On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:12:59 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46:12 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it --
I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.
That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.
That's what you get for living in a country where you're free to support
what you like, and to not support what you don't like. It didn't seem to
bother the righties when Clear Channel was threatened with a boycott for
playing the Dixie Chicks. It doesn't stop them from boycotting Community
Chest charities when they fund clinics that perform abortions.
You can't have it both ways.
I never said I supported a Clear Channel boycott. AAMOF, I didn't know
about it until now. And I'm pro-choice, so you can be sure I didn't
support killing innocent abortion doctors in their clinics.
The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's
why
they publicized the advertisers' names.
So it doesn't matter if the people are hurt as long as they never
advertise during Rush's show again? That's extremely bad policy.
Think about what you're saying here. The reason those advertisers pulled out
is because they were catching flak from consumers. And they caught flak from
those consumers only because they *hadn't known* that those companies were
supporting Rush Limbaugh's show with advertising. In other words, the
companies got away with it until it was no longer hidden. Once those
consumers knew what the company was doing, they withdrew their support.
So the anti-Limbaugh bunch was just promoting full disclosure. All they said
was "these companies are advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show."
Aren't you selective about who you support and not? If you contribute to
your United Way and found out that they were making contributions to the
Nation of Islam, wouldn't you pull out your contribution?
You bet. But if they -weren't- contributing to the bad guys and you
said they were, you'd be the one in the wrong.
Again, you can't have it both ways. Commercial enterprises run into boycotts
all the time because of some position they take, or that they support
directly or indirectly.
Limbaugh's weekly Aribitron ratings runs around 14MM; the total weekly radio
audience in the US, using the same Arbitron measure, is 235MM. Forget about
timeslots, share, and so on: this tells you that 14 million people listen to
Limbaugh (that counts repeats during a week), and 221 million listen to
something else (likewise). The dittoheads GROSSLY overestimate Limbaugh's
share of the total radio audience. He has the highest *single show* ratings,
but the large majority of people who listen to radio don't listen to him,
despite the fact that he's got the closest thing to total national coverage
of any program in history.
A lot of those people despise him. I mean, they really would like to see him
drop dead. In other words, they feel the same about him as you feel about
Louis Farrakhan.
Because 221 million radio listeners don't know what's on his show, and many
of them hate him, it should be no surprise that many of them are going to be
****ed off to learn that some company whose products they buy are supporting
his show. So the anti-Limbaugh people just provided a public service in
making that fact known.
But those companies couldn't have known their ads were on his shows
because the radio folks don't let them choose.
Don't you feel better now? Knowing that they're just doing to supporters of
Limbaugh what you'd probably do to Louis Farrakhan sort of puts it into
perspective, doesn't it? g?
Don't go there, Ed. I wouldn't knowingly try to hurt someone on a
whim. I ferret out the facts before waging war.
The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt.
Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of
the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.
Was that the initial intent of the antis, or are you reading that into
their actions through your emotions? You don't seem to like Rush too
awfully much, Ed. 
And you (and the antis) used the word "targets."
Targeting companies to make them lose business or ruin them is not
really very nice, is it? shrug
I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just reporting the facts. Advertisers
pull ads when they get complaints and feel it's hurting them more than it
helps.
Yes, advertisers pull ads when they feel it's hurting them, but to
have to pull ads from a large pool because some asshole says you
_might_ be airing on so-and-so station is assinine. What I'm railing
against is the unfairness of the accusations the antis throw.
Instead, why didn't the antis contact the advertisers and ask them to
request that their ads not be broadcast during Rush hour?
Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.
Oh, I'm not. I'm disgusted that assholes like the antis might be able
to kill someone's business for no reason. "Not liking Rush" is not a
valid reason for those actions, IMO.
See above. And if you still feel that way, I hope that you're not
withholding any contributions to charities that support abortion clinics or
the Nation of Islam for "no reason" -- the same reasons you don't want the
liberals to boycott advertisers on Limbaugh's show.
I don't, but could, contribute to abortion clinics. I don't, and
won't, support any church. I believe that organized religion has done
us far more harm than good during its history.
-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================