Talk is a popular radio format, whether it’s the shock jocking of Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony or Bubba the Love Sponge; or the political talk of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
But sometimes the line between political talk and a shock jock isn’t so clear. For example, when Don Imus was on CBS Radio, he referred to a the Rutgers women’s basketball team as a group of “nappy-headed hos.” He paid for his remarks by being fired from the network, even after he gave what was generally considered to be a serious apology directly to team members.
The ever provocative Rush Limbaugh seems to have crossed the line between political talk and shock jocking last week when he started calling a Georgetown University law student a “slut” and a “prostitute” for arguing that all health insurance should pay for women’s prescription birth control. Unlike the Imus case, which took place during a single broadcast, Limbaugh continued his attacks on the student and her arguments for several days.
As NPR’s David Folkenflik notes in a 2007 story, Limbaugh has never steered away from controversy. His show is the most popular talk show on radio, drawing an estimated 13.5 million listeners per week. And he draws that audience by saying extreme things. Limbaugh says, “I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates.”
So while Limbaugh is generally well served by his provocative style, did he go to far by calling the Georgetown student names? As of today (March 5, 2012), at least seven advertisers have suspended their advertising on his show. Over the weekend, and on his show today, Limbaugh has apologized for the name calling, but it’s not yet clear what will come of that apology.
The apology isn’t really the point; no sane person can think that there is an ounce of sincerity in that. To me, it’s a shame that the focus is on the verbage here, inappropriate as it was. The larger issue should be the way in which Rush, the designated thinker of right wingers everywhere, made such a ridiculous analogy.
ACCESS to contraception is about not only the mechanisms in which to obtain them, but the funds with which to afford them. I grant that there is room for debate on the issue, although I wonder if, in the republican view, a snake-handling church could refuse to cover traditional medical treatment, opting only to pay for wart creams and thick gloves. But Rush’s claim that she “wants to be paid to have sex” is just flat-out stupid. And it’s a shame this episode paints him as a courageous (to his doting fan base) firebrand rather than the deceitful pied piper he is.
To me, there is another issue going on as well – whose religious beliefs should be be concerned with? Do we care more about the employer’s beliefs or the employee’s beliefs. Should the person I work for determine what insurance it’s moral for me to receive? What if I find it to be immoral to deny certain types of coverage? And that hasn’t been talked about nearly enough. Thanks for the comment, Mike.