Rush Limbaugh is Not Too Big to Fail

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Matt Osborne

Share the post "Rush Limbaugh is Not Too Big to Fail"

The Daily Beast’s most frustrating writer has a libertarian notion that Rush Limbaugh’s livelihood(!) is threatened by the StopRush campaign (and by extension, my continuing blog action to get 25,000 signatures on the White House petition to remove Rush from Armed Forces Radio). The core of his argument is that our efforts are “illiberal” economic pressure:

No one is involuntarily exposed to his poison; and he earned the big bucks by peddling this crap. That’s the American way. Yes, I’m relieved that the government is not intervening, but the First Amendment ensures that. The right way to counter his speech, in my view, is with speech, not threats to his livelihood.

My heart weeps for Rush Limbaugh in his Florida estate. Anyone who can afford a piece of an NFL team gets no sympathy from me about their “livelihood” when they make themselves toxic — and that is what has happened here. Rush Limbaugh is losing advertisers because he has become toxic to almost any brand, and nobody made him do it.

Almost. There are exceptions…as reported by the Daily Beast:

“Advertising on Rush seems to be the logical move, he’s actually a sugar daddy,” Seeking Arrangements founder and CEO Brandon Wade told the Daily Beast, defining the term as an older, wealthier man involved with a much younger woman. “One of the things we have found [is that] even though a lot of Republicans are not willing to say they embody the sugar-daddy lifestyle,” many in fact do, he said, claiming that 60 percent of the site’s male members say they are Republicans.

[...]

Noel Biderman, the CEO of AshleyMadison.com offered a less contorted explanation of his site’s offer to fill all of Limbaugh’s newly vacated advertising space: “I’m opportunistic, I’m always opportunistic.” (Both sites put out press releases touting their plans to buy airtime on Limbaugh’s show).

Contrast this with the 55 companies that have pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh misogynist circus. This is classic free market behavior, as is the social media backlash against Limbaugh. In fact, what we are seeing right now is a market correction in the value of Rush Limbaugh. We will not stop until Excellence In Broadcasting is a penny stock — just like Glenn Beck. Perhaps Sullivan will remember how that went?

Indeed, we have been here before. Angelo Carusone, otherwise known as StopRush, said last night that the WABC broadcast of Limbaugh’s show included 86 ad slots, of which 77 were PSAs or dead air. That’s not because people called up and threatened advertisers, either. Neither StopBeck or StopRush has actually had to organize a boycott; in both cases, the focus has been on “advertiser education,” after which companies almost always pull their ads voluntarily.

Put another way: in a free market, Rush Limbaugh is not entitled to continued success. He is allowed to succeed or fail on his own, and doing a spectacular job of failing. Some of us are glad to help him fail. Why does Sullivan hate the free market?

About Matt Osborne

Veteran blogging the culture wars from Alabama. Video journalist, mash-up artist, aspiring novelist, and metalhead. Expect bunnies, geekery, dark humor, and snarky empirical analysis to annoy idealists of all stripes. You can follow me on Twitter, but be ready 'cause it might get loud.
This entry was posted in Andrew Sullivan, Blog Action, rush limbaugh. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

    I’ll say the same thing I said over on Cesca’s site; while I disagree with Sullivan and Maher on Rush, I do think there’s an overall debate worth having over what we as a culture (not the government) define as free speech.

    I do think controversial opinions deserve to be expressed without fear of advertisers being able to effectively kill a show whenever someone says something enough people don’t like and are willing to get vocal about. Now, Rush’s case is different, he slandered a private citizen, but it’s not like this is the first time something like this has come up. 

    Whether it’s Stern’s broadcast days (who, to be fair, never struggled for advertisers), Silent Night Deadly Night getting pulled from theaters, or Ice-T’s “Cop Killer,” people do kick up a shit storm over non-issues. That’s the free market at work too, but the outrage over each of those things really pissed me off and struck me as free speech issues. Again, Rush is different because he crossed the line into potentially illegal territory, but I do think there’s a discussion worth having.

    Of course, when it comes to radio and TV, a lot of these issues could resolve themselves if we just began to re-regulate ownership within the broadcast industry again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lynne-Gillooly/666424016 Lynne Gillooly

    Let’s be honest. Rush has been a highly paid lobbyists for the corporate big shots since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. He poses as an entertainer when it is convenient, but in reality he has grown so big that the GOP is afraid of him.
      My question is Is that free speech? To take away the law we had that gave TIME for opposing opinions and fill in omitted facts really free speech? Especially when the corporatists bought up all the high wattage AM stations to saturate and repeat the same propaganda AFTER the repeal of the FD.
     

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    Remember Janet Jackson’s nipple? Now pretend she shook it in front of America’s face for NINE HOURS.

  • Pingback: Ignore Gloria Allred. Let’s Take Down Rush Limbaugh and Hate Radio Ourselves | Osborne Ink

  • Pingback: Jason Taylor is the Butthurt of Breitblogger Brooks Bayne | Osborne Ink

  • Pingback: Rush Limbaugh’s Biggest Fan On Twitter | Osborne Ink

  • Pingback: Rush Limbaugh Will Go The Way Of Glenn Beck | Osborne Ink