Quantcast

Limbaugh Spokesman Hits Media Matters Over Boycott

Calls Them "Censoring Thugs"

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


<
[ Life]

Brian Glicklich, a spokesperson for Rush Limbaugh’s show, published an opinion piece yesterday in Politico that takes aim at Media Matters For America.

Limbaugh has maintained for weeks that the backlash against his “slut” comments about Sandra Fluke has not bothered as many people as you might think. Instead, he says that ll the outrage is manufactured by MMFA. Limbaugh says that MMFA is behind all the advertiser boycotting and media attention that his comments have generated.

Now, Glicklich takes that a step further and accuses Media Matters of waging a war against business. Specifically, he says that David Brock – former conservative journalist and founder of Media Matters For America – was lying in wait for Limbaugh to slip up so he could “manipulate a media frenzy”.

Glicklich goes on to say that Brock is a “censoring thug” that will “deny that right of expression to others” and that MMFA is targeting “small business”, no matter what the cost.

By putting small business in the crosshairs of their war on expression, Media Matters is causing real harm. They are hurting these businesses, their employees and their families. As a business owner, imagine waking up one morning and being assaulted by hundreds of coordinated attacks from operatives who never were or will be your customers.

These Media Matters mobs bear a simple message: Renounce our enemies or become one of them. They distribute target lists of advertiser phone numbers, email addresses, Facebook links and Twitter handles, and then they come out of nowhere, en masse, against selected advertisers in rotation. They barrage small business with threats until they cancel their advertising.

Customers either can’t get through the fog of messages, or see a business under attack. Everyone is so busy with the protestors that no one is left to talk to customers. You call that education, David? Reasonable people identify what you organize by a different name.

If businesses give in to these demands, they lose access to the customers who helped build their company. Let’s be clear — most advertisers aren’t making a political statement when they decide where to spend their money. Most chose varied programs to reach audiences with different points of view. When they buy talk radio advertising in general, or “The Rush Limbaugh Show” in particular, they are reaching an audience, as well as creating jobs and supporting families. That’s all they want.

But Media Matters says you can’t talk to that audience anymore. And when these businesses shrink, because they’ve lost access to half their customers; when they lay off employees or even shut down, whom will Media Matters blame? Probably not themselves.

The question that needs to be asked is: Even if Glicklich is right and there is no authentic public movement in this country to get rid of Limbaugh’s brand of talk – even if this is manufactured out of whole cloth by Media Matters – is that censorship? Is that the same as a governmental blackout on ideas and speech? Is this a First Amendment issue? Or is it the other side of the free market sword that Limbaugh’s show has to live – and maybe die – by?

Limbaugh Spokesman Hits Media Matters Over Boycott
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • tardacus

    If media matters has the power to do something like this then why did they wait so long to do it?
    I don`t think media matters has the power to do something like this, this is much more than a left wing conspiracy to silence rush.
    I believe that a lot of americans from all walks of life have truely
    had enough of rush`s bigotry and racism.
    social norms are constantly changing without the help of some sort of conspiracy.
    rush is a dinosaur if he doesn`t conform to the changing social norms he will be left behind and become extinct.

  • chuck

    There are thousands of us who everyday Liston for the adds. and just call them no help from anybody. Pretty simple.

  • Anne

    I didn’t even know who Media Matters was until Limbaugh pointed to the organization. I’m one of the insulted, a woman, a wife, a mother, a business woman who wants Rush Limbaugh and people like him to stop using tactics of verbal abuse to humiliate because of race, creed, gender or lifestyle choices. I support freedom of speech. I will never support anyone who uses hate speech to incite the masses to riot. He has caused the very problems of which he complains! He needs to be held accountable for the boycott of businesses that he has caused.

  • Leo

    Within the United States Constitution the following is written “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility”

    Is the venom spewed out by shock jocks-insuring domestic tranquility, NO. I daresay rather they are anti-or counterproductive and destructive to the nation as a whole.

    There is enough freedom of speech in America where as one does not have present their point of view in the atmosphere of a gutter. Doing anything for money does not make it acceptable.

    America is not the Hatfield and McCoy’s and we don’t need shock jocks drawing ridiculous lines in the sand for American people.

    Shock jocks are nothing but an embarrassment to a nation which wants to hold themselves up as a great nation.

  • MisterCorgi

    Mr. Glicklich, (re-posted from Politico)

    I find it so amusing that you use the word “hypocrite” in your article about Media Matters “putting small business in the crosshairs of their war on expression.”

    I am not a member of Media Matters, but I am glad they are challenging the fact that Rush Limbaugh used his privileged as a highly paid radio talk show host to target and humiliate a private citizen.

    He mischaracterized her intention and statements and he was degrading and insulting to Sandra Fluke over the national airwaves in the name of free speech.

    We all know this free speech sounded very much like hate speech. Especially as he called her a “slut” and “prostitute” and implied she displayed potential poor moral conduct simply for wanting to convey other legitimate uses for birth control within a medical context.

    Mr. Glicklich, are you familiar with the organization One Million Moms? Would you characterize this organization in the same manner that you have characterized the organization Media Matters?

    Do you think your statement in your article, “‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ responds to Brock”, would read as true to your intention if we replaced the words; “Media Matters” with the words; “One Million Mom’s”?

    Let’s try it as an exercise:

    “By putting small business in the crosshairs of their war on expression, Media Matters [ trade to: One Million Mom's] is causing real harm. They are hurting these businesses, their employees and their families. As a business owner, imagine waking up one morning and being assaulted by hundreds of coordinated attacks from operatives who never were or will be your customers.”

    What do you think Mr. Glicklich – does your condemnation hold up in all cases? This is the mark of a good argument, afterall.

    Plus, could you please help us understand your definition of Hate Speech as compared to Freedom of Speech? I am confused by your lack of offense regarding Mr. Limbaugh’s words and characterization of Ms. Fluke.

    Sincerely,

    Mistercorgi

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter