Skip to main content

View Diary: Limbaugh Is Losing! With Each Hateful Word, More Sponsors Leave. (300 Left Last Month) Total: 2,500+ (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what regulations is he breaking? (0+ / 0-)

    I ask because stating them makes your claim that this needs to go to the FCC stronger

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:16:33 PM PST

    •  We don't need the FCC (22+ / 0-)

      once sponsors are aware of what Limbaugh is saying, they no longer want their ads accompanying his hate speech.

      •  agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Eyesbright

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:26:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately not all sponsors (6+ / 0-)

        The local gun shop and shooting range that advertises on the Limbaugh program here (South Jersey) are reaching their demographic.

        •  Can't do much about that (7+ / 0-)

          But major national companies and universities (the ones with the real money) need to know that associating with Limbaugh is a losing proposition.

          •  Careful how you define "associating"... (0+ / 0-)

            The diarist, and some others in the discussion, believe that a university "associates with" or "sponsors" Limbaugh if any radio station that carries their athletic events also happens to carry Limbaugh.

            It's a bogus claim, for any number of reasons.

            If you find a university actually advertising during his show, that's a different story - but the "anyone whose programming airs on any station that also airs Limbaugh is supporting Limbaugh" argument is simply lame.

            •  I think it has to be considered with other things (0+ / 0-)

              ...including the fact that AM radio signals have geographic reach into rural areas that FM doesn't.  

              But sharing a radio station with RW hate and science denial is something that a university should want to stay away from if it can.  

              •  Let's get down to brass tacks... (0+ / 0-)

                In almost all cases of collegiate athletic networks, there is NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND INDIVIDUAL STATIONS.  In the majority of cases, there isn't even a contract between the university (as a legal entity) and the network's management!

                Here's how it works:

                1) Most universities have a separate legal entity, usually named something like "University of Foobieblex Athletics Association", that actually owns/operates the athletic programs.  (This, incidentially, is how they get around their state's salary limitations for state government employees.  The basketball coach can be paid more than is the university president because the coach "isn't really" employed by the university, but rather by the athletics association.)

                2) The athletics association--NOT the university--then signs a contract with a sports marketing company, like IMG College, to operate the school's broadcast network.

                3) The sports marketing company--NOT the university, and NOT the athletics association--signs contracts with individual stations that wish to participate in the broadcast network.

                4) Those individual radio stations may sign OTHER contracts for other programming, such as (possibly) Rush Limbaugh.

                So, you're basically arguing that the university should, somehow, be able to negotiate (or exercise veto power over, or simply  terminate) contracts to which it is not a party, and which are, in fact, three steps removed from the university itself.

                As I said, it's a bogus suggestion, and the notion that universities are "sponsoring Limbaugh" if a radio station chooses to air both their athletic events and Limbaugh's show is utterly ludicrous.

                •  Ads/promotions were heard on his show. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  In order for any company, school or organization to be reported to the StopRush Database, their name MUST be aired and heard by a StopRush station monitor during the show. The monitor then documents the information into the StopRush Database.
                  Companies who advertise on any other Clear Channel show(s), are not reported.  So if a team plays a game on the same station as Limbaugh's show, it matters not. It only matters if the name of the company/team is heard during Limbaugh's daily three-hour show.
                  To get off the 'active' StopRush list, it simply takes a call to Clear Channel to request their ads/promos not be used at anytime during Limbaugh's show. It has been done by thousands.
                  Once again, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The public is speaking up and reaching out. The sponsors have the choice to listen or ignore the public.

                  "When faced with darkness, be the light. Remembering Richard Myers"

                  by Leslie Salzillo on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:46:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um...really? (0+ / 0-)
                    Companies who advertise on any other Clear Channel show(s), are not reported.  So if a team plays a game on the same station as Limbaugh's show, it matters not. It only matters if the name of the company/team is heard during Limbaugh's daily three-hour show.
                    But, in this comment, you added UNC-Chapel Hill to your diary and said you would be fowarding the information to - even though the comment only stated that Tarheel basketball games also aired on "Rush Radio."  Not a word was said about advertisements from UNC-CH, but you reported them anyway?
      •  I want to point out (5+ / 0-)

        Its great that commercial sponsors are leaving him, as they should. His words will not be shut down by censorship, from the FCC.

        Rush's funding will, I fear, not be threatened. His blathering will continue as long as the Kochs and all their friends have trillions of play money.

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:25:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but what made limbaugh was lack of challenge and (4+ / 0-)

          real competition.

          what makes him and hannity and many of the other think tank-coordinated  blowhards so effective  as a propaganda tool is that their coordinated repetition of lies and distortions is virtually unchallenged in their realm - political  talk radio.

          there has always been billions for buying media and politicians but the unchallenged talk radio monopoly allows them to create  made-to-order constituencies for any occasion within days or over years to enable their bought and paid-for politicians that would otherwise look a lot more like billionaires' politicians.

          with that talk radio monopoly, still largely unchallenged by the left, the most ignorant sycophant paid-for politician has a smorgasbord of 'popular' prechewed talking points to choose from - that's the tea party constituency at his back.

          that's how benghazi and debt ceiling distortions and lies  became talking points on SOTU responses and confirmation hearings.

          the kochs can pay him all they want but once americans get up in his face to yell back (on his own turf- as the boycott represents) he becomes challenged and exposed and that monster intimidating/enabling bandwagon he used to drive will lose it's acceptability and certainty and will fall off the road.

          This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

          by certainot on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:05:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Electioneering (5+ / 0-)

      Could I propose that his and Hannity's open GOt-Right-Kind-of-V efforts every two years likely run afoul even of the most state's election laws? Any automobile that drives past the no-electioneering line to park while Mr. Ee-Ay-Ee-Aye Bee is still on its radio violates the law. I am not certain this is an FCC matter, but I am also not at all certain it is not.

      Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

      by textus on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 04:12:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may have a point there. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UnionMade, Leslie Salzillo, Smoh, elwior, 1BQ

        There's a holdover doctrine in FCC jurisprudence called the Zapple Doctrine.  A group up in Wisconsin has filed a complaint with the FCC about the pre-Election broadcasts on an AM station in Milwaukee.

        The Zapple Doctrine arose as a corollary of the Fairness Doctrine.  The Zapple Doctrine is also known as "quasi-equal opportunities" - a reference to the formal Equal Opportunities provisions of Section 315 of the Communications Act,  47 U.S.C. § 315, which governs legally qualified candidates' access to the airwaves.

        Although the FCC suspended enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1980s, and has since (in 2011) formally abolished it, the Zapple Doctrine has lain dormant.

        The Zapple Doctrine compels a station to provide air time to the supporters of one candidate if the same station provides time to the supporters of another candidate in the same electoral race.  The group in Wisconsin has invoked the doctrine.  To my knowledge, the FCC has not yet acted on the complaint.

        •  Ugh, won't happen. Never ever. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Can we stop with the Zapple Doctrine? The FCC won't consider an antiquated rule with all the different channels and platforms available in the 21st century.

          •  I highly doubt the FCC will act in favor of the (0+ / 0-)

            listeners who have filed their pleading, but in the interest of accuracy and completeness, I thought that I should point out the existence of the ZD.

          •  Zapple Doctrine's dormancy (0+ / 0-)

            ...if that's the case, shouldn't the FCC be required to remove it from the books?

            The Milwaukee case brought by Media Action Network shows an intention by WTMJ and WITC to favor one candidate over another, based on the allocation of airtime to supporters of either side.

            This is prohibited by the Zapple Doctrine. Although it has not been enforced in years, there also have not been formal complaints made.

            The FCC has a duty to adjudicate this complaint. If it just blows off the complaint, it will be creating an even bigger story, with the FCC at the center. The narrative will be that they are protecting corporate broadcasters from having to air views of the people in the areas subject to the broadcasts.

            This will bring front and center the question whether the FCC licensee has any duty at all to serve the public interest above their own interests.

            I'd also ask, if WTMJ and WITC are willing to subject themselves to bias complaints and petitions to deny renewal of licenses, why wouldn't they simply take a few guests or calls that present dissenting views? They would then have the perfect opportunity to make the superior argument in favor of Scott Walker or the issue of the day.

            The reason we advocate for free speech and (used to) legislate against propaganda is so that the public could benefit from the clash of opposing ideas out in the open.

            The left wing is fully on board for this today, but why is this not still the standard for the right?

      •  Maybe if the windows are open (0+ / 0-)

        and the volume is cranked up really loudly..

    •   what regulations is he breaking? (0+ / 0-)

      None.  Please see my comment above.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site