Does the Limbaugh boycott matter?
Posted by Charles II on March 14, 2012
I think it does. Michael Wolff, who knows a thing or two about media, thinks it does not:
There is an argument to make here, and I wish someone would make it, about the terrible precedent of encouraging advertisers to stampede away from controversial and ornery speech. They are skittish enough, and every instance of an advertising boycott encourages them more and makes so many of us in this business – if not Rush Limbaugh – censor ourselves.
But my argument is a much different one. It is that none of this is what’s happening: it’s a misunderstanding of how talk radio works.
…
the media establishment really has no power over Rush, and that his advertisers will all be back very soon because few of them, being no-brands, really have any reputation to lose.
…
liberals, to their continuing detriment, really don’t understand how the media work.
I think Wolff is wrong because the presence of branded advertisers gives the Limbaugh show credibility. The more he is forced to go to scam artists selling overpriced gold coins, the less credibility he has, until his audience gradually deserts him. Shunning does work. It just takes a lot of time and effort, much more than the newbies whose first go at depriving Limbaugh of advertisers was this year know.
6 Responses to “Does the Limbaugh boycott matter?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Mercury Rising 鳯女 
MEC said
Could someone place explain to Michael Wolff that what Limbaugh said — what he’s been saying for years — is not merely “controversial and ornery” but that it deliberately incites hatred? That’s like calling bullying “teasing”. It denies the real harm that hate speech does, and in fact puts the burden on the targets of the hatred.
I think the boycott is important because it shows that the targets of Rush’s hate spew have power and they have allies, and that expressing hatred has negative consequences.
Charles II said
I have a hard time differentiating the hatred expressed by Limbaugh from the controversial statements expressed by Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich. All of them are saying a variation on one theme: “We are righteous, our enemies are evil, deserving of imprisonment, death or deportation.” Look at the Gingrich word list and tell me that isn’t hate speech. Or compare Limbaugh with Michael Savage Weiner.
The main differences between Limbaugh and the rest of Republicans are these:
1. Limbaugh is on three hours a day, so he has more opportunity to say something ugly,
2. Limbaugh is narrowcasting to an audience with much lower standards than the average American, and
3. Limbaugh focuses his attacks on individuals, while most people are satisfied with keeping their hatred suitably vague, which is considered more tasteful.
Am I missing something, MEC?
MEC said
I think you’ve covered it, Charles.
Phoenix Woman said
This is what happens when someone like Michael Wolff is immersed for decades in “fairness and balance” of the FOX variety — as opposed to a dedication to truth that lets the chips fall where they may — that person loses their moral compass.
Charles II said
I don’t think that Michael Wolff has lost his moral compass, PW.
He looks at it from the standpoint that if Limbaugh is fired today, some other right wing talker takes his place tomorrow.
I see this as a long battle. Deny the enemy–which is not any one person, but the system of lies–resources, deny them cover (media false balance), and deny them fortified places (elective office). A win against Limbaugh is a significant win. The American Revolution lost a lot of battles before it won.
And I think that stripping right-wing radio of the gloss of normalcy, which mainstream corporate advertisers like Sears provide it, is an important part of getting people to listen to it more skeptically. Right wingers are notoriously slavish followers of power, so once ideas are espoused under the aegis of no-name advertisers, they aren’t quite so certain what to believe.
This is why I think Wolff’s main thesis is wrong. On the other hand, he’s already being proven right that right-wingers will try to knock left-wing broadcasters off the air for being “controversial.” They’ve already taken after Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher for comments they’ve made. Yes, they draw false equivalences and so on and so on, but in the maelstrom, the ‘wingers are hoping to take down the little leftwing media infrastructure that exists.
And they may succeed.
Phoenix Woman said
Their chances of succeeding just dropped a few notches, Charles. For one thing, Limbaugh isn’t the powerhouse he once was. Note this passage from today’s Politico story about Rush finally deigning to use the Twitter account that was reserved for him over three years ago:
And he has 109,090 followers as of 9:55 PM CDT.
In other words, nearly everyone who wanted to follow him on Twitter did so well before today, and very few of the persons in his core audience are joining Twitter to follow him. Granted, Rush’s core audience is made up of old white guys. But in the old days, Rush would have had gained 50,000 Twitter followers in a few hours’ time. Not now.
Meanwhile, @georgetakei has 306,105 followers.