Rush staying on WBEN...

[CTListener]

Death wishes are serious business. At the risk of someone invoking Godwin's Law, I will mention how channeling hatred against certain groups gave rise to the Nazi (National Socialist) party in Germany around 90 years ago.

At the risk of someone (you) invoking Godwin's Law, would you say the Jews of Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. and people sympathetic to their cause -- not getting killed by the government -- would have been wrong to wish Hitler, Himmler or Goebbels dead because all three had loved ones -- Hitler a girlfriend (OK, a wife for a couple of hours) and the other two wives and children?

Would a simple "Go to hell, Limbaugh" pass muster today, or is that still too insensitive, given that, as far as I know, all religions that include in their beliefs the existence of hell require that one die before entering any eternal abode?

 

[Element9]

ObservationReading this thread, I can't help but recall the early years of Howard Stern in Washington, DC, when he called the airlines about airfare "from Washington National to 14th Street" following the catastrophic crash of a passenger aircraft which resulted in several deaths at the 14th Street Bridge. Stern also reveled in the misfortunes and poor health of his on-air rivals, particularly Scott Muni and Don Imus. Stern, by way of his sycophants, drove John DiBella off the air in Philadelphia and took immeasurable glee in DiBella's demise and subsequent divorce. Classy. For many years, Stern was the paragon of cutting edge humor (also known as "tasteless shtick") and the ready template for countless wannabee local FM rock shows. Arguably, Stern laid the foundation for what we see today in the political sphere, the current president being one of Stern's many and frequent callers and guests. Of course, Howard is now well-scrubbed and regarded as a premier air and television talent, even having shown a measure of compassion. So perhaps there's something to be said for rehabilitation.

Actually, Stern simply reflected the younger white male attitude at the time, which was one of "If you can't eat it, drink it, smoke it or screw it, then flip it the bird". He was really not on enough stations in enough markets to really be the national attitude changer you ascribe to him. He was to the media what Alexandria Ocasio is to politics: a lot more noise than influence.

The last thing I'd like to see is this series of posts go off topic and sent to the literary landfill known as Take It Outside. That duly requested, I disagree with your assessment. If Stern wasn't "more noise than influence," he most likely would not have achieved the stature he sought and attained. He was on in major markets, the cities of influence. His act caught the attention of countless listeners and A-Listers-and-decision-makers. I listened to Stern in Washington (DC 101), NYC (WNBC and K-Rock) and Philly; heard his show when it aired in Buffalo (WWKB) and Toronto (Q-107) (this reference should satisfy the "on-topic" board requirements.) Had he come to FM within the last ten years, his act might have been #MeToo'd to near oblivion. It's said timing is everything.

Regarding Rush (another stab at keeping this series of posts away from TIO), he clearly exhibits many of the same traits as Stern. Bombast and ridicule being his main trade. No strippers of course, at least that we know of. And ironically, whereas Stern eschewed drugs, Rush has had his oxy-issues. In this regard, he was ahead of the curve given the opioid near-crisis in this country. He's a perfect fit for the WBEN listener. I expect he'll retire in the saddle, which is to say he'll die on the air, doing what he enjoys and for which he is handsomely paid.

 

[TheBigA]

I expect he'll retire in the saddle, which is to say he'll die on the air, doing what he enjoys and for which he is handsomely paid.

I agree with all of this. I read so much about the boring, bland nature of certain radio hosts, and that can't be said for either Rush or Stern.

 

[flybynight]

Regarding Rush (another stab at keeping this series of posts away from TIO), he clearly exhibits many of the same traits as Stern. Bombast and ridicule being his main trade. No strippers of course, at least that we know of. And ironically, whereas Stern eschewed drugs, Rush has had his oxy-issues. In this regard, he was ahead of the curve given the opioid near-crisis in this country. He's a perfect fit for the WBEN listener. I expect he'll retire in the saddle, which is to say he'll die on the air, doing what he enjoys and for which he is handsomely paid.

Unlike Stern, Rush has a substantial audience that take his words as gospel---many of them think he's a journalist. He has poisoned the body politic to the degree that many pols are afraid to do what's right if it risks his ire. The cumulative affect of Limbaugh's many years of cutting the corners off of facts to fit them in round holes is more than a generation of people drifting further and further from the truth and deeper down a rabbit hole.

THAT has been catastrophic for our national discourse.'

To the poster who insinuated that I am digging a hole and should stop digging before it gets deeper: If I had Limbaugh in the hole with me, I'd take a hit for the nation by digging and digging further until Rush and I reached the earth's core.

 

[TheBigA]

Unlike Stern, Rush has a substantial audience that take his words as gospel---many of them think he's a journalist.

AFAIC, that's OK. If not Rush, there would be someone else. People want to believe what they want to believe, and they want to hear someone who agrees with what they want to believe. There will always be someone who speaks for them. Removing one person who performs that role doesn't mean the millions of dittoheads will change their views. They won't.

Having said that, I'm waiting to hear how conservative talk radio will justify and support the administration's call for a new spectrum fee. Will these blowhards commit occupational suicide on the air? We will see.

 

[davideduardo]

The last thing I'd like to see is this series of posts go off topic and sent to the literary landfill known as Take It Outside. That duly requested, I disagree with your assessment. If Stern wasn't "more noise than influence," he most likely would not have achieved the stature he sought and attained. He was on in major markets, the cities of influence. His act caught the attention of countless listeners and A-Listers-and-decision-makers. I listened to Stern in Washington (DC 101), NYC (WNBC and K-Rock) and Philly; heard his show when it aired in Buffalo (WWKB) and Toronto (Q-107) (this reference should satisfy the "on-topic" board requirements.) Had he come to FM within the last ten years, his act might have been #MeToo'd to near oblivion. It's said timing is everything.

But Stern, at most, was on about a dozen or so markets. He did not work well in all of them, and one could say he failed in Chicago to attract a huge audience. His biggest successes were Philly, New York and LA. When he was in DC, he spent half the time fighting with his PD, and at WNBC he was still not a developed talent.

And when you think about it, Stern had a nucleus of heavy listeners who gave huge TSL. I've done the math that shows that Stern would have barely made the top 10 in New York and not at all in LA in the PPM. So, based on cume, he reached perhaps mid-single-digit percentages in those big markets, meaning that of the whole country, not even 1% were his regular listeners.

If he had come to radio today, he would not be successful as the ratings measurement in the markets that have weight is different and there is vastly more titillating and crude material online that just did not exist around 1995.

Regarding Rush (another stab at keeping this series of posts away from TIO), he clearly exhibits many of the same traits as Stern. Bombast and ridicule being his main trade. No strippers of course, at least that we know of. And ironically, whereas Stern eschewed drugs, Rush has had his oxy-issues. In this regard, he was ahead of the curve given the opioid near-crisis in this country.

The abuse of prescribed medication is vastly different from that of illegal drugs like heroine, molly, and the like. There is no excuse for using heroine, but many people with extreme pain need opioids and the media is very significantly responsible for not distinguishing between legitimate need for pain control and abuse by doctors and patients alike.

This is a socio-political-media story, and I agree that it is beyond the scope of this board to delve into deeply. But from what we know about the tendency of some doctors to over prescribe, it's fair to suggest that Limbaugh is not 100% to blame for having abused such medications.

 

[davideduardo]

Unlike Stern, Rush has a substantial audience that take his words as gospel---many of them think he's a journalist.

I carried Rush in a small market the company I was head of operations for had stations in. That was in the early years, before he signed with Premier, even.

We made money promoting "Rush Rooms" at several area restaurants... essentially banquet rooms where they put Rush on speakers and folks would come in for lunch and listen. Most of the people were local small business owners, accountants, professionals and the like. Many came for lunch alone, and it made them feel like they were part of a group and many friendships were started that way.

I talked to lots of the attendees, and to a person they said that what they liked was that Rush was entertaining. They compared him to Johnny Carson, not political commentators. The listeners held the same views, politically (it was North Florida) but what they understood was that the show was not a news show, not a political show but entertaining discussion of things they cared about.

Nobody thought that Rush was a journalist. He was an entertainer. If you were a Dittohead, you were a member of the club. It was Boy Scouts for adults.

 

[TheBigA]

And when you think about it, Stern had a nucleus of heavy listeners who gave huge TSL. I've done the math that shows that Stern would have barely made the top 10 in New York and not at all in LA in the PPM.

I wonder if that is unique to Stern or if it might also apply to other strong & irreverent personalities in their time.

 

[davideduardo]

At the risk of someone (you) invoking Godwin's Law, would you say the Jews of Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. and people sympathetic to their cause -- not getting killed by the government -- would have been wrong to wish Hitler, Himmler or Goebbels dead because all three had loved ones -- Hitler a girlfriend (OK, a wife for a couple of hours) and the other two wives and children?

No. I am saying that hateful words can degenerate into action.

I've seen hatred of groups turn to genocide or persecution, whether it be Jews, Gypsies and non-Aryans in Germany by the National Socialists or hatred of the rich by the party of Perón in Argentina or the ideological hatred of Pol Pot in Cambodia. Once it begins, it is very hard to stop.

Would a simple "Go to hell, Limbaugh" pass muster today, or is that still too insensitive, given that, as far as I know, all religions that include in their beliefs the existence of hell require that one die before entering any eternal abode?

"Go to hell" is like "damn you". It's meaning is not literal and signifies a desire that the person suffer but not necessarily die. And it used to be that such phrases were not allowed on TV and were used very sparingly in film... such as the "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" which was shocking in its intensity three quarters of a century ago.

