Thread: Why Is "Slut" Fatal For Rush?

Originally Posted by Paratrooper

The indisputable facts in this are Rush Limbaugh said:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Then he apologized.

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

"The apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong"

------
Now to steer this back on topic
Why is "slut" fatal for Rush?

Simple, it's not.

"What have your ratings been since that whole Fluke thing happened?"

"The simple answer is that on the range of all 600 radio stations, our ratings are up anywhere from 10% to 60%, depending on the station."

Was Limbaugh's words towards Fluke right or wrong?

Pick one.

Simple right?

Originally Posted by American

In the case of Palin, I can imagine you laughing and cheering.

Palin who???lol

Originally Posted by presluc

Was Limbaugh's words towards Fluke right or wrong?

Pick one.

Simple right?

Actually if you read through previous post of mine on the topic ( there have been multiple threads on this) I have said several times that his comments were out of line.

My only argument in this debate has been that his comments don't merit anymore outrage than other similar comments, to which many liberals have vehemently disagreed.

Bottom line is Liberals wanted this to be a career ender for Rush and it wasn't. His viewership has gone up. His audience has accepted his apology and moved on.

I think having Rush around greatly benefits the liberals. It draws a line in the sand, makes many 'conservatives' uncomfortable like back when they lined up to first kiss Falwell's ring and then deny him before the cock crowed thrice! Let him rant and rave, it so helps define the radically off the reservation right wingnuts.

As far as his listeners increasing and such I will have to ask for more than a former drug addict's word on it, do you have any references to back his mouth? I have found where stations have dropped him and Mike Huckabee has gained audience....

Originally Posted by Paratrooper

Actually if you read through previous post of mine on the topic ( there have been multiple threads on this) I have said several times that his comments were out of line.

My only argument in this debate has been that his comments don't merit anymore outrage than other similar comments, to which many liberals have vehemently disagreed.

Bottom line is Liberals wanted this to be a career ender for Rush and it wasn't. His viewership has gone up. His audience has accepted his apology and moved on.

Come on, you started good almost had my attention, but then?
Look when Clinton screwed up with supporting Nafta my post said Clinton screwed up and he did.
When Carter screwed up on "well pick one IRAN hostage crises or others" I said he screwed up and he did.
When Obama came up with Obama care I said he screwed up it's just a glorified insurance ad.and that is how I see it.

The difference is right there in your post.
You said Limbaugh's comments were out of line they were.

The difference,
After that you went on to say the liberals were just as guilty of other similar comments. "excuse"?

If I see something somebody left or right or middle does that's wrong; it's them I will be concentrating on not others

If in my lifetime I make a mistake and believe me I have already had my share of mistakes .
I will accept the responsibility, I won't point fingers at others. I will take whatever comes on my own my responsibility.
If any others don't want to take responsibility without pointing fingers at others , that's their thing, but a for me my concience is clear.

Let's look at the number of loyal listeners some are claiming Rush has.

The number 20 million gets tossed around a lot. It first appears in print in a 'Billboard' interview of a Kit Carson, supposed to be Rush's Chief of Staff, as the number of listeners in 1993. Does it seem odd to anyone that number has not changed since?

There is no realistic way to verify that number, the syndication company doesn't release and data and the patchwork of stations doesn't make independent verification easy. It isn't in the best interest of Rush and co to release the data only if the real numbers doesn't support the 20 million claim as what Rush can charge depends on the number of ears he can bring to the table.

Now what is counted as a listener? The answer might surprise you. A listener is someone who listens to the program for at least 2 minutes during a 15 minute segment. So one person can be 4 listeners if the radio is on for an hour! The magic of radio!

Radio insiders are highly skeptical of the raw numbers and their rule of thumb is divide by 10. That means Rush's 20 million most likely is around 2 million IF there ever were 20 million.

According to Rush himself he has not seen any numbers since January so how does he claim the increase of listeners? Easy, he has cheerleaders who pulled it from the sky! Someone says it so it must be true.

I can understand when 'conservatives' grumble about the lamestream media not verifying a story, but this was so easy to debunk.

He also has people like myself who are probably not counted as listeners (because they don't tune in to him on the radio) but instead access his show through the iphone app/website.

Also incidents like "Slutgate" can theoretically drum up more of an audience for him, because now that everyone is talking about him, someone that may have not watched his show before is now curious what it is all about.

can theoretically???? are you down to that? I don't doubt a few folks tune in for a minute and then leave, but that isn't anything to be counted on the plus side.

I am not sure where you can find the person who doesn't know about Rush and doesn't know what he does, hell Rush gets millions in free advertising from the lamestream media he loves to hate with every wild attack and shameless rant he spews.

But back to my point you dodged, no one can count any listeners because no one can have access to any numbers. Rush built his empire on smoke and mirrors. The numbers you posted can not be verified because those who made the claims for Rush to parrot just made them up. His cheerleaders have thrown around anything from 60% to doubled.

Theoretically pigs could fly

I think when the media tries to summarize the incident they use the word "slut" as that is the way he punctuated a rant about a woman he knew little about and how he totally screwed the topic up in the process.

I think if you look at a lot of the voices that get more and more extreme they tend to fade away or viewers along with advertisers are turned off by false martyrs. Look at Beck, Olbermann, etc.

Originally Posted by JohnWOlin

I think when the media tries to summarize the incident they use the word "slut" as that is the way he punctuated a rant about a woman he knew little about and how he totally screwed the topic up in the process.

I think if you look at a lot of the voices that get more and more extreme they tend to fade away or viewers along with advertisers are turned off by false martyrs. Look at Beck, Olbermann, etc.

Well, I think calling a woman you have not met or do not know a "slut" is wrong.