Saturday, March 10, 2012

Limbaugh Limbo: Big Companies Reevaluating Talk Radio

Below is part of an industry memo published today by in a story where it found that big companies are considering bailing on talk radio--not just Limblab, but all of it.

Advertisers are becoming queasy about outrageous figures like the man who so enraged women over the past week. Here's part of that memo:

"They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public."

The Limbaugh-maggot's mouth could well be the destruction of his industry, one brought about by a Reagan-appointed three-judge panel that killed the Fairness Doctrine more than 20 years ago. A return to sanity (as opposed to Hannity) is not guaranteed, but it would certainly have a better chance.


Here's the HuffingtonPost story on the companies looking at their talk radio ads.


  1. "a return to sanity (as opposed to Hannity) is not guaranteed, but it would certainly have a better chance."
    Here's a one up,
    Wouldn't it be better to consider that we might need to TRY to understand the questions and values of others, rather than villifing ideas as warfare?

  2. Eldon: Are you suggesting I should be opposed to the destruction of right-wing talk radio? The deep political divide intensified beyond what it has been in my lifetime with the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of talk radio. Yes, I want it stopped. I don't think it is all right.

  3. Dan: We totally agree about right-wing talk radio. I would like to see it die away in favor of progressive thoughtful discourse.

    I have found that the more I allow myself to engage in ranting about opposing ideas, the less I accomplish that is positive. The more time I spend defending my ideas from emotionaly based attacks, the less I accomplish that is positive.

    Most importantly, I would like to see a huge reduction in our apparent tendency to want to categorize ourselves as right or left, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, or Teabagger. Why can we not think, instead of first, picking sides and promoting the battle?
    Friends (both Quaker & Parkway) don't choose sides.

  4. Eldon: I agree that peaceful discourse is preferable, but when many on the other side is constantly throwing bombs, it is wise to pick them up and throw them back. Limbaugh qualifies as a bomb-thrower and I think helping organize--online in this case--opposition is desirable. Strong language is required in cases like this. As I've said many times, my business partner are at opposite ends of the political pole, but we get along just fine because we want to. Limbaugh, et al, don't want to.