Skip to main content

View Diary: Michael J Fox's take on Limbaugh/Maher (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree slightly with MJF (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, schnecke21

    regarding the Maher thing. I don't think the main difference is that Maher doesn't have advertisers. If Rush was on HBO, I'd have cancelled my subscription and told HBO and Comcast why I was doing it.

    The bigger differences:
    1. Maher's got much less influence on the left as Rush has on the right.
    2. Maher's comments were in a stand up comedy act (not his HBO show). Rush's were broadcast to millions of listeners.
    3. Maher's comments were bad, but offhand generic (though misogynistic) profane words that could have easily been replaced with other generic put-downs. Rush's were repeated for days, with "justification" (i.e. lies) for why those specific terms applied.
    4. Maher was punching up to a more influential public media figure. Rush was punching down to an otherwise nearly unknown person.

    How about an Office of Fact Based Initiatives?

    by factbased on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 10:14:47 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Cancelling is, of course, your option (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Cali Scribe

      and your decision.

      But people pay for HBO, they don't get it by default. You have to specifically choose to get it. You do that knowing that it has content that is at a different level than general broadcast fare.

      Cable in general is like that - the cable only stations often are more adult (or more childlike, depending on the station) than the general broadcast stations.

      Rush is on public airwaves, not a private, subscription service. If he were on satellite radio, and ONLY on satellite radio, he could say whatever the hell he wanted.

      Let him curse a blue streak for a few days, and see how fast he gets pulled. But on cable/satellite, he could do that and nobody would really care.

      •  Look what happened to Maher (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        when he was on broadcast TV (ABC) -- he said one thing that aroused the ire of the public and got pulled. He's got far more freedom on pay cable than he ever did on broadcast; granted, he's also probably reaching a smaller audience. If Rush jumped to satellite or went internet only a la Glenn Beck, he'd have all sorts of freedom -- but would his legions of ditto heads want to pay 20 bucks or so a month for Sirius/XM or internet access?

        The optimist sees the glass as half-full. The pessimist sees the glass as half-empty. The realist just knows she's thirsty.

        by Cali Scribe on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 11:54:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would care (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior
        But on cable/satellite, he could do that and nobody would really care.
        I would care. If he got a show on HBO, my money would be going even more directly to Rush than if I do business with his advertisers, so I'd cancel.

        Maybe you're just suggesting he would have "gotten away with it" if it he'd been on Sirius. But as long as any non-dittohead is keeping tabs on it (e.g. Media Matters), the word can get out. And that happened, via other media outlets, due to the size of his audience and his influence on the right, not because a lot of us were listening live. Of course if moving to pay radio reduced his audience and influence, then he'd get less scrutiny unless he also cranked up the insanity.

        How about an Office of Fact Based Initiatives?

        by factbased on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 04:05:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site