home

Rush Limbaugh Ad Withdrawal Spreads to Other Shows

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 01:07:20 PM EST
Tags: Rush Limbaugh (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Think Progress, 98 Rush Limbaugh sponsors have now instructed Premiere Radio Networks not to put their ads on Rush's show. But now it's not just Rush. Their memo to to "Traffic Managers" said:

To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory...They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).’

[More...]

On the other side, Sleep Train Mattress Company, one of the first advertisers to withdraw from the Rush Limbaugh Show, has asked to resume its ads. Rush said no.

Here's a list of all radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh (clickable map version here.)

< Friday Night Open Thread | 5 Guantanamo Detainees Agree to Transfer to Qatar >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rush Limbaugh Ad Withdrawal Spreads to Other Shows | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    where have you gone, Tipper Gore? (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    From Wikipedia:
    "The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 with the stated goal of increasing parental control over the access of children to music deemed to be violent, have drug use or be sexual via labeling and censorship. The committee was founded by four women: Tipper Gore..."

    Now we want to control what ADULTS listen to.  I guess that this proves that evolution is a fact.

    You still need new batteries in your lamp (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    the stated goal of increasing parental control over the access of children to music deemed to be violent


    Parent
    All it proves ... (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    ... is that some people have trouble with basic factual distinctions, such as the difference between the government placing warning labels on explicit music, and people using their free speech rights to let advertisers know they will not purchase services and products from companies that sponsor vile, defamatory content.  Well, that ...

    ... and the difficulty some have with basic logic.

    Parent

    Rush should be (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    loaded up with pure Sandoz LSD and sent into orbit with Tim Leary...

    LSD (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    and the self-awareness it fosters may be one of the only things that might turn Rush into a reasonable human being.

    Parent
    A really surprising development (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    Perhaps these radio jock cheeseballs will take notice and lose just a little of the arrogance......

    Well, I see a big fight coming (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Should be interesting.

    A fight of who against who about what? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    As Ayn Rand would say, did say, "The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment."

    The free market is speaking!

    Parent

    Seriously! When it comes to whining, (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    conservatives take first place.

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    And Hannity runs in to defend Rush's outrageous attack on women......who make up over 50% of the U.S. population of which 98% use or have used birth control.  Talk about a bunch of stoopid men setting their egos wild while losing what they had of those tiny minds.

    They are done.  You can't undo where they went with this.  Rush started it, and then the rest signed on to defend him and that's it!  It's history now, a history that women will bring up over and over and over again.  You never get to recover from demanding sex videos of American fathers daughters either.  That was the part of Rush's spiel where I saw my husband's forehead blowoff :)  His baby girl takes birth control that she only pays a copay for and Rush wants videos of her having sex?  THAT WAS IT!

    Parent

    Lee Camp explains it all ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    "The Right Wing Is Taking Rights Away From Women, But Were They Really Using Them?"

    Parent
    I've been hard on Facebook about this (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    And some of friends are older and Republicans.  So it isn't quite crazy about Rush today, and one of my friends puts up this little placard that says "Proud Republican Women".

    Proud of what?

    Parent

    On my FB page... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    I found this posted and the tiny brains (of both sexes) continuing to prove they don't get it in the comments.

    Parent
    Excellent message though (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 04:15:50 PM EST
    Putting it on my Facebook!

    Parent
    Proud of what indeed... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 04:01:45 PM EST


    Parent
    The question is (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    are complaints lodged about the politics of person A by persons B of opposite politics in which the quality/value of product(s) provided by a third party are not brought into question except as threatened boycott mechanism actually the "free market?"

    Or at least something like that was argued when the Right was raising cain  over the untoward comments of the Dixie Chicks.

    Of course, since I have seen nothing here, or anyplace outside of the usual Right wing suspects, about the remarks of Bill Maher, et al, I am forced to the conclusion that a double standard is working here.

    Parent

    Free speech is part of the ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 09:02:43 PM EST
    ... free market, and the people are speaking about Rush's ridiculous/slanderous comments.

    Of course, since I have seen nothing here, or anyplace outside of the usual Right wing suspects, about the remarks of Bill Maher, et al, I am forced to the conclusion that a double standard is working here.

    Bill Maher is not a leader of the Democratic party, nor are his comments representative of anyone other than himself - a shock comedian.  Rush and his commentary, OTOH, are mainstream in the Republican party.  As your fellow conservative David Frum pointed out:

    Limbaugh's place in American public life is in no way comparable to that of David Letterman, Bill Maher or Ed Schultz.

