A is patently true; how can you try and deny that? B is an unintended consequence certainly; why should an institution that opposes birth control be made to provide it?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...tagious-for-talk-radio-advertisers.print.html Ninety-eight major advertisers—including Ford and Geico—will no longer air spots on Premiere Networks’ ‘offensive’ programs. Insiders say the loss will rock right-wing talk radio. by John Avlon | March 10, 2012 12:00 AM EST Rush Limbaugh made the right-wing talk-radio industry, and he just might break it. Because now the fallout from the “slut” slurs against Sandra Fluke is extending to the entire political shock-jock genre. Premiere Networks, which distributes Limbaugh as well as a host of other right-wing talkers, sent an email out to its affiliates early Friday listing 98 large corporations that have requested their ads appear only on “programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).” This is big. According to the radio-industry website Radio-Info.com, which first posted excerpts of the Premiere memo, among the 98 companies that have decided to no longer sponsor these programs are “carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm), and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway).” Together, these talk-radio advertising staples represent millions of dollars in revenue. Valerie Geller, an industry insider and author of Beyond Powerful Radio, confirmed the trend. “I have talked with several reps who report that they're having conversations with their clients, who are asking not to be associated with specifically polarizing controversial hosts, particularly if those hosts are ‘mean-spirited.’ While most products and services offered on these shows have strong competitors, and enjoy purchasing the exposure that many of these shows and hosts can offer, they do not wish to be ‘tarred’ with the brush of anger, or endure customer anger, or, worse, product boycotts.” There are already tangible signs that the three dozen national and local advertisers that have pulled their ads from The Rush Limbaugh Show are having a financial impact. For example, the ads that ran on Limbaugh’s WABC show in New York on Thursday consisted primarily of public-service announcements. Among the few actual advertisements were spots from a Newt Gingrich–associated super PAC, Lear Capital, and the conservative Hillsdale College. Media Matters has been monitoring national trends along the same lines. When PSAs for nonprofit organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters and the United Negro College Fund run in place of actual advertisements on radio, it means the show starts losing money for the local station. And make no mistake, money is the only barometer of success the industry ultimately cares about. Limbaugh helped prove that right-wing talk radio could be big business—promoting the idea that only conscious conservative bias could balance the unconscious liberal bias of what was termed the “mainstream media.” In the fragmented media environment that emerged after the heyday of the “big three” national TV networks, narrow but intense niche audiences provided the most reliable listeners and viewers and the highest comparative ratings. Limbaugh’s outsize talent helped spawn scores of imitators—but none as successful, and some strikingly unsuccessful. Attempts to create left-wing talk-radio corollaries proved no less offensive but far less popular, like the little-lamented Air America. But this latest controversy comes at a particularly difficult time for right-wing talk radio. They are playing to a (sometimes literally) dying demographic. Rush & Co. rate best among old, white males. They have been steadily losing women and young listeners, who are alienated by the angry, negative, obsessive approach to political conservations. Add to that the fact that women ages 24–55 are the prize advertising demographic, and you have a perfect storm emerging after Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke comments. As pressure grows for advertisers and radio stations to drop Rush & Co., there will be much talk about the dangers of censorship, with allies talking about a left-wing “jihad” against Rush (language his brother David Limbaugh has already used). But the irony is that the same market forces that right-wing talk-radio hosts champion are helping to seal their fate. Advertisers are abandoning the shows because they no longer want to be associated with the hyperpartisan—and occasionally hateful—rhetoric. They are finally drawing a line because consumers are starting to take a stand. An additional irony: just as the technology-driven fragmentation of the landscape allowed partisan media to proliferate, a new technological development is providing the tools to take it down. Social media is making it possible to create a grassroots movement very quickly, voicing grievances very quickly and getting heard at the top of corporate headquarters. “In the past, a letter, petition, or phone campaign took a few days to put together and longer to execute,” says Valerie Geller. “But now customers [listeners] can instantly rally using Facebook, Twitter, and instant messaging to make their displeasure with a client, product, or service known immediately. These movements can happen fast.” It is true that these efforts can be “astroturfed”—artificially created by activists with a specific ax to grind—but if they genuinely catch on, it is because they tap into broad sentiment. Will this bombshell announcement by Premiere—and the decreased revenue from right-wing talk radio—provoke a change in the culture of hyperpartisan talk? It’s certainly possible—after all, they will adjust their approach to follow the money. There is no deeper political principle at stake. It’s been interesting to see Limbaugh’s allies try to defend him indirectly over the past few days, pointing out (rightly) that the left does not cry foul when liberal political entertainers use derogatory terms about conservative women in politics. But the left-wing talkers being condemned are actually following a model that Rush & Co created. Complaining about the escalation on the other side while ignoring the ugliness from your ideological allies is the larger problem, and it goes beyond hypocrisy. The only way we are going to stop this cycle of incitement is if we try to apply equal standards to both sides of the aisle. It’s not a complicated concept—it’s nothing more than the golden rule we learned in nursery school: treat others as you would like to be treated. And as political commentators like the radio pioneer Will Rogers once taught us, we can make serious points using satire, humor that is not designed to divide and destroy. When big money starts shifting, it is a sign of a deeper tide that is difficult to undo, even if you are an industry icon like Rush Limbaugh. It is a sign that the times are changing. Let’s hope that what emerges is an evolution of the industry, away from stupid, predictable, and sometimes hateful hyperpartisanship and toward something a little smarter and more civil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Trolling for ratings and advertising revenue just got a whole lot less profitable.
A. not free, an included benefit within a paid insurance plan that is a net money saver for the issuer so as to not requiring any additional rate increases. B. (see above) I still have yet to hear why anyone is against BC included in a woman health insurance plan. So, I will assume the righty's have a dystopian vision of the white race being bred into minority status by illegal immigrants.
Just the general principle that in a free society, it's wrong to tell people what they must/can't do in private interactions. It's wrong to dictate via federal edict/decree what a private insurer must cover. If an insurer wants to attract more female clientele, they might choose to offer such services in a plan, and choose to price premiums accordingly. Choose being the operative word, free will and all that stuff. You say it makes sense for insurers to do this, then insist they be compelled to do so.
Net money saver is just a prediction. But that's not even the point. If Catholics oppose the use of birth control, why should they have to institutionally pay for it... rate increase or not? That could be a winner for companies to offer that. If the marketplace truly wants it, they would thrive, but in the name of religious freedom why would you force institutions to compromise their beliefs..... because someone wants to go to their Law School?
Offensive seems more like a broad term than anything that would specifically target conservative talk show hosts or even Limbaugh. The advertisers are not going to give up white guys at the height of their earning potential as a listening audience, there's literally no other way to make money on AM or talk radio.
"I play mind tricks on DeBo . .. he say SHUT UP . . .I shut up . .. but when he leave . . .I be talking again" - Smokey and Rush LimBaugh Rocket River
Except these show's audience are oftem retirees. The "keep your government out of my Medicare crowd".
There are hundreds of other ways to spend advertising dollars and still reach "white guys at the height of their earning potential". But lets be honest here, do you really think that the average am conservative shock radio listener is the ideal demographic for advertisers?
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics Spoiler [/quote]
Besides the % of listeners, advertisers must consider how closely the listener identifies with the personality and their acceptance of messages. I would think that just by being a Rush listener you show yourself to be lacking skepticism. Paul Harvey is the proven example of this. His people bought anything he endorsed.
Because it is a group coverage which is sponsored and partially paid for by en entity which in this case is a Catholic University... and Catholics don't condone birth control. She's not out there buying an individual policy.....
And nobody would make them use it, but the school is a public institution, proven by the fact that there is no religious affiliation requirement to attend or work at the school. And, I assume that since the school is in Washington, they do receive some benefits of public monies. Not accommodating legal choice is discrimination.
She could have waived the school's insurance plan and bought her own. She could have gone to a different school. She could have just bought the birth control herself. How it it possible that you cannot comprehend that?
You are either hopelessly and pitifully dense or you have decided that your best course is total obfuscation and the hope that I will lose interest arguing with someone like you. I object - strongly - to the characterization that these women want free contraception. You claim that this is an accurate portrayal. It is not. They PAY FOR COVERAGE and quite reasonably expect that their healthcare needs will be addressed via this coverage. It makes no difference whether the coverage is partially subsidized by another party; the women in question are paying for coverage and are not demanding free contraception or free anything else. I want you to acknowledge this specifically and I want you to admit publicly that you have been spreading misinformation. It is up to you to divulge whether this has been a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the testimony or whether is it simple ignorance.
She's demanding the rest of the insurance pool pay for it in the form of higher premiums. She would be getting it at an extreme discount. It would be like demanding your auto insurance be forced to pay for oil changes, everyone's premiums would rise to pay for it. And you would not care at all what the cost of an oil change was, so the price would rise (in fact you'd probably think the most expensive oil change was the best one). Also, mandating contraception coverage is a guarantee the cost of it will go up. There's no incentive to keep the price low if the insurance company is required by law to pay for it. Insurance was intended as a communal money pool to mitigate the risk of unplanned events. Now it's turning into a communal slush fund for everyday expenditures.
If someone else is paying for it, it is completely reasonable that they are involved in the coverage decisions. It's an agreement with that party. Anyone can buy their own insurance with no other party involved.
