MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 64.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby DCB » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:56 pm

For completeness, let's spell it out. With proper attribution, etc. the conversation goes like this:

rabble wrote:It's cute, is it not, how Rush becomes an entertainer when he needs defending and a voice for the patriots when it better suits the purpose of the hour.


Rich Schultz wrote:Jon Stewart.


rabble wrote:
Rich Schultz wrote:The comparison is exact, both Stewart and Limbaugh try to influence politics and both claim they are merely entertainers.

Except my quote was from Santorum. It wasn't Rush claiming to be an entertainer, it was Santorum claiming that Rush was an entertainer.

In other words, Santorum was defending Rush. That's vastly different than Rush attempting to defending himself.

I've heard some tasteless things on The Daily Show, but I don't recall Stewart hiding behind the "I'm just an entertainer" defense.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:03 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:I'm saying that Stewart and Limbaugh both pull the "just an entertainer' stunt even though we all know they are trying to be more than that.

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, Rich, but I've been trying to think of a time when Stewart actually pulled that particular stunt.

I don't believe there's ever been a time when he's been so offensive that the show started hemorrhaging advertisers so I won't ask you to come up with a similar scenario, but when, exactly did he actually defend himself by saying he was an entertainer?

I can recall times when he's used evidence to prove what he said was true, and even once when what he said was proven false - he was quoting the history channel, which had put out false info and he explained it. But I can't for the life of me remember a time when Stewart defended false or insulting behavior by saying "Hey, I'm an entertainer!"

Can you help me out with that? Because if you can't I'm calling bullshit.

Edit: Geez. Me'n DCB came up with that thought at almost the same time. JINX!
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Rich Schultz » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:06 pm

"After repeated prodding, Wallace then played a clip of Mr Stewart comparing a video of Sarah Palin’s recent bus tour to a herpes commercial.
Mr Stewart erupted: ‘You’re insane… Here’s the difference between you and I. ‘I’m a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there’s no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand…is that Hollywood, yeah, they’re liberal, but that’s not their primary motivating force. I’m not an activist. I am a comedian.’"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005632/Jon-Stewart-loses-cool-Fox-News-host-Chris-Wallace-You-insane.html
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby lukpac » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:10 pm

rabble wrote:I don't believe there's ever been a time when he's been so offensive that the show started hemorrhaging advertisers so I won't ask you to come up with a similar scenario, but when, exactly did he actually defend himself by saying he was an entertainer?


I don't believe he's said that in an effort to deflect offensive comments, but he has certainly said that responding to charges that he's a (liberal) activist.

Stewart called Fox News a “relentless agenda-driven 24-hour news opinion propaganda delivery system” — that sounds about right. But then he added this:
“Here’s the difference between you and I. I’m a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there’s no question about that. But the thing that you will never understand … is that Hollywood, yeah, they’re liberal, but that’s not their primary motivating force. I’m not an activist. I am a comedian.”


http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/will_bunch_jon_stewart/

Well, Rich beat me to it, but the point about different circumstances remains.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:16 pm

Damn. You got one.

I won't even play the "Oh, well you found ONE measly little time" card. He actually did make the claim.

Different circumstances certainly, and I don't think Rich will go so far as to say Stewart has ever sunk to the depths Rush inhabits most of the time, but point made nonetheless.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Rich Schultz » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:30 pm

Because comparing Sarah Palin's bus tour to a herpes commercial is high class, inoffensive, elevated humor. :?:
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:33 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:Because comparing Sarah Palin's bus tour to a herpes commercial is high class, inoffensive, elevated humor. :?:

Well, yeah.

Seriously. You're actually saying that comparing a (fake) politician's bus tour to a herpes commercial is even close to the level of calling a congressional witness a slut and a whore and asking her to give us sex videos?

Cause THAT one I will want to discuss further.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby lukpac » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:41 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:Because comparing Sarah Palin's bus tour to a herpes commercial is high class, inoffensive, elevated humor. :?:


Except...he wasn't. He was comparing the commercials.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby snoqueen » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:59 pm

Part of the problem here is what various viewers deem to be entertaining and humorous.

Some of us don't think calling a perfectly serious young law student and congressional witness a slut and a prostitute, in an angry manner, on national media, is entertaining and provokes amusement. Some do.

Seriously.

Part of the difficulty bridging the difference is those who find this entertaining either won't own up to it or can't express themselves well enough to explain why it's so amusing.

The alternative defense would be to claim it was dead serious, and I'm not sure they want to go there.

I can't figure out WHAT Limbaugh is. He's not funny, he's not serious. I think his listeners use him like a drug, an adrenaline rush. The guys I used to work with didn't actually talk about his content. I think it was more like they felt it.

Hard to discuss but no less powerful.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11283
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Rich Schultz » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:52 pm

I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. I'm calling both of them sluts. If you want to argue over which one is sluttier you go right ahead.
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby rabble » Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:14 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. I'm calling both of them sluts. If you want to argue over which one is sluttier you go right ahead.

Okay, you're on record as saying with, apparently, a strait face, that there's not much difference between Rush and Stewart. That Stewart sinks as low as Rush does.

That's your right. I just wanted to hear you say it. I'll bring it up from time to time when your credibility is an issue.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:50 pm

Trying to compare Limbaugh with Stewart is just a weak attempt to distract the argument from the awful things Rush said. Is Glenn Beck also only an entertainer... or just a train wreck waiting to happen?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19570
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Rich Schultz » Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:56 pm

"The awful things Rush said"
Oh my. You really think your going to ride that little stick horse into some kind of victory? Good luck with that. After decades of corrupting the culture you think America is going to freak out over the "slut" word? Have you watched any prime time TV lately?
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:11 pm

Two large corporations thought what Rush said was awful enough to pull their ads. Limbaugh then realized what he spewed was truly awful and he apologized. Or do you think he is just a craven coward and said so because he didn't want to lose the income (also to avoid a lawsuit for defamation)?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19570
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Boycott 1310 Sponsors of Rush

Postby snoqueen » Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:35 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/03 ... lobal-home

A seventh company has now pulled its advertising.

Whether what Rush said was "awful" or not, it sure was bad for business:

The six other advertisers that have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.

ProFlowers [the seventh company] had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy.


Rush's use of the term slut isn't being taken by the public as simple over-the-top ranting or humor. It is being understood as a lengthy, literal, false, and unnecessary description of the woman herself.

And the Twitter commenters are saying that for Rush to call a non-public, perfectly respectable individual a slut on his show is not acceptable. Seven companies have listened.

As always, the other side is free to start its own Twitter campaign in favor of advertising with Rush. Fair enough.

I will be interested to watch and see which advertisers stick with Rush or sign on to fill the empty ad slots on his show. Or perhaps he will acquire billionaire patrons, taking care of the whole messy business of sponsorship once and for all.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11283
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar