Sex-Crazed Co-eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control

[rvg]

Oh a happy note, looks like this dust-up is causing advertisers to pull their ads from all controversial talk-show radio. Couldn't happen to a more toxic genre. Now if only our society could engineer the downfall of 24-hour cable news channels ...

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

[Ironside]

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

Freedom to do whatever you want with your money?

[drone]

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

How so? Rush can still say what he wants, it's just that big companies no longer want to pay him for his views. If the government shut him up, that would be censorship, removing his funding to protect your company's name is just good business.

Don't forget kids, money = speech. Or rather, money is the volume knob on free speech.

[Vladimir]

The sponsors are within their rights to pull their ads (probably). However, the "mean-spirited" comment is a bit childish. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Also on the article: "..offensive or controversial.." applies to an entire genre of comedy as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

Aaaand it did not take long for the raw political calculus behind the latest entitlement expansion to come to the forefront. A new DNC flyer being sent to millions of likely voters in key battleground states not so subtly asks women to consider: "What have the Republicans given me for FREE lately?" I don't know whether to laugh at the blatant shamelessness in this handouts-for-votes scheme or cry at the prospect of its likely success.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR

[Lemur]

I think it's unacceptable that Limbaugh gets his clock cleaned essentially for holding onto an unpopular opinion. If this isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

As others have pointed out, censorship is what a government does; free-market boycotts are a different animal.

Also, I find Rush's three-day slander of a woman to be something other than "an unpopular opinion." Seventy-odd different instances are documented below the tag. See if you can get through them all; I could not. If you can listen to it and think anything but "vile," or "foul," you may want to adjust your moral compass.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But it's not really advertisers choosing where to spend their money. They are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts. Imagine, say, companies yanking all funding and shutting down a talk show after the host made anti-Christianity comments because some powerful church groups were going to make a huge fuss about it. It's not really a stretch to call that the censorship of public opinion or something. And it's not like that can't be a much more powerful anti-free speech force...

In this case it's well deserved. But I have to laugh at "caught on tape", who are they kidding???? And the dinging counter thing is stupid.

[Lemur]

[Advertisors] are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts. Imagine, say, companies yanking all funding and shutting down a talk show after the host made anti-Christianity comments because some powerful church groups were going to make a huge fuss about it.

That sort of thing happens all the time; witness the kerfluffle with Ellen and JC Penney. In that case, the group threatening a boycott turned out to be nothing more than a tiny church in Florida, and everyone had a good laugh. In the case of Rushbo's slutgate, the advertisers perceive a more substantial public sentiment.

Are you suggesting that boycotts are bad, or a form of censorship, or what, exactly? There will always be groups demanding this or that and threatening a boycott. The trick, for companies that want to peddle their wares, is to distinguish which ones are worth paying attention to.

And again, censorship means the law says you cannot write or say something. If, on the other hand, you are shouted down by your neighbors for saying something offensive? Not censorship. Their free speech is going up against your free speech. Freedom of speech does not and never has meant freedom from consequences.

It's not really a stretch to call that the censorship of public opinion or something.

I think it's pretty clearly under the "or something" category.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you suggesting that boycotts are bad, or a form of censorship, or what, exactly?

mmm, they can be a form of censorship like I said, whether it's bad depends on what's being censored.

And again, censorship means the law says you cannot write or say something. If, on the other hand, you are shouted down by your neighbors for saying something offensive? Not censorship. Their free speech is going up against your free speech. Freedom of speech does not and never has meant freedom from consequences.

??? If someone talks about "self-censorship" would you tell them that it's only censorship if the government was involved? They would say to you "that's why I said self-censorship". It's perfectly ordinary english to use the word in various ways like that.

I don't think you mean that bit about shouting someone down falling under the category of free speech.

Potentially stifling? Yes. But this form of mob rule for good or ill is how the free market works.

True. But I wouldn't want to be overly dismissive of criticisms of the treatment Rush is getting, only to have it come back and bite me later when people are using boycotts as a weapon against some idea they don't like...

Come to think of it, I think one of the major plot points of that Edward R Murrow movie was that the sponsors didn't like the trouble that his going after McCarthy caused them and were pushing his boss about it.

[Lemur]

If someone talks about "self-censorship" would you tell them that it's only censorship if the government was involved? They would say to you "that's why I said self-censorship". It's perfectly ordinary english to use the word in various ways like that.

Um, okay, sure, if you're referring to "censorship" in a casual, non-legal way, then sure, but when people raise the censorship issue in relation to this case, they seem to mean it in the legal sense. In the same light, I could say that so-and-so "slaughtered" me at basketball, but if I claimed so-and-so was guilty of slaughtering, you might take it a bit differently.

I don't think you mean that bit about shouting someone down falling under the category of free speech.

Everybody has free speech, including the people who think what someone is saying is utter nonsense. To choose a recent example, Jeremaiah Wright was caught on tape saying "God **** America," which caused immense and immediate scorn to be heaped on his head from most everyone. He was, in essence, shouted down. Not censored (unless you want to take the super-broad conversational definition of "censored," which seems to be where your head is at).

Like I said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you want to say something controversial, or offensive, or distasteful, or foul, that is your right. But be prepared for others to use their free speech to tell you off.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. But I wouldn't want to be overly dismissive of criticisms of the treatment Rush is getting, only to have it come back and bite me later when people are using boycotts as a weapon against some idea they don't like...

Come to think of it, I think one of the major plot points of that Edward R Murrow movie was that the sponsors didn't like the trouble that his going after McCarthy caused them and were pushing his boss about it.

That's obviously the problem in general: we on the ORG seem mostly agreed that it won't be such a "bad thing" in this instance, but unless you take away the control over on which show adverts get shown you can't really prevent it. Then again, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that being paid a comfortable salary to spout your opinions on TV is the only way to express yourself; I think if it were a matter of principle people would find they could make themselves heard without adverts, too.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Um, okay, sure, if you're referring to "censorship" in a casual, non-legal way, then sure, but when people raise the censorship issue in relation to this case, they seem to mean it in the legal sense. In the same light, I could say that so-and-so "slaughtered" me at basketball, but if I claimed so-and-so was guilty of slaughtering, you might take it a bit differently.

It was being talked about in terms of being unacceptable, and of someone being shut up for having an unpopular opinion. I don't see why you object to the use of the word, it is very frequently used to refer to something other than government/legal censorship, and it's not at all important that we aren't talking about government/legal censorship.

Everybody has free speech, including the people who think what someone is saying is utter nonsense. To choose a recent example, Jeremaiah Wright was caught on tape saying "God **** America," which caused immense and immediate scorn to be heaped on his head from most everyone. He was, in essence, shouted down. Not censored (unless you want to take the super-broad conversational definition of "censored," which seems to be where your head is at).

Like I said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you want to say something controversial, or offensive, or distasteful, or foul, that is your right. But be prepared for others to use their free speech to tell you off.

mmm, yes, but we aren't talking about someone being told off. It seems pretty simple to me. Take the Murrow example. Advertisers effectively shutting down someone for raising a ruckus, according to the movie. Who cares that it isn't the government doing it, and that the advertisers have a legal right to do it? They weren't right to do it. Free speech is valuable for a reason, and that reason is often harmed by people trying to shout down someone for saying something they don't like. I think you've gotten yourself all twisted up in the legalism.

That's obviously the problem in general: we on the ORG seem mostly agreed that it won't be such a "bad thing" in this instance, but unless you take away the control over on which show adverts get shown you can't really prevent it. Then again, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that being paid a comfortable salary to spout your opinions on TV is the only way to express yourself; I think if it were a matter of principle people would find they could make themselves heard without adverts, too.

Yeah, I agree. Really I'm objecting to the "well, they're free to do that" superficial kind of statement. I mean, in a different scenario we might want to organize a counter boycott to the companies who are removing advertising support, or something.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But it's not really advertisers choosing where to spend their money. They are responding to a perceived threat of boycotts.

Boycotts by their customers, to be precise. They don't want to be affiliated with Limbaugh because Limbaugh upset their customer base. Potentially stifling? Yes. But this form of mob rule for good or ill is how the free market works.

Anyway companies "pull" adds routinely, wait for the thing to die down and then quietly put them back up. They just want to dodge that bullet of public outcry.

[Lemur]

Anyway companies "pull" adds routinely, wait for the thing to die down and then quietly put them back up. They just want to dodge that bullet of public outcry.

Maybe, maybe not. Limbaugh's audience is overwhelmingly old and male; not a highly desired demo. And he's been getting away with high fees for that audience for some time, notably by claiming "20 million" listeners using some very creative math.

I think, given how this has played out, and its timing, that the media landscape will emerge from Slutgate a bit changed. Further reading here.

The difference this time is that Limbaugh’s advertisers and his stations had already begun to feel ripped off. To quote my station-manager friend again: “I don’t mind paying for content. But I do mind paying for trouble.” So advertisers revolted against the TSL strategy, with Sears, JCPenney, and many other sponsors dropping the show. Many of the local advertisers who buy their ads from the local stations rather than from the syndicators have been ordering that their purchased minutes be placed on some less-controversial program.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Maybe, maybe not. Limbaugh's audience is overwhelmingly old and male; not a highly desired demo. And he's been getting away with high fees for that audience for some time, notably by claiming "20 million" listeners using some very creative math.

Was talking more in general. If something is said or done on TV that gets people all hot and bothered that routinely translates into some shuffling of feet amongst the advertisers.

EDIT: Advertisers on Limbaugh's show might also use it as an opportunity to get a better deal, going by what you wrote.