Carl Levin Wants Armed Forces Radio to Drop Rush Limbaugh
Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, thinks Armed Forces Radio should stop carrying The Rush Limbaugh Show.
The Hill (“Armed Forces Chairman Levin wants Limbaugh dropped from military radio“):
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday that he would “love” to see controversial conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh dropped from the Armed Forces Network.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) called Limbaugh’s show “offensive” and told CNN he has been “delighted” to see advertisers drop the program in the wake of outrage over Limbaugh calling a Georgetown University law student a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Sandra Fluke, the student, had testified for House Democrats in favor of the White House’s contraception coverage mandate.
Several Democrats, along with many liberal groups, have called for Limbaugh’s sponsors to leave him and for Clear Channel Communications to drop his show.
“I would hope the people that run it see just how offensive this is and drop it on their own volition,” Levin told CNN. “I think that is probably an issue that should be left to the folks that run that network. … In other words, I’d love to see them drop it, but I don’t think I’d legislate it.”
While I agree that Limbaugh’s conduct in the Fluke matter was disgusting and offensive, denying American service members and their families living overseas the right to decide for themselves whether to listen to the most popular talk radio program in the country goes too far. And, certainly, the fact that Limbaugh’s show targets Levin and other Democrats makes the suggestion seem rather self-serving.
How is Armed Forces Network funded?
How is it funded? Not sure, but it’s likely a DoD operation. It is a fantastic, critical service for service members and their families. Their mission is to provide the highest-rated shows for their listeners/viewers. Rush certainly qualifies. NPR programming is also featured on the AFN news outlets. So, please, this is not an issue. The good congressman seems to be indulging in some minor wishful thinking, as he states that it shouldn’t be legislated.
I think Rush’s show should be dropped too. From every network it is on. Face it…Rush contributes nothing positive to society.
That said I also agree the network should decide what it airs and such things should not be legislated.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on Armed Forces Radio. After all, it’s not like taking Rush off the air denies service-members the opportunity to listen to him. There’s the internet. There’s streaming radio services. Maybe it’s not as convenient as listening to Rush on the dial..but hey, big deal.
This move is less about shutting down Rush (although there is that element) than about taking away an implicit endorsement from a corrosive figure. I don’t think it will be successful, but I also don’t see it as any horrible thing if Rush is replaced with something else.
Country music would be a good choice.
Well, he didn’t talk about legislation for the issue, so it’s just his personal wish. He’s allowed to have an opinion too.
I agree with you Doug. Putting pressure on Limbaugh’s advertisers to get him to stop dragging in the mud was legit. But this is a complete overreach.
@Patrick:
… dragging Fluke in the mud ..
@Herb:
Mr. Rogers would be a better choice
Ummm, the Armed Forces radio network never carried Howard Stern even after it was lobbied for. Censorship has been going on for years. If Howard couldn’t be carried for content why is Rush. And is this really necessary given the plethora of options available over the internet? Let soldiers decide.
This seems to be in the same vein as Congressional “do-gooders” trying to limit servicemembers’ access to things like Playboy, and I totally disagree with Levin here.
It is an interesting question.
If Limbaugh’s program is popular, then what right does asshat congresspersons have to deny them what they want. Then again, what if we took that to an extreme: Say there was a Penthouse Forum radio show? It would surely be popular among a mostly young male military (especially considering those
on dutyendlessly living in repressive countries), so if the reasoning to keep Limbaugh’s program is because it is popular, then why not a porn show?The fact that Limbaugh’s show is political in nature should be reason enough for taxpayers not to fund it. And that would go for any political programming. Besides, can’t you get Rush’s show online now? Or even podcast? Even if they had to pay for it?
Here’s an idea – give them the substantial raise they deserve, and they can buy whatever entertainment they want.
Cheers.
@Patrick: Limbaugh didn’t just “drag her in the mud”. He spent 3 days repeatedly calling her a whore, culminating with a demand that she post sex videos on the Internet for Rush’s entertainment. That’s the part that even the people attacking Rush feel creepy and violated just bringing up.
Now, the fact that Rush’s entire schtick is to be virulently insulting to the Commander-in-Chief and fully half the population of America is reason enough to question why he’s on AFR to begin with. But this was a look inside the psyche of Rush -it wasn’t a “misjudgement”; it wasn’t “poor word choice”; this showed us all just exactly what sort of vile dirtbag he is, deep down inside.
He shouldn’t be on AFR. He shouldn’t be on _any_ radio network. And as his sponsors recognize that & continue to pull away, you’re going to see him become more scared of what he’s done… My suspicion is that he’s been so surrounded by toadies & yes-men for so long, it never really occurred to him that he could go “too far”, but that is _exactly_ what he’s done here.
@Captain Spaudling:
What he said. Editorial decisions on what to carry are part & parcel of any media operation. And the fact that AFR is run by the US Government means that Congressional second-guessing of those decisions is legitimate. _Somebody_ decided that Rush was more appropriate than anything else the could put in that time slot. That Somebody is a gov’t employee, and it’s time for that decision to be re-examined, and explained.
