Sunday, March 04, 2012

Follow the money after Rush's apology

Strange, is it not, that Rush Limbaugh would actually apologize for smearing Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law school student, by calling her a "prostitute" and "slut"?

This is reportedly the first time that Limbaugh, a  serial smearer, has ever apologized.

Odd. Does Rush's half-hearted apology actually signal a change?

Not really. Rush is entirely consistent.

Rush is in it for the money.

When his advertisers started dropping his program in the wake of the Fluke attack (Thank you, President Obama, for shedding light on it by calling to console Fluke), the advertisers were using the only language that Rush understands — money.

How does he win back the lost revenue?


The real test will be whether the apology will work to win back the ad revenues. Will his advertisers finally own up to paying for Rush's poisonous language each and everyday broadcast day? Indeed, aren't THEY the ones who should be apologizing?

Who knows how many deranged listeners are actually persuaded by Limbaugh's extravagantly-rewarded verbal smears.

Let's see whether the advertising money returns to pay for the poison.

PS Ron Paul makes the same analysis HERE.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Chris said...

Of course he's in it for the money, this is his job.

I'm not a particularly huge Rush fan, i've listened to him on occasion and agree with some of what he says, but do agree he tends to be incendiary at times.

However, i think it's incredibly hypocritical of the media and advertisers to crucify him the way they are.

When Ed Schultz said the exact same thing about Laura Ingram and apologized, there was no national outrage, no presidential phone call (one of the most ridiculously transparent fund raising schemes I've ever witnessed), no massive boycott effort, etc. When Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the most vile word you can call a woman, you could hear crickets chirp. Is their language any less poisonous? Are these guys also not in it for the money (as virtually anyone who works a job is). Do you identify their listeners/viewers as deranged also?

I also find it interesting that you claim to be able to see into his heart. How do you know if his apology was sincere or not? Maybe the (manufactured) outrage made him consider his words or the target of them? Maybe it was just for the money.

As for the advertisers, they should be politically neutral in my opinion. I cannot stand hearing businesses espouse political positions - just change my oil, deliver my flowers, whatever. But it's a free country...

9:19 PM  
Blogger Rick Seifert said...

Thanks for the comment, Chris.

Actually I know it is hard to imagine, but some folks do their jobs not for the money but for the love of the work they do — or doing the right thing. (As in not smearing people, for starters.)

(Then there's the question of how much money is enough. And is Rush "worth" the reported $50 million he gets for what he does? But let's not go there.)

I think advertisers should put their money on what they believe in. What Rush (and Schultz and Maher) say is a reflection on the advertisers' values. I don't necessarily mean political values, but I do mean societal and cultural fairness, civility, respect.

I'm glad you mentioned Mayer and Schultz, by the way. I don't mean to excuse them, Rush's comments about Fluke are part of a long-running pattern of misogynistic remarks. Enough already!

We can hope.

8:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home