    Letterman is not a political figure at all; and while Maher and Schultz strongly identify as liberals, neither qualifies as anything like a powerbroker in the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Barack Obama re-election effort is happy to have Maher's million-dollar gift, but I sincerely doubt there is a Democratic congressman who worries much whether Maher criticizes him. A word of criticism from Limbaugh, by contrast, will reduce almost any member of the Republican caucus to abject groveling. See, for example: GINGREY, PHIL.

    Among TV and radio talkers and entertainers, there is none who commands anything like the deference that Limbaugh commands from Republicans: not Rachel Maddow, not Jon Stewart, not Michael Moore, not Keith Olbermann at his zenith. Democratic politicians may wish for favorable comment from their talkers, but they are not terrified of negative comment from them in the way that Republican politicians live in fear of a negative word from Limbaugh.

    Try again.

    Parent

    We all have women in our lives (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 11:43:49 PM EST
    who take or have taken birth control pills, and every month I've ever paid for I only paid a copay.  Rush called us all sluts, and demands sex videos of us all.  Does this have anything to do with politics Jim?  Are you claiming his stance is representative of the Republican party or Conservatives?  I really don't care myself, I'm not paying money for him to be on AFN anymore.  They will have to slot someone else that "the market" finds acceptable.

    Anybody else catch that quote in 'Game Change' tonight where McCain tells Palin she was now a party leader, don't get co-opted by Limbaugh and the other extremists, they'll destroy the party if you let them?  Oops, some people didn't listen and some people let them.

    Parent

    MT, I didn't hear Limbaugh call all women (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    anything. But, perhaps, you can provide a link???

    In fact I think he was specific to Fluke as Maher was to Palin and Bachmann.

    The discussion had started off as one about religious freedom, the First Amendment and whether or not the government could make the Catholic Church violate its doctrine regarding birth control.

    Obama was losing that argument. Losing badly.

    So the Demos dreamed up a fake hearing in which a 30 year old student who was also an activist who had gone to a college ran by the Catholic Church. Evidently Fluke had done that so she could attack the school and church for not doing what she wanted done.

    It was beautiful political theater and Limbaugh took the bait and made comments that I have previously condemned. He then, as some of commentators on the Left have done, apologized.

    It did no good. Even Maher twitted:

    Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

    Link

    Now, if you want to protest about a Catholic school not providing contraception provisions in its health care insurance, fine.

    And if you want to protest about what Limbaugh said about Fluke, fine. But let's not pretend that your outrage is about BC or women being insulted. It is not.

    Because if it was about BC then you would have been outraged when Obama tried to cut his deal with the Catholic Bishops. Yet you said nothing.

    Because if you were concerned about being insulted, Bill Maher, among many, would have received many a scream from you.

    All we have hear is politics. Pure and simple.

    Parent

    So Fluke must operate under different (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    rules than I do?  She is a slut for the doing the same thing that I do?  What am I?  Am I a wonderful soldier's wife planning my family in such a way as to allow the nation to be fully protected?  

    The market slapped down Maher, just like it is doing to Rush now.  Maher has found a cable slot though that was willing to take him, and I suppose Rush is free to find a different slot in a different market if one will have him but he's not as talented as Maher so I wouldn't bet on that happening.

    Rock on Ayn Rand!

    Parent

    Well Rush is hilarous (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    but he would never make it as a comedian.

    Maher at least has brains and talent, and isn't anywhere near the disgusting slut and prostitute that Rush is. ;-)

    Parent

    You're making up facts again. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by observed on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    (there's another word for that, but it's not polite).
    You claim that Fluke chose a college specifically so she could make a political point about the availability of contraception? REALLY?
    Provide some evidence or STFU. That's just really stupid.
    Second, adducing Maher's quote to show that Obama is losing the debate on birth control is ridiculous. Jim, you're retired from work. Don't retire from thinking, too!

    Parent
    Nahhhh ... fighting isn't Rush's style (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    Unless you're talking about more verbal attacks while hidden comfortably in a radio studio.  Like most wingers, ...

    ... he's a coward.

    Parent

    I have spent a great deal of time in LA (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    but am not familiar with the Jon and Ken show. I pay little attention to talk shows and if they slide towards terminal nasty I just hit the "search" button for some golden oldies.

    But I would argue that there was no free market at work in there case, just a deserved shut down for unwarranted remarks by the station that carried them.

    And yes, I agree that there is plenty of nasty stuff by the Right and by the Left.