@John Peabody: Equating Limbaugh with NPR is patently absurd.
NPR and Rush Limbaugh on the same radio network?
Robert Siegel has to look hard at himself in the mirror every night because of this.
@Herb:
While agreeing that Rush is a corrosive figure who shouldn’t be listened to, there is an obvious first ammendment issue with a government run radio network deciding what qualifies as corrosive. As an arm of the federal government, they can’t make content-based programming decisions. The better tactic here would be trying to get soldiers to boycott the show. If its popularity drops dramatically, it can be replaced for content-neutral reasons.
@Stormy Dragon: “As an arm of the federal government, they can’t make content-based programming decisions.”
Bullschniggle. Putting Rush on AFN is a content-based programming decision. There is no first amendment issue.
@Herb:
Not really, there are any number of content-neutral criteria which could be used to make programming selections. In this case, it was most likely based largely on popularity.
Should the military be carrying a program that frequently denigrates its commander-in-chief and hence their mission in general? Isn’t that bad for morale?
@Stormy Dragon:
Yes, it was. And what makes Rush so popular? The content.
The thing is…Rush has no right to be on AFN. If they yank his show because he’s saying too many jerky things on the radio, so be it. The lesson should be “Don’t be a jerk,” not “Don’t censor me, bro.”
@J-Dub:
This probably would be valid given long standing precedent that the military can limit speech of this sort in order to maintain discipline. However since the present controversy has nothing to do with things he’s said about Obama, doing it right now would be hard to defend in court, since it would come across more as an excuse than a reason. They’d also have to enforce the standard evenly on every show they purchase.
@Herb:
No, but he has the right to compete for government contracts without being punished for his political views. Again, there’s lots of things the AFRTS could legally do. They could say “no political programming of any kind”, they could make their own programming instead of purchasing it from private companies, etc. What they can’t do is pick out one particular program and boot it off because they don’t like something that show said.
@Hey Norm: I don’t think that Al Sharpton or some hip-hop, rap, hard rock, or country singers contribute anything either, but that is my opinion. I want to be able to listen and watch what I want without some censor interfering.
@J-Dub: Ever see “Good Morning Vietnam” ?
There is a significant disconnect between statements from Pentagon’s spoke person George Little and Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta. The Pentagon’s refusal to remove Rush Limbaugh’s Show from the Armed Forces Network (AFN) for his misogynistic comments about Sandra Fluke conflict’s with Panetta’s statement about the sexual abuse of women in the armed forces.
In a Feb 8, 2012 article (excerpt attached), Secretary Panetta referred to “the epidemic” of rape and assaults in our military and announced new initiatives to decrease it. Curtailing misogynistic remarks via the Armed Forces airways is apparently not one of those initiatives, even though the network is funded by our tax dollars.
It’s assumed the Pentagon’s decision to continue Mr. Limbaugh’s show was driven by individuals oblivious to the far reaching consequences of hate spewing. Did the Pentagon reach out to high ranking military women for their opinions as to whether Limbaugh’s programming should continue? Did anyone in a position of decision making power survey any of the “estimated 19,000 service members who were raped or sexually assaulted” (Feb 8, 2012 article)?
On Mar 5, 2012 it was reported that a democratic-leaning veterans’ political group (VoteVets.org) circulated a statement from four female veterans claiming Mr. Limbaugh has no place on military airwaves. “Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform,” said the statement, attributed to four female Iraq veterans. “Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men.” http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/women-vets-want-limbaugh-off-of-afn-1.170669
Using tax payer’s dollars to fund hate and bigotry in our military is a losing proposition.
Excerpts
Victims of military rape deserve justice
By Jackie Speier, Special to CNN
Updated 10:37 AM EST, Wed February 8, 2012
(CNN) — Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has announced new initiatives to curtail what he calls “the epidemic” of rape and sexual assaults in our armed forces. In 2010, an estimated 19,000 service members were raped or sexually assaulted by other service members. Clearly, more resources devoted to counseling for victims and training for prosecutors and judges will help.
But the incidence of unpunished rapes will continue and so will the damaging effects these illegal acts have on troop morale and preparedness. This epidemic requires an overhaul of the military justice system.
The military’s chain of command structure keeps most cases of rape and sexual assault from reaching the prosecution level. According to a Defense Department study, only 8% of sexual assailants are referred to military court, compared with 40% of similar offenders prosecuted in the civilian court system. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/opinion/speier-military-rape/index.htm
Excerpt
Military’s Subsidy of Limbaugh Insults Taxpayers
Posted: 03/ 7/2012 12:32 pm by Earl Ofari Hutchinson
The Pentagon’s defiant pledge to stick with the Rush Limbaugh show, no matter what, bumps up against a few hard and insulting realities. The Armed Forces Network that carries the Limbaugh show is not a private business, corporation, or proprietorship that can do whatever it pleases with its money, personnel, operations and policy. Every penny of the armed forces bloated budget comes from taxpayers.
