Howard Limbaugh

I read recently about how a limited advertiser boycott of Rush Limbaugh was costing some big radiocompany or other “millions.”

Lew Dickey, the CEO of Cumulus, was speaking to financial analysts about his companies' results. The boycott -- which saw scores of advertisers leave after Limbaugh called law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" because of her birth-control advocacy -- had "hit us pretty hard."

Dickey said that Cumulus had lost "a couple of million bucks in the first quarter and a couple of million bucks in quarter two." He claimed that the losses accounted for one percent of the 3.5 percent loss in revenue that Cumulus suffered over this period.

I wasn't any more impressed with this than I was sympathetic for Mr. Dickey. Indeed, I couldn't help but think back to a scene in the movie Private Parts, a biographical film about the sex-obsessed radio personality Howard Stern, based on Stern's own autobiographical book of the same title.

In the scene I refer to, Howard, then a local shock jock in the Washington, DC area, loses an advertiser, only to have a new advertiser immediately make up for the lost one. I'm sure we've all seen the impact of this incident on Howard Stren's career (apparently the scene in the film is based on fact). From there, Stern's popularity and influence only increased. He kicked down a door that Don Imus and others had only poked their heads through and at minimum helped to create the “Shock Jock” radio genre; a radio personality whose schtick is offending people.

From there, Stern became a major media player, making loads of money for himself and what advertisers remained. People may make fun of Stern for being on satellite radio now, but some of that ridicule is unfair (despite Pandora and other forms of Internet radio, satellite radio retains a large presence in the market). And at any rate, to this day Howard Stern, like Rush Limbaugh, remains a household name even in households that don't listen to him. The point is: Losing advertisers in Washington, DC didn't hurt Stern any more than losing advertisers now will hurt Rush Limbaugh. Indeed, this sentence closes that article linked to above:

For his part, Limbaugh has claimed that the boycott had a negligible impact, and that many of the advertisers who left his show have been clamoring to return.

After thinking about Howard Stern's early troubles, I thought of other incidents Rush Limbaugh has been involved in, other exploitative and shocking things he's said. Like that time when he was removed from being a Football announcer fordragging racial politics into a discussion of a certain player.  Or the time years ago on his television show wherein he referred to Chelsea Clinton as “the white housedog.”  (I had the misfortune of seeing that incident on television for myself.) Or that time on his radio show when he ridiculed a rape victim on the basis of the unusual circumstances of her assault. (No link, I heard this one on the radio, on Mr. Limbaugh's show.  I didn't take a note of the broadcast date because I foolishly didn't think I'd be writing about Rush Limbaugh over a decade later.)

Then, with all that in mind, I thought about the recent “slut” incident, and how many wondered if Rush Limbaugh's career would survive it. Of course it could. It can, it will, it has. And why? Because this is what Rush Limbaugh's audience wants, just as similar stunts are what Howard Stren's audience wants. Or Opie and Anthony's.

Rush Limbaugh, you see, is essentially Howard Stren with the politics/sex ratio flipped. I once saw Howard Stren on Jay Leno's Tonight Show some years back saying something much like this, accusing Limbaugh of stealing his act.

The problem isn't that Rush Limbaugh says offensive things. It's his job to, the same as it's Howard Stern's job.

The problem is that Stern knows what he is, and Limbaugh doesn't.

The problem is also that Limbaugh's legions of fans, self-described ditto-heads, want him to say offensive things; it isn't a reason they don't listen it's the reason they do listen.

The problem is that Limbaugh's job description exists in our society at all, not that he is particularly successful at it.

The problem, also, is that the mainstream media takes Rush Limbaugh seriously enough to listen, and to treat him as though he were a political commentator instead of what he really is. A shock jock who uses the word “liberal” the way Howard Stern uses the word “penis.”

Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock, only this and nothing more. It's time he was treated with the respect he deserves. When was the last time you saw the headline “Howard Stern Makes Offensive Remark?” A long time, because most people know that Howard Stern makes offensive remarks solely because they are offensive and he should not be taken seriously.

And it should be the same with Rush Limbaugh.