Rush Spots, the truth please

[hubcity]

I'm very disappointed that Jeff thinks Rush said nothing wrong - objectively, it was at the very least a complete misrepresentation of the testimony Fluke gave, though we no longer have the wherewithal to easily check on it, because Rush's people have removed the transcript from his website.

It was also certainly wrong enough that longtime advertisers bailed (even if a few tried to return and Rush "wouldn't let them".) From a programming perspective, I'd say that's wrong enough. How likely would it be that any one of us would survive such a storm?

 

[R.F. Burns]

Listened to Rush on-air on my local affiliate. All the network stop sets were filled by paying ads. The normal spots were also airing during the station avails. The only ads not airing are the ones Rush did "Live" during the program itself, not in the network stop-sets. It all sounds like business as usual, just minus the add-ins.

Which market do you live in? Here in NYC it's mostly PSA's and some of those have asked to be pulled including the US Army spot.

 

[mikerock]

I did not think for one minute that Rush actually meant what he said. Normally his sarcasm or his shock jocking an issue would be ignored since I have heard humorous bits that I had thought were far worse than this non-issue.

I think they needed something that fit well enough to derail the news cycle about the administration forcing private religious organizations to pay for contraception. Playing the race card was not going to work so they try and spin some privileged elitist 30 year old political activist as some cute poor young college kid trying to get the costs of her fellow college students contraceptives paid for.

They know they can blow it out of proportion since people are basically stupid and never bother to check the facts with a media buzz especially when you have the President involved. If the President did not get involved this would have been a non-issue and Rush would not have lost any advertisers.

 

[hubcity]

I think they needed something that fit well enough to derail the news cycle about the administration forcing private religious organizations to pay for contraception.

That is incorrect.

The institution Sandra Fluke referred to in her testimony currently provides birth control benefits for employees and faculty. So they really actually have no problem "paying for contraception".

For students who are purchasing insurance, birth control is disallowed unless it is prescribed for health reasons, because that's the plan they decided to offer to students. This is likely a financially-motivated decision in light of the faculty plan which, unlike this plan, they subsidize.

In the case Sandra Fluke related, the insurer routinely denied it anyway, because they ignored doctor's orders and decided she was making up a story about needing birth control to regulate ovarian cysts. Except...she needed birth control drugs to regulate ovarian cysts. One grew significantly, and had to be remove; her ovary went with it.

That was the point of Sandra Fluke's testimony. To cast it as anything else is a lie.

 

[mikerock]

I think they needed something that fit well enough to derail the news cycle about the administration forcing private religious organizations to pay for contraception.

That is incorrect.

The institution Sandra Fluke referred to in her testimony currently provides birth control benefits for employees and faculty. So they really actually have no problem "paying for contraception".

For students who are purchasing insurance, birth control is disallowed unless it is prescribed for health reasons, because that's the plan they decided to offer to students. This is likely a financially-motivated decision in light of the faculty plan which, unlike this plan, they subsidize.

In the case Sandra Fluke related, the insurer routinely denied it anyway, because they ignored doctor's orders and decided she was making up a story about needing birth control to regulate ovarian cysts. Except...she needed birth control drugs to regulate ovarian cysts. One grew significantly, and had to be remove; her ovary went with it.

That was the point of Sandra Fluke's testimony. To cast it as anything else is a lie.

So you deny the fact the news cycle was about legislation forcing those employed by religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage and after this incident became about Limbaugh and Fluke as a victim? How is that incorrect?

The full text of her testimony is online. Whether financially motivated or for religious reasons, her testimony is clear. She wants government to step in and mandate it. There is no other way to spin that. I am sympathetic to the needs for "ovarian cysts" and maybe those folks can buy a supplemental plan outside of their employer but that is not what she wants. She wants the government to mandate it and therefore is just like anyone else in the public eye.

btw - the point of my first post was not go off on this topic but to point out that there are far more controversial things Rush has done and he has not lost any advertisers. If it was not for the President's involvement this would not have been discussed past the day it aired.

 

[hubcity]

So what you're saying is that this thing Rush said, it isn't the worst thing he's ever said on the air?

That's your defense?

Seriously, think hard about that. It's a bit like saying "Officer, I've driven far faster than this, why are you giving me a ticket now?"

 

[mikerock]

So what you're saying is that this thing Rush said, it isn't the worst thing he's ever said on the air?

That's your defense?

Seriously, think hard about that. It's a bit like saying "Officer, I've driven far faster than this, why are you giving me a ticket now?"

My defense? LOL. Do not drag me into your silly left right partisan debate. There are shock jocks on both teams, I am not a shill for Rush or for anyone's team for that matter. I am just calling it by the facts in how it played out with the advertisers. The fact is Rush says allot of things and this is first time I can remember when advertisers bailed and it made the news cycle. You really think that would happen if the President did not get involved, please :

 

[hubcity]

Well, if you're calling it by the facts, the advertisers bailed. That's a fact.

And I really don't think this is a left-right partisan debate, though it's very much to Rush's advantage (as well as his apologists') to cast it as one.

What it is is an attempt by an awful lot of people to point out that Rush Limbaugh's response to Sandra Fluke's congressional testimony - which had nothing to do with the use of birth control pills to inhibit conception - was to call Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut. Repeatedly. For three days.

Which is being met by an awful lot of people who want to change the subject without once entertaining the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Rush was wrong.

It was just Rush being Rush, and that's radio?

Well, he's losing advertisers. *That's* radio.

 

[badjef]

I'm very disappointed that Jeff thinks Rush said nothing wrong - objectively, it was at the very least a complete misrepresentation of the testimony Fluke gave, though we no longer have the wherewithal to easily check on it, because Rush's people have removed the transcript from his website.

It was also certainly wrong enough that longtime advertisers bailed (even if a few tried to return and Rush "wouldn't let them".) From a programming perspective, I'd say that's wrong enough. How likely would it be that any one of us would survive such a storm?

I heard what he said at the time he said it. There was no reason to look for what he said in third party transcripts. I am also a Rush 24/7 subscriber. If there is something he said on his program that I did not understand, I will listen to it back for clarity. If I found that it was altered to cover up something. I would cancel it, immediately. I have another program I record daily as well. I have been recording radio for over 30 years.

I did not rely on what somebody told me what he said. I also thought at the time, he wasn't going far enough. I felt he was using a somewhat more restrained interpretation of his thoughts at the time.

As for Ms. "Fluke", I have to admit I did not hear her testimony as I was not privy to the audio or video feed. However, from what I read, she was a last minute replacement for a Minister from the United Church of Christ. In and of itself, raises my suspicions to the objectivity of the hearing as she was a curious choice, indeed. Ms. "Fluke" related a story of a girl to which you refer which may or may not have been real.

Many medical inventions, proceedures, and chemicals have a great purpose but interesting side effects, both "positive" and "negative". It is why the Hypocratic Oath is so important to the medical community as a whole. Doctors and nurses are there to help the body not to detrimentally change it for some purpose other than it was intended. The side effects can be more detrimental on society than the physical side effects when used improperly.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[hubcity]

I did not rely on what somebody told me what he said. I also thought at the time, he wasn't going far enough. I felt he was using a somewhat more restrained interpretation of his thoughts at the time.

And that ends this conversation.

 

[badjef]

I did not rely on what somebody told me what he said. I also thought at the time, he wasn't going far enough. I felt he was using a somewhat more restrained interpretation of his thoughts at the time.

And that ends this conversation.

Thank you, it's about time!

I joined this group to talk about radio and listen to the different perspectives. I did not join it to discuss societal pitfalls.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[hubcity]

So now you're privy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ

The best part? Read the comments.

 

[badjef]

So now you're privy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRC0nsjtKQ

The best part? Read the comments.

1.) I stand by my posts.
2.) The comments are at best, uncalled for. But not surprising. And they do not in any way reflect my position.

And thank you for posting the link.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[badjef]

It appears those stations, which have dropped Rush have stronger overlapping signals.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!