So to me saying "Go to Hell" is not the same as wishing a person to die. But you raise a good question, and the answer is different for distinct generations.

 

[davideduardo]

I wonder if that is unique to Stern or if it might also apply to other strong & irreverent personalities in their time.

Absolutely. One can, as I referenced in another post, go back to see how controversial and even shocking it was to say "damn" in a movie in 1939 while today it's a meaningless, throw-away tidbit of invective.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Rush Limbaugh would like to thank "flybynight" for the free publicity. He's gotten more pub via this board in the last week than he's gotten outside of WBEN's promos in the last two years.

 

[flybynight]

Nobody thought that Rush was a journalist. He was an entertainer. If you were a Dittohead, you were a member of the club. It was Boy Scouts for adults.

Like his show, his audiences mentality evolved over time.

His show eventually removed most of what were clearly entertainment elements, in favor of far more stern and strident political rants.

And many continue to take what he says as gospel.

 

[flybynight]

Rush Limbaugh would like to thank "flybynight" for the free publicity. He's gotten more pub via this board in the last week than he's gotten outside of WBEN's promos in the last two years.

So 4 or 5 people who already know who and what he is have read his name here this week. And he thought he was already successful.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

You had to offer equal time if it was requested. That didn't mean that the responder would be as effective as the original pundit. Remember Roseanne Rosanadanna?

Limbaugh is to radio what Rachel Maddow is to cable TV. Both are essentially propagandists.

Okay then it was in the interest of being fair and balanced, presenting both sides of the issues and letting the listener decide. I guess along the way that was considered dull and it was better to sit in front of a microphone name calling and throwing around liberal like it's a dirty word.

I don't wish Mr Limbaugh any harm. He's not on at a time of day when I can listen to the radio anyway so he doesn't exist in my world. But I do wish he'd take his microphone and stuff it.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I don't listen to Rush Windbag and apparently neither do you. There is the question of "How do you know you want him to stuff his microphone somewhere if you don't listen to what he says?" You're not relying on hearsay, are you?

There's also that pesky question of freedom of speech...

 

[flybynight]

Limbaugh is to radio what Rachel Maddow is to cable TV. Both are essentially propagandists.

Implying that Maddow and Limbaugh are somehow equidistant from the truth tells me you either don't pay much attention to them, or you don't have much regard for established documented fact vs. demonstrably partisan fiction.

Maddow carefully lays out her case, using legit documentation, the way an attorney would present a case. Limbaugh regularly distorts and propagates falsehoods with zero evidence to back up his claims.

Yeah, same thing.

I don't even like her that much, but comparing her veracity to Limbaugh is absurd.

 

[tbolt909]

George Orwell said "Ignorance is Strength". We live in a time now where people cannot agree on facts. When pinheads on the right talk about "Alternative Facts"--
a rational discussion is not possible. Many people didn't even understand that Steven Colbert was playing a "character" on his show...

 

[davideduardo]

Implying that Maddow and Limbaugh are somehow equidistant from the truth tells me you either don't pay much attention to them, or you don't have much regard for established documented fact vs. demonstrably partisan fiction.

Maddow carefully lays out her case, using legit documentation, the way an attorney would present a case. Limbaugh regularly distorts and propagates falsehoods with zero evidence to back up his claims.

I have heard the "never been withing a thousand miles of there" Ms. Maddow discussing the conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in ways that do not even have remote congruence with the fact and the local conditions. I've been to those countries many, many times, have worked in all three and have many friends in the media there.

Her descriptions are just bizarre. Establish facts? I don't think so.

I'm not claiming Rush is any better... or worse. Just saying that there is little truth among media pundits and commentators.

 

[flybynight]

I have heard the "never been withing a thousand miles of there" Ms. Maddow discussing the conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in ways that do not even have remote congruence with the fact and the local conditions. I've been to those countries many, many times, have worked in all three and have many friends in the media there.

Her descriptions are just bizarre. Establish facts? I don't think so.

I'm not claiming Rush is any better... or worse. Just saying that there is little truth among media pundits and commentators.

That is some serious cherry-picking.

She typically presents documented evidence to support her arguments. It is almost too tedious watching her build a case based on demonstrably true information, a/k/a facts.

You're broad-brushing horribly here.

 

[davideduardo]

That is some serious cherry-picking.

She typically presents documented evidence to support her arguments. It is almost too tedious watching her build a case based on demonstrably true information, a/k/a facts.

You're broad-brushing horribly here.

No, just giving an example in an area where I know more than she does and where her lack of information does not prevent her from furthering her greater agenda through the use of non-facts.

Of course, her glib disregard for the truth in this case makes me question everything she says.

And it is not as if immigration policy were a small issue today.