. Sure, he has a right to free speech. But that doesn't make him a kind, civil person or an effective voice within his party. This single controversy will impel a lot of women to line up behind Dem candidates at all levels of government...not because they're Dems, but because they're women. So go ahead and double down on Rush's rhetoric...please.

First off, Rush is an entertainer..not a voice of any party. Who used a poor choice of words and has apologized. As for women lining up for O'Bama over this, I'd look at the bigger picture..the economy, gas & oil prices, and the trillions of dollars of debt we've added since OBama took office. No one is taking away your contraceptives. But determining that you should pay for them, not a "government health care plan" which is now the law of the country..whicf means all of our tax dollars giving you a free ride for recreational activities.

First off, read my post again. I wrote that Rush is a voice within his party. And please, like I said, continue your crusade. They're lining up for Obama as we speak.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

No one is taking away your contraceptives. But determining that you should pay for them, not a "government health care plan" which is now the law of the country..whicf means all of our tax dollars giving you a free ride for recreational activities.

You. Don't. Get. It.

Just like the deaf Rush Limbaugh, you only heard "contraceptives," and just like the deaf Rush Limbaugh and just about all other political talk-show hosts, you only hear what you want to hear.

Ms. Fluke was not asking her health care plan (NOTE: *NOT* the government's health care plan; it was a private insurer) to cover contraception-as-birth-control. However, those same contraceptives who have Rush and his dittoheads convinced Fluke is a "slut" also have effects that extend well beyond preventing pregnancy. Plenty of women take them to reduce their risk of several cancers related to a woman's reproductive system and to make irregular menstrual periods regular. *That* was the gist of her testimony.

But, of course, let's not allow facts to get in the way of slandering someone...

 

[NJMark]

The media slandering is what made him a public figure. In turn, that protected the media who did the slandering in the first place.

Try aruging before a judge that those who slander a private citizen, turning him/her into a public figure, are entitled to benefit from that evolution and thus avoid the consequences of their actions. See how far that gets you.

I don't have to. NBC already did that when Richard Jewell sued them - and they won!

That's why I brought it up in the first place.

I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying it's what happened.

No one is taking away your contraceptives. But determining that you should pay for them, not a "government health care plan" which is now the law of the country..whicf means all of our tax dollars giving you a free ride for recreational activities.

You. Don't. Get. It.

Ms. Fluke was not asking her health care plan (NOTE: *NOT* the government's health care plan; it was a private insurer) to cover contraception-as-birth-control. However, those same contraceptives who have Rush and his dittoheads convinced Fluke is a "slut" also have effects that extend well beyond preventing pregnancy. Plenty of women take them to reduce their risk of several cancers related to a woman's reproductive system and to make irregular menstrual periods regular. *That* was the gist of her testimony.

No, YOU don't get it! It's not about "contraception." It's not about pills. And it's not about their other uses. It's about the force of law vs. religion.

Let's recap:

The Obama regime set out to violate the first amendment by telling insurers, including policies held by church organizations, what they must do under penalty of law. A congressional committee hearing was held to discuss the matter. The Democrats proposed the famous Rev. Barry Lynn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) as their witness, but at the last minute, pulled their familiar old switcheroo, and put in Sandra Fluke, a professional agitator. (Well, I only call her that because she said she attended Georgetown for the purpose of challenging the fact that their insurance doesn't cover contraception.)

Suddenly, a hearing about the power of the state over the church (there being none, by the way) was hijacked, and became a hearing about contraception. Oh, how the media loved that!

The fact that "birth control pills" can be used to treat other things is nothing but a distraction. The bottom line is that the federal government is violating the "wall of separation between church and state" they claim to revere so much.

Do you think a church's insurance policy should be forced to cover, not just "pills," but surgeries as well, free of charge, with no co-payment, under penalty of an unconstitutional law?

I'd rather insurance companies have the money available to cover treatments for things like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and the like, instead of wasting on things people can well afford on their own. But that's just me.

 

[hubcity]

The fact that "birth control pills" can be used to treat other things is nothing but a distraction. The bottom line is that the federal government is violating the "wall of separation between church and state" they claim to revere so much.

So you're saying that it's okay to call the girl a slut.

 

[hubcity]

By the way, I'm also wondering what everyone in this thread thinks a responsible broadcaster should do.

I'm thinking a responsible broadcaster would not call someone a slut on the air, ever, at all. That's regardless of whether the person in question is demonstrably a slut or not. To my mind, it's pretty much up there in the list of things *not* to do.

Defend Rush Limbaugh all you like, but what broadcaster, in general, gets the luxury of even being able to defend their speech on the air (however innocuous) at all before their butt gets thrown out on the street for having lost an advertiser - for *any* reason?

 

[Seltzer]

No one is taking away your contraceptives. But determining that you should pay for them, not a "government health care plan" which is now the law of the country..whicf means all of our tax dollars giving you a free ride for recreational activities.

You. Don't. Get. It.

Just like the deaf Rush Limbaugh, you only heard "contraceptives," and just like the deaf Rush Limbaugh and just about all other political talk-show hosts, you only hear what you want to hear.

Ms. Fluke was not asking her health care plan (NOTE: *NOT* the government's health care plan; it was a private insurer) to cover contraception-as-birth-control. However, those same contraceptives who have Rush and his dittoheads convinced Fluke is a "slut" also have effects that extend well beyond preventing pregnancy. Plenty of women take them to reduce their risk of several cancers related to a woman's reproductive system and to make irregular menstrual periods regular. *That* was the gist of her testimony.

But, of course, let's not allow facts to get in the way of slandering someone...

And I already stated Rush used a poor choice of words. But Ms. Fluke is a tool for the DNC. Volunteered to speak after Pelosi made a stink that no women were testifying. But that's ok..Obama was getting killed in female polls so his team had to resort to this to get the discussion changed.

 

[hubcity]

And I already stated Rush used a poor choice of words. But Ms. Fluke is a tool for the DNC. Volunteered to speak after Pelosi made a stink that no women were testifying. But that's ok..Obama was getting killed in female polls so his team had to resort to this to get the discussion changed.

Okay, I see. That totally excuses Rush's three day long poor choice of words.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Rush has lost several dozen advertisers at this point, and PRN is advising their member stations that many of those advertisers no longer want to be featured on *any* "controversial" talk show. He hasn't just damaged himself, he's damaged positional talk - right *and* left (if you can find it) - in general.

Radio is a business, I keep hearing, and ideology - any ideology - doesn't trump that.

 

[badjef]

And I already stated Rush used a poor choice of words. But Ms. Fluke is a tool for the DNC. Volunteered to speak after Pelosi made a stink that no women were testifying. But that's ok..Obama was getting killed in female polls so his team had to resort to this to get the discussion changed.

Okay, I see. That totally excuses Rush's three day long poor choice of words.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Rush has lost several dozen advertisers at this point, and PRN is advising their member stations that many of those advertisers no longer want to be featured on *any* "controversial" talk show. He hasn't just damaged himself, he's damaged positional talk - right *and* left (if you can find it) - in general.

Radio is a business, I keep hearing, and ideology - any ideology - doesn't trump that.

The business of radio should not be confused with the vehicle of radio.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[hubcity]

If only Richard Jewell were alive to answer that question. He was a private citizen who was slandered by almost everyone in the drive-by media. (Courts ruled he was a public figure, even though he didn't make himself public. How convenient.)

In the interest of clarity, that ruling was based on his being a person of interest in the investigation, and the media essentially being led on (yes, I know, kind of like a pack of rabid wolves is led on by a guy out for a walk wearing a roast ham as an accessory) by the investigators who, of course, never, ever leak information. (That's sarcasm.)

It was the investigation (including the no-arrest search of Jewell's house by the FBI) not the media, that *wrongly* made Jewell a public figure. While the media's lack of restraint was deplorable, the court's finding was sound.

Am I to continue to assume it's your position that all that other stuff makes what Rush said okay?

 

[hubcity]

The business of radio should not be confused with the vehicle of radio.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

I fail to see what a friendly stranger in a black sedan has to do with any of this.

 

[recto101]

The only way to make Rush Dissapear from the spotlight is for him to sign contracts for SiriusXM. Look at Howard Stern we went after him for the Same Charges like Rush when he was on syndicated radio. I know his show was simulcasted on E! before 2006. I know Howard was seen as a controversial figure like RUSH, Hannity and Beck when he ruled FM radio back then. I think his flagship station was KLSX in Los Angeles at 97.1FM or a CBS O&O in NYC back then. We can't sue talk radio hosts unless its proven that he told his fan to bomb a DNC oprerative or an RNC office.

