UPDATE: Why Didn’t the Advertisers Drop Rush Limbaugh Before Now?

A few days ago, I wrote that we should not consider as heroes those companies that have dropped their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh shows.  If they were really socially responsible, they would never have advertised with him at all.  The number of companies dropping the advertising continues to grow.  The Center for American Progress provides the report below.  What I find laughable from the report is that “[t]he advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity [because Limbaugh and those shows] have been “’deemed to be offensive.’”  Of course they’re offensive.  They have always been offensive.  Again, don’t think any better of those companies because they now are dropping their advertising.  They should have never been advertising on them.

Here is the excerpt of the Center’s report:

Advertiser Exodus Grows Exponentially

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Rush Limbaugh’s vile, sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke and other women have taken a severe toll on his show.

Here’s the latest.

  • At least 140 Companies Have Dumped Limbaugh

ThinkProgress has obtained an internal memo from Premiere Radio Networks listing 96 national companies that have “specifically asked” their advertisements not be played during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Premiere is the distributor of Limbaugh’s program. The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. According to the memo, the listed companies’ advertisements should be excluded from these programs because they have been “deemed to be offensive.”

With these 96 new companies bailing on Limbaugh, the total number of advertisers boycotting Limbaugh has reached at least 140.

Why Didn’t the Advertisers Drop Rush Limbaugh Before Now?

According to reports, there are now more than 30 advertisers who have left the Rush Limbaugh show.  That list includes Netflix, Sears, Capital One, and J.C. Penney.  In addition, two radio stations have dropped his program.  All of that is great, but I imagine that everything will eventually get back to normal for Limbaugh and he will continue to spew his hatred.  As Jon Stewart said, he is just a terrible person.

 
I suppose there is a chance that Clear Channel will suspend him for a short period and more advertisers will bail.  But, after all, money is money.  Does anyone really believe that advertisers will put their “morals” before money?  Inevitably, Limbaugh will be back with full advertising dollars and as horrible as ever.

 
So, don’t think that Netflix and Sears (etc.) are heroes.  If they had any sense of social responsibility, they would not have been advertising on his show at all.  After all, he has been calling feminists “feminazis” almost from his time his show began many years ago.  He has ranted against gays and lesbians from the beginning.  His is a special kind of hatred, which, as he says, is cloaked in “entertainment.”  I will continue my “hatred” of Limbaugh, and will continue to have a bad opinion of those companies that advertise on his shows and those individuals who listen to him.

Elton John and Rush Limbaugh

In 2009, Reuters wrote that Elton John receives a $2 million fee when he performs at private weddings.  (Only the Rolling Stones receive more, a reported $8 million.)  And almost all of the proceeds from his private concerts go to the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

So, what happened this weekend when John performed at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding?  He was paid a $1 million fee.  This raises a number of questions?  First, what was he doing performing for Limbaugh in the first place, since Limbaugh thinks AIDS has been “hyped” and has even compared it to swine flu?  And, of course, Limbaugh is anti-same sex marriage.  Second, why did he not get his supposedly normal $2 million fee?

What do you have to say about all of this, Mr. John?  I would like to know the pro/con, cost benefit analysis you used when trying to decide whether to perform.  It must have been interesting.

Rush Limbaugh ‘loves the women’s movement’

Rush Limbaugh,  no friend to progressive thought, feminism, or intellectual discussion, told Fox News earlier today that he is “a huge supporter of women.” Limbaugh was being questioned about his role in judging the Miss America pageant, and whether or not it was “appropriate,” given the fact that he does not have a reputation of supporting women.

Denying the accusation, Limbaugh replied that he is a is a supporter of women, just not feminism. In defense of his argument, he said:

“I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.”

Oh, Rush. Not that I expected anything more constructive or intelligent from the man who also said that feminism “was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” It seems that for Limbaugh, the only noteworthy characteristic a women can have is based on her looks.

Although to be fair, his comment isn’t entirely incongruous with the purpose of the Miss America pageant. I’d love to hear an argument that posits that Miss America, Miss Universe, and the like are productive at much else besides objectifying and reinforcing harmful beauty standards. Yes, they provide scholarships, but these scholarships are awarded based on physical characteristics, which only reinforces the concept that women should be judged and rewarded based on beauty. In fact, I believe Rush is exactly the type of audience these pageants are designed for– people who see women as little other than beautiful objects or poised dolls. Swimsuit and gown competitions serve to titillate, and question-and-answer sessions are a source of ridicule. The whole production reeks of pre-feminism gender standards. Not to mention the scary child pageantry spin-off reality shows like Toddlers & Tiaras or Little Miss Perfect.

Rush’s comment is just one more in a long list of examples of the dysfunctional valuing of women in society.