    And if you will include Bill Maher in:

    There's very little in terms of reality-based information or analysis being disseminated by these programs, and little or no real debate in their discussions. Rather, the content can be so coarse and degrading as to be nothing more than the broadcast equivalent of projectile vomiting.

    I'll join you.

    My point remains. Both sides defend their "man" and attack the other side's "man."

    Nothing new there, but let's don't pretend that shutting each other down is anything besides an attempt a censorship.

    Y'all come back now, you hear!

    Parent

    Rush's advertisers (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    are attempting to censor him?

    Interesting. I didn't know they owned the stations or his show.

    Parent

    Edger, you gotta know better (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry. But I think I will play this straight.

    No. The Left wing protesters are trying to censor Limbaugh by attacking advertisers who advertise on Limbaugh's radio show.

    Just as the Right wing protesters did over the Dixie Chick's nasty remarks.

    Same coin. Two sides.

    Parent

    The "Left Wing protesters" are ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    ... using their own right of free speech to let sponsors know that they shouldn't sponsor vile, defamatory slurs.  The winger protesters who condemned the Dixie Chicks have the same right ... not that the Dixie Chick's comments (i.e. "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas") are even remotely analogous to Limbaugh's.

    BTW - In case you didn't notice, it's hardly just the "Left Wing" that was disgusted by Limbaugh's attacks.

    Parent

    That's a good one JIm (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    I think I'll just laugh.

    Parent
    Giggle if you like (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    but the fact remains.

    When the Left attacks the Right it is okay with you.

    When the Right attacks the Left it is not okay with you.

    Both sides try to censor the other. The weapons of choice are threatened boycotts.

    And both sides point out the double standard involved by the other.

    Just try and accept facts, Edger. They won't go away.

    Parent

    I'm giggling (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    ... at your double standard.

    You supported the wingers when they wanted to boycott the Dixie Chicks, but now you cry "censorship!"

    Funny stuff.

    Parent

    Heh. Please. Haha . Stop. Jim. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    You trying to draw equivalence between the left and the insane is too funny.

    Heh. My sides hurt. 7 years and you're still hoping to someday find someone who thinks you make sense? Lol.

    Parent

    So it is insane (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    for someone to defend their beliefs?

    And here I thought I was a social liberal because I defend people's right to disagree...

    Ah, the things I learn.

    Parent

    Well maybe you do think that (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    At least I'm sure you probably figure it sounds good to say and hope for one of PT Barnum's born every minute types to read it.

    And who knows, maybe if someone came along and read only that one comment of yours in isolation and had never seen or read any of your other comments over the years or even the others on this page - which I doubt is at all likely - they might even fall for it for a second or two, till you posted another comment.

    Parent

    The problem you have is that (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    you have no proof.

    You just attack and make false claims.

    Parent

    Why does this remind me ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    ... of Rush Limbaugh making fun of Michelle Obama's weight?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Well it's always a good idea (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    to have substantiation when you say you're a "social liberal" (whatever that is), Jim, so that it's not just something you made up off the top of your head because you think it sounds good to say it.

    You do think it sounds good to say it, right? Of course you do.

    And you know, you could substantiate it easily enough, even if no one else has ever agreed. Just post a link to one of your own comments where you've said it before and you're covered, my man. Boom. Substantiated. Piece of cake. ;-)

    Parent

    You do? I don't see that much (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    And here I thought I was a social liberal because I defend people's right to disagree...

    I don't see you defending people's right to disagree.  You defend your right to disagree, but that's about as far is that goes.  Well maybe it's going a bit further.  You're also using that argument to defend Rush without having to come right and and defend him.

    Now to be clear: I'm very interested and invested in my right to have and to state my own beliefs, so I have no issues with you wanting to defend your position.  Even when I personally think your position is less than sensible.

    But you really do not defend everyone's right to disagree.  

    Parent

    And here I thought you WEREN"T (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    a social liberal because you've said you like having Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court..

    Parent
    Hahahahahaha... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    Your sudden concern for "censorship" seems to be newly discovered.  Now you object to others using their free speech right to protest Limbaugh, comparing them to those that protested against the Dixie Chicks and calling it an attempt at "censorship"?!

    That's pretty funny, since just a few years ago you were attacking the Dixie Chicks and defending those who called for a boycott of their albums:

    This being America they were challenged by others using their free speech. And, since the only effective tool they have to use against the pulpit given to these entertainers, they say don't buy, don't play. To me, a confirmed "red stater," it appears that both are in their rights. It is only the Chicks and the MSM who are crying, but then highly paid entertainers are well known to whine when the world doesn't fawn over them.
    - jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 06:54:37

    Wow, ... what a difference a few years makes.