 

[hubcity]

The only way to make Rush Dissapear from the spotlight is for him to sign contracts for SiriusXM. Look at Howard Stern we went after him for the Same Charges like Rush when he was on syndicated radio. I know his show was simulcasted on E! before 2006. I know Howard was seen as a controversial figure like RUSH, Hannity and Beck when he ruled FM radio back then. I think his flagship station was KLSX in Los Angeles at 97.1FM or a CBS O&O in NYC back then. We can't sue talk radio hosts unless its proven that he told his fan to bomb a DNC oprerative or an RNC office.

See, here's the thing - I see no reason to *make* Rush disappear. If what he's saying on the radio attracts advertisers, that's the business we're all in. I can't do that kind of talk, he can, and he gets paid handsomely for it. So be it. Money talks.

But if the money ain't talking...well, that's a different kettle of fish.

Meanwhile, I'm weary of anyone who says "but what about." The central issue here is whether what Rush is saying on the air makes money for the stations that air him. They're not going to say "Hey, we're losing money, but because someone once said something offensive about a Republican, it's no biggie and Sarah Palin is automatically President."

I'm sure Rush lost *none* of his audience saying what he said, and in fact, that audience probably has grown slightly owing to people trying to hear what he says next (cue that scene in Private Parts, to bring Stern back into it.) But all of that is at the pleasure of the advertisers whose messages they want to have placed astride Rush's message. In this case, many came to the realization that it no longer made business sense for them to do that. That presents Rush with a problem.

He has several solutions available to him:
- Change direction (yeah, right.)
- Watch his mouth 'til this blows over (most likely. His non-apology is indicative of the degree to which he'll try to cover.)
- Go subscription (he could make a killing, but his relevance would likely go the way of Howard Stern.)

Which do we think it'll be?

 

[MC]

One group pretty well documents that broadcast ads one day last week consisted of 9 paid ads and 77 PSA type ads on WABC. I'm sure the group has its agenda but it is not an inexact science to count and categorize broadcast ads.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203050019

I don't see how he can live off 9 ads in a major market.

 

[OC3]

I find the list as compiled by Media Matters very suspect as they do not say if they are monitoring the over the air feed or the very different internet stream. This is the same group that last week claimed that WABC had gone silent several times during the Rush show because they were unable to fill the spot breaks. Does anyone really think that WABC did that over the air???

 

[hubcity]

I find the list as compiled by Media Matters very suspect as they do not say if they are monitoring the over the air feed or the very different internet stream. This is the same group that last week claimed that WABC had gone silent several times during the Rush show because they were unable to fill the spot breaks. Does anyone really think that WABC did that over the air???

Yeah, I think that was the stream, frankly. They don't necessarily know what we do about (a.) how the stream's different than OTA and (b.) why it has to be that way. However, given that now-missing advertisers were generally being contacted because their ads *were* being heard on the stream, there may be more correlation than one might think.

 

[MC]

The Internet stream is meaningless.

I used to know a senior citizen that was paid to monitor ads back in the 1970s.

Now Premier is "suspending" the ads on Limbaugh, so the monitoring of the ads that go out on the air is somewhat irrelevant. "We didn't have any ads because we suspended them." OK

Let's face it, a fifth grader can monitor ads on the radio, not rocket science, so there is no smoke and mirrors. Either an ads goes out on the air or it doesn't.

 

[R.F. Burns]

OK How about this? http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-broadcast-5-minutes-of-dead-air-yesterday-2012-3

I listened to a stop set today and he had one spot for a gold compny that's obviously on a per inquiry arrangment. The rest were promos and PSA's and that was OTA on WABC.
As I've told others, if this loss of advertisers goes on for a few weeks he'll start losing stations.

Any loss of station will soon realize, he was why there was any listening to the station at all!

Webstreams and computers are oblivious to dead air until it is x number of seconds. That assumes there is anybody in the room of the building in which the feed is piped.

Knee jerk reactions are what we are seeing.

What about Rush, himself? When will he retire? Or will he stick around for the next 20 years and become a Paul Harvey corpse? The inevitability is a world without Rush on the radio. But When?

It won't be now. This will blow over, since he said nothing wrong to begin with.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I listened over the air to WABC at 770 KHz in NYC, not via web stream. I’m very familiar with the difference. He had One commercial spot which was a per inquiry. The others were PSA's and Promos.. I would guess that the stop set included national and local spots. That being the case take your pick who is still advertising. The Twitter boycott is still going strong. Let's see what happens in a week or two, especially if a defamation suit takes place.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Oh, as Columbo used to say, just one more thing: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/12/442673/141-companies-advertisng-rush-limbaugh/

I realize that the site is most likely politically opposed to Limbaugh but the truth is the truth.