The Armed Forces Network, which has beamed the Limbaugh show for two decades, is oiled to the tune of an estimated $27 million annually. Every penny of which comes from the pockets of taxpayers. And since the military is not a democracy, and decisions are made top down, there was never any chance that taxpayers would have any say about the use of their money to subsidize the naked bias of one radio jock at public expense.
The same rule applies to those in the military that have had Limbaugh shoved down their listening palate. They are the tens of thousands of servicemen and women who dial up the network. They are young, many well-educated, and just as important, female and minority. Blacks make up nearly 20 percent of the armed forces. Hispanics make up nearly 15 percent. Women make up from 10 to 20 percent in the four armed services.
Like it or not, Limbaugh’s drumbeat war on, and trash of, women and minorities is a daily feature on their network. True, no one is putting a club to their head and forcing them to listen. But that’s not the point. Whether they tune in or out, the show is an established part of the military’s airwaves and has political influence and impact that reverberate beyond the listener’s ears. Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/rush-limbaugh-military_b_1325555.html
@Stormy Dragon:
If what Rush said could be construed as a hate crime or obscenity, they damn sure can. And while I admit that’s a bit of a stretch as the current situation stands, I’m not so sure Rush & his legal team would really look forward to spelling things out in court…
@Stormy Dragon: “What they can’t do is pick out one particular program and boot it off because they don’t like something that show said.”
Actually, that’s probably a matter of contract more than principle. If AFN wanted to drop Rush, I’m sure they have an “out” to do so, and it’s probably of the “at any time, for any reason” variety.
@legion:
The problem is that calling someone a slut on broadcast radio isn’t a hate crime or obscenity (should Dan Akroyd be fined for calling Jane Curtin an “ignorant slut” on SNL?). Again, you can’t single out one program for punishment because you don’t like why he said something that other people are allowed to say.
It seems that the desires of the listeners is being overlooked here. Rush in on AFR because he has an audience. If they take him off, AFR will lose a lot of audience and DOD would have to find another way to reach members with DOD information since they wouldn’t tune in.
And while many could find Rush on the internet, they don’t usually like the comm lines to a forward operating base being used for internet radio streaming. Not to mention, listening while in convoys and such
Some people seem to be confused…Levin said…
How, exactly, is this denying American service members and their families living overseas anything? How is this a complete overreach?
Who or what is to stop them from making whatever content choices they want?
Ahh, so Limbaugh is “just an entertainer”…
@Lomax: Are you suggesting we return to a Vietnam era level of military discipline?
This. A million times this.
Rush runs a propaganda outfit for one political party, hosting him on the official military channel is tantamount to trying to make the military itself partisan. Same thing with Fox News. They are at best slightly secretive about being communication outlets for the GOP.
The republicans can buy advertising along with everyone else.
@Stormy Dragon:
Again, under the proper circumstances, you can. SNL is a comedy show, and pretty much every word they say falls under satire/parody protection. Rush’s show most decidedly does not fall on the same side of that line. If it’s something that could get an editor fired for writing on the op-ed page, it could get Rush dropped for saying on his show.
@An Interested Party: Well, personally I would have preferred my Senator saying, “I would not legislate it” rather than “I don’t think I’d legislate it”. I’ve written to Levin before and have respect for him based on the responses I have received, but the last thing we need him doing is legislating what is on the radio, or even thinking about it.
@John Peabody:
Scoose moron but tax payers pay that Pigbaugh radio coverage to Armed Forces thru House Appropriations. Read b4 flapping pie hole.
@bullship: Dear Dumbass:
From Wikipedia’s AFR entry:
I would be utterly astonished if Limbaugh takes a single penny from AFR for carrying his show.
@bullship: And a few quotes from AFN’s own web site:
@bullship: And a few quotes from AFN’s own web site:
(Links removed to get past moderation)
I suggest that you should “Read b4 flapping pie hole.”
@Franklin:
This is a key thing that is easy to lose in the thread – Levin is _not_ talking about legislating what’s on the radio. He’s only talking about what is specifically being played on the Armed Forces Radio Network, which is a US Gov’t entity that Congress writes the checks for – he has every right to question the choices made there. Now, if he were talking about using his position to, say, get Clear Channel to take away Rush’s show altogether, _that_ would be a totally different situation…
@bullship: My apologies, I don’t know how I skipped over this, from AFN’s own web site, and I quoted above:
So, you want some salt and pepper to season those words, bullship? You know the ones, ,i>”Scoose moron but tax payers pay that Pigbaugh radio coverage to Armed Forces thru House Appropriations. Read b4 flapping pie hole.”
Honestly in 2012 it may be time to let AFN go the way of the Dinosaur. Odds are if a service member is somewhere they can’t stream whatever they want they also can’t pick up AFN.
If you want to make our service members happy abroad just make sure there’s sufficient NFL, NBA and MLB coverage. I guess NHL coverage should be considered too though.