On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It is not that he called a woman a slut - no doubt he has said as bad or > worse in the past. But the context - turning a legitimate policy debate into > a vicious, sexualized attack on a young woman, not otherwise in the public > eye, or convicted of any wrong doing, who was doing nothing but expressing > her views, makes this particularly despicable. All the more so because in > making the attack, he was actually personifying the worst stereotype of the > so-called "patriarchy" - using sexual bullying to punish women for > disagreeing with traditional authority. This personification makes the point > for even right-of-center observers so vividly that it can not really be > ignored. > > As the Washington Post editorial put it today (and for those who have not > bee keeping score at home, the WaPo editorial page stopped being left of > center some time ago): > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-can-no-longer-avoid-its-rush-limbaugh-problem/2012/03/02/gIQA1xvVnR_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage > > "Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the > past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. > Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of > reaching that audience, need to take special note... Mr. Limbaugh has abused > his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a > citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the > process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further > debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen > who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While > Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have > a responsibility to repudiate them — and him."
James Wolcott brought up Don Imus as a similar situation on his blog at Vanity Fair. The thing that gave the Imus affair traction was an appeal to sponsors to stop advertising on his show. As of today for Limbaugh's show: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-boycott-reddit-twitter-facebook_n_1317698.html Redditor jaybercrow posted on r/politics a list of companies that sponsor the Limbaugh show and encouraged users to contact the businesses to ask that they sever partnerships from Limbaugh in the wake of the controversy. "TO BE CLEAR," reads a caveat at the very top of the post, "this is about taking Rush Limbaugh down through a boycott of his sponsors and in no way is meant to infer physical harm." During the day on Friday, Limbaugh sponsors began responding to the outcry over his statements. Jaybercrow updated the list several times on Friday as sponsors pulled their deals with Limbaugh. By Saturday morning, Legal Zoom, Citrix Success, Heart and Body Extract, AutoZone, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Oreck said they yanked ads from Limbaugh's show. Nine companies remain on the list: ProFlowers, CARBONITE, Inc., Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, American Forces Network, Mission Pharmacal Company, Life Quotes, Inc., Life Lock, Tax Resolution and AOL, parent company of The Huffington Post. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