    Heh.

    Parent

    small difference (none / 0) (#43)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    I don't think that people were calling on others to boycott the Dixie Chicks' RECORD COMPANY or any store that sold their CD's. Just a boycott of them.    

    Parent
    Small, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    People (including jimakappj) were calling for a boycott of the Dixie Chick's source of income (concert tickets, records, etc.) - as were those calling for a boycott of the sponsors who fund Rush's show.  Since Rush broadcasts over the public airways and you can't boycott his concerts or CDs, that's the way you boycott.

    Seems pretty self-explanatory.

    Parent

    They also received tons of death threats (none / 0) (#49)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 06:55:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Boycotts show the strength in numbers (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    Progessives have.....

    Conservatives are not so good at boycotts.... Their strenght is the billionaires that support them.....

    People power....

    Parent

    It's not censorship (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    Nothing new there, but let's don't pretend that shutting each other down is anything besides an attempt a censorship.

    To the contrary, it's free speech - letting sponsors of his idiocy know they will not buy their products or services.  If Bill Maher (an "Independent" - like you) has you so upset, maybe you should contact HBO.

    Parent

    Jon and Ken didn't used to (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 02:14:14 AM EST
    be like that....

    I was shocked to hear some of their current stuff....

    I first heard the current version when they attacked undocumented workers....

    It is probably a calculated way to prop up sagging ratings.....

    Parent

    Not everyone on the left (none / 0) (#40)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    thinks we should allow illegal aliens to live freely (and often free) in our country. So of us would prefer to see legal immigrants supported and prioritized over illegal ones.

    Parent
    Not the way I would put it (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    And it is not about prioritization--it is about Latino bashing....

    Just ask Pete Wilson.....California used to have a Republican Legislature in the 1990s.

    Now the Republican brand is so toxic in this state any Democrat starts out with a 15 point lead.....

    Parent

    It's funny. (none / 0) (#56)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    Although most of our illegal aliens are Hispanic, if you think they shouldn't be allowed to stay here, you're generally assumed to be a racist. The discussion of illegal immigration always gets misdirected toward the separate issue of racism. But the flip side is perfectly acceptable. Getting Latinos to vote as a block is considered AOK, as is seeking to get their votes by promising to increase immigration of people in their "tribe," or in this case, those who speak the same language and share invasive, imperialistic ancestors.  

    I think progressives will someday wish they hadn't promoted this one ethnic group over all other immigrant groups.


    Parent

    Air America (none / 0) (#14)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 04:48:06 PM EST
    Maybe the ninety-eight sponsors will advertise on Air America instead.

    Air America went Chapter 7 two years ago (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 09:53:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Is that that low oxygen place (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 04:54:24 PM EST
    where all the wingnuts live?

    Parent
    You keep bringing up ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    ... Air America, as if it's somehow relevant to the discussion.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    The trouble Air America ran into (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 12, 2012 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    is that they assumed they had a democratic right to discuss and analyze the conduct of anyone anywhere, inluding Jim, Di and Rush's cherished 'job creators'..

    Why Rectal Cysts has had such staying power is that he redirects the anger and frustration of the great outsourced and downsized onto those lower down on the food chain, instead of encouraging them to take a second look at the system of exploitation they're the victims of..

    All Limbaugh is in the final analysis is a sycophantic, glorified, company goon.  

     

    Parent

    fleeing sponsors (none / 0) (#25)
    by robbkor2 on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    capitalism my friends.....rush loves it,brags on it ,says it should be free to thrive with little if any control.......well alas its working,rushbo.....say bye bye to your sponsors capitalism is exercising its free unemcumbered rights........TO DUMP  YOU

    Announced on Saturday Night (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 11, 2012 at 06:11:35 AM EST
    Live Rush has some new advertisers to make up for some of the ones he's lost lately...  

    "I called a Georgetown student a slut and a prostitute. And even though I apologized for my terminology, many of my sponsors have withdrawn their support -including the cowards at AOL, the sluts at TurboTax, and the prostitutes at the American Heart Association. But despite losing those and 89 other sponsors, I am not worried because I have new, better sponsors ..."

    Killam-as-Limbaugh's new sponsors include the Syrian Tourism Board, Barney's Butt-Crack Balm, Moist Books, the Mosquito Breeders of America, and Depends for Racists.
    Rush Limbaugh Ad Withdrawal Spreads to Other Shows | 55 comments (55 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment