As Rush Goes...
As I watch the Super Tuesday results start to come in, I think it's remarkable of anyone to actually have remembered we still have primaries going on. After all, the "horse race" that is the GOP nominating process has suddenly taken a back seat to the mess created by The Leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh. Then again, with the media narrative shifting back to "Romney is inevitable" after his narrow win in Michigan, I guess we can divert our energy to talking about other things, right? Oh wait, Romney just lost Georgia...
Anyway, there's a reason I hung that tag on Limbaugh not too long ago... say what you want about him being an "entertainer", the guy's words carry a ton of power with Republican voters. When a GOP leader slams Limbaugh on some issue, Rush takes to his microphone, eviscerates said leader, and said leader usually comes crawling back and apologizing, then probably kisses Limbaugh's ring for good measure. That people like him have the power to declare who is a "real Republican" and who isn't is why I left the party. I got sick of having my identity defined for me.
So let's get to the meat and potatoes of the situation. As most people know by now, this is all about what Limbaugh said concerning Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown, who was denied a place at the House hearing on birth control (you know, the one that produced the embarrassing photo of 5 men testifying on proper women's health procedures). She mentioned that contraception is quite expensive and can set a grad student like herself back a good chunk of change, and that therefore, there should be a way to receive coverage for birth control. Now, considering this rule requiring insurers to cover birth control has actually been on the books since an EEOC ruling in 2000 (President Obama's proposed rule tweaks it, and it's really the tweaks that are the source of all the hand-wringing), I personally think that the only reason Sandra Fluke should be criticized is because she goes to Georgetown (sorry, obligatory Syracuse fan joke...)
Limbaugh stated that because she ostensibly wants other people to pay for her contraception, that means she wants people to pay for her to have sex, thus making her a "slut" and a "prostitute". When people started responding angrily to these comments, Limbaugh doubled down and said that if other people were going to pay for her contraception, they should get to watch her have sex. To say that these remarks are beyond the pale is an understatement. And we know what has followed... howls of outrage from a lot of people, many sponsors dropping Limbaugh's show, 2 affiliates so far dropping his program, and Limbaugh issuing an apology, first a statement over the weekend and then on his show yesterday.
Now the responses of some on the Left to this apology are a little ridiculous. These people compared Limbaugh's apology to that of MSNBC's Ed Schultz when he made the equally despicable remark of calling radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a "slut" last year. Because Schultz was suspended for a week and was more verbose with his apology, many considered Limbaugh's apology not good enough. I think that trying to turn this into a rhetorical apologia pissing contest is only for those who seek to get the most political advantage out of the matter (but I'll get to them later). Others have compared Limbaugh's remarks with Don Imus's "nappy-headed hos" comment that got him fired from CBS Radio in 2007. The major difference is not in the apology or the punishment, but who signs the check. In the case of Schultz and Imus, both worked for major multimedia players with lots of different assets (NBC and CBS); suspending or firing these people would not harm their "brand", so to speak; if anything, it would improve things. Limbaugh's program (and many of his affiliates) are owned by Clear Channel, a radio-only company whose biggest entertainment assets at the moment are Ryan Seacrest and... Limbaugh. The two are inseparable, especially when you consider how committed CC is to trying to construct a nationwide programming model in which "quality" national talent trumps catering to the local communities these stations are supposed to serve.
Unfortunately today, Limbaugh was at it again, criticizing an "authorette" (his word) for her book about food, and in doing so saying, "What is it with all of these young single white women, overeducated... doesn't mean intelligent." At a time when his words are going to be so closely monitored, you'd think he would try to watch what he's saying. Of course, some local hosts are giving Limbaugh cover by attacking those who have brought Limbaugh's words into the limelight. The "local" afternoon host in Syracuse, Bob Lonsberry, is just one example. I put "local" in quotes because he is actually broadcasting from Rochester, knows very little about the area, and demonstrated as much with his recent slice-and-dice of County Executive Joanie Mahoney.
This whole issue gets right to the core of two topics you often see me writing about in this blog: radio and politics. The political angle has been well-documented. The whole birth control "debate" has been seen by both sides as a ploy to distract attention from the economy, and the use of such acerbic rhetorical phrases as "war on women" does little more to help our national discourse than Limbaugh's remarks. However, considering the moves being made currently by several states' legislatures about abortion and contraception, it is a little disturbing, not to mention Rick Santorum's insistence that a president's agenda should be "based on the Bible." As someone who is pro-choice and knows about women's health issues from the large number of women I am proud to call my friends, I know the importance of the issue and why the GOP's insistence on making is an issue does nothing but harm the party and its chances in November. Ultimately we know how this ends... at the ballot box in November, people will voice whether or not the views and intents of these Republicans are bad for the country.
In the case of radio, money is the bigger issue. I believe that the marketplace will dictate whether or not things that are said will fly. I believe in the First Amendment, and ultimately, it is up to the listeners and advertisers to vote with their feet. These sponsors bailing on Limbaugh's show hurts, and at a time when Clear Channel is barely hanging onto financial viability, this cannot be good for their bottom line. And unfortunately, CC is the standard-bearer for radio as an industry. As Clear Channel reportedly covets Comcast to absorb their billions in debt and swallow them up (and Comcast is reportedly less-than-eager at this prospect), they have so much to lose from this situation. I don't quite agree with some radio pundits' views that radio is hurt from a listener standpoint over this... although they claim that people who shut off Limbaugh and talk radio are shutting off the medium itself for good, I don't think we can really make that presumption right now, and since this situation is limited to CC, you can't presume that the hit CC takes will also lead to a hit in revenue at Cumulus, CBS, Cox, and the rest. But the concerns are enough to give radio backers like myself pause, and considering that the talk radio model has been largely built on giving the most prominent voice to the loudest people in the room, you can't help but consider a possible spillover effect of protests directed at other hosts. It may turn out that as Rush Limbaugh goes, not only the GOP goes, but radio as well.
Anyway, there's a reason I hung that tag on Limbaugh not too long ago... say what you want about him being an "entertainer", the guy's words carry a ton of power with Republican voters. When a GOP leader slams Limbaugh on some issue, Rush takes to his microphone, eviscerates said leader, and said leader usually comes crawling back and apologizing, then probably kisses Limbaugh's ring for good measure. That people like him have the power to declare who is a "real Republican" and who isn't is why I left the party. I got sick of having my identity defined for me.
So let's get to the meat and potatoes of the situation. As most people know by now, this is all about what Limbaugh said concerning Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown, who was denied a place at the House hearing on birth control (you know, the one that produced the embarrassing photo of 5 men testifying on proper women's health procedures). She mentioned that contraception is quite expensive and can set a grad student like herself back a good chunk of change, and that therefore, there should be a way to receive coverage for birth control. Now, considering this rule requiring insurers to cover birth control has actually been on the books since an EEOC ruling in 2000 (President Obama's proposed rule tweaks it, and it's really the tweaks that are the source of all the hand-wringing), I personally think that the only reason Sandra Fluke should be criticized is because she goes to Georgetown (sorry, obligatory Syracuse fan joke...)
Limbaugh stated that because she ostensibly wants other people to pay for her contraception, that means she wants people to pay for her to have sex, thus making her a "slut" and a "prostitute". When people started responding angrily to these comments, Limbaugh doubled down and said that if other people were going to pay for her contraception, they should get to watch her have sex. To say that these remarks are beyond the pale is an understatement. And we know what has followed... howls of outrage from a lot of people, many sponsors dropping Limbaugh's show, 2 affiliates so far dropping his program, and Limbaugh issuing an apology, first a statement over the weekend and then on his show yesterday.
Now the responses of some on the Left to this apology are a little ridiculous. These people compared Limbaugh's apology to that of MSNBC's Ed Schultz when he made the equally despicable remark of calling radio talk show host Laura Ingraham a "slut" last year. Because Schultz was suspended for a week and was more verbose with his apology, many considered Limbaugh's apology not good enough. I think that trying to turn this into a rhetorical apologia pissing contest is only for those who seek to get the most political advantage out of the matter (but I'll get to them later). Others have compared Limbaugh's remarks with Don Imus's "nappy-headed hos" comment that got him fired from CBS Radio in 2007. The major difference is not in the apology or the punishment, but who signs the check. In the case of Schultz and Imus, both worked for major multimedia players with lots of different assets (NBC and CBS); suspending or firing these people would not harm their "brand", so to speak; if anything, it would improve things. Limbaugh's program (and many of his affiliates) are owned by Clear Channel, a radio-only company whose biggest entertainment assets at the moment are Ryan Seacrest and... Limbaugh. The two are inseparable, especially when you consider how committed CC is to trying to construct a nationwide programming model in which "quality" national talent trumps catering to the local communities these stations are supposed to serve.
Unfortunately today, Limbaugh was at it again, criticizing an "authorette" (his word) for her book about food, and in doing so saying, "What is it with all of these young single white women, overeducated... doesn't mean intelligent." At a time when his words are going to be so closely monitored, you'd think he would try to watch what he's saying. Of course, some local hosts are giving Limbaugh cover by attacking those who have brought Limbaugh's words into the limelight. The "local" afternoon host in Syracuse, Bob Lonsberry, is just one example. I put "local" in quotes because he is actually broadcasting from Rochester, knows very little about the area, and demonstrated as much with his recent slice-and-dice of County Executive Joanie Mahoney.
This whole issue gets right to the core of two topics you often see me writing about in this blog: radio and politics. The political angle has been well-documented. The whole birth control "debate" has been seen by both sides as a ploy to distract attention from the economy, and the use of such acerbic rhetorical phrases as "war on women" does little more to help our national discourse than Limbaugh's remarks. However, considering the moves being made currently by several states' legislatures about abortion and contraception, it is a little disturbing, not to mention Rick Santorum's insistence that a president's agenda should be "based on the Bible." As someone who is pro-choice and knows about women's health issues from the large number of women I am proud to call my friends, I know the importance of the issue and why the GOP's insistence on making is an issue does nothing but harm the party and its chances in November. Ultimately we know how this ends... at the ballot box in November, people will voice whether or not the views and intents of these Republicans are bad for the country.
In the case of radio, money is the bigger issue. I believe that the marketplace will dictate whether or not things that are said will fly. I believe in the First Amendment, and ultimately, it is up to the listeners and advertisers to vote with their feet. These sponsors bailing on Limbaugh's show hurts, and at a time when Clear Channel is barely hanging onto financial viability, this cannot be good for their bottom line. And unfortunately, CC is the standard-bearer for radio as an industry. As Clear Channel reportedly covets Comcast to absorb their billions in debt and swallow them up (and Comcast is reportedly less-than-eager at this prospect), they have so much to lose from this situation. I don't quite agree with some radio pundits' views that radio is hurt from a listener standpoint over this... although they claim that people who shut off Limbaugh and talk radio are shutting off the medium itself for good, I don't think we can really make that presumption right now, and since this situation is limited to CC, you can't presume that the hit CC takes will also lead to a hit in revenue at Cumulus, CBS, Cox, and the rest. But the concerns are enough to give radio backers like myself pause, and considering that the talk radio model has been largely built on giving the most prominent voice to the loudest people in the room, you can't help but consider a possible spillover effect of protests directed at other hosts. It may turn out that as Rush Limbaugh goes, not only the GOP goes, but radio as well.
Labels: politics, radio, Rush Limbaugh
posted by Dave | 7:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home