Posts Tagged ‘Rush Limbaugh’

Not always, but often.

Not always, but often.

Regular readers of Wellthisiswhatithink will know that we have weighed in before about the disgraceful standards of material that Facebook allows to be posted on its pages.

In one case, companies dropped advertising because Facebook allows content that promotes violence against women while banning women’s health adverts, in another situation Facebook refused to remove content that jeopardised a police case against a rapist and murderer.

Facebook photo sharing

That photo you don’t want your future employer to see? Checkout our story on FB photo sharing now.

We have also pointed out how questionable Facebook’s privacy settings as regards photographs are; and if you use Facebook, you need to read this article.

Anyhow: much as we enjoy using the platform in general, in our view, some of the content on the massively popular site is morally questionable, and quite possibly illegal in multiple domains.

And we remain of the view that they need to review their general terms of service urgently.

Especially as entirely innocent posters frequently get banned because someone tags their post as Spam merely because they disagree with it – a phenomenally common cause of complaint, against which there is no appeal that we can discern.

(If you don’t believe us, hop onto Facebook now and see if you can find a link to customer service that doesn’t just direct you to a bland series of FAQs, or even, yet, a customer service email address or – gasp – phone number. If you make any progress, let us know …)

Banned Facebook content DOES include images of breastfeeding, apparently, as this Australian mother discovered to her cost.

Banned Facebook content DOES include images of breastfeeding, apparently, as this Australian mother discovered to her cost.

In fact, Facebook is now so large that they seem to handle such matters automatically by computer rather than with human intervention, and in our experience there is no way to get such bans rescinded.

So much for free speech.

I have seen complaints of such bans from all sides of the political and social spectrum, from extreme left to extreme right and everything in between, and from non-political posters who simply add material that someone or something in Facebook apparently decides is offensive.

Many posters simply migrate to a different Facebook name in order to keep posting, (the same problem afflicts Twitter), and it’s clear the problem needs resolving urgently.

If someone comes up with a social network with real customer service Facebook and Twitter will go the way of MySpace and others, taking investors with them. Anyhow, here’s the story of one lump of pressure against Facebook that did win out – because it targeted their revenues, of course.

Facebook removes ads from controversial pages to avoid boycott

Social media pressure increases against, ironically, social media providers.

Social media pressure increases against, ironically, social media providers.

Some recent consumer pressure on FB advertisers has produced rapid and meaningful results.

What is becoming increasingly fascinating to me, having spent a lifetime in marketing, is how social media pressure can now bend corporations – even bend social media providers – to its will, and with some ease.

Clearly, the days of companies blithely acting in defiance of popular will are declining.

This from the Technology correspondent of the BBC:

Facebook has announced a major revamp of its advertising systems in an attempt to deal with concerns about offensive content.

There will now be new restrictions on where adverts appear on the site.

Marks and Spencer and BSkyB were among companies to suspend advertising after complaints that adverts had been placed on pages with offensive material.

The social network is now planning to remove any advertising from many of its pages.

Facebook’s move follows complaints about a Sky advert promoting an M&S voucher.

The advert was placed on a Facebook page called “cute and gay boys”. The page featured photographs of teenage boys.

In a blogpost on Friday, Facebook said: “We recognize we need to do more to prevent situations where ads are displayed alongside controversial Pages and Groups. So we are taking action.”

‘Gold standard’

The company said that from Monday it will implement a new process to determine which pages or groups should feature adverts alongside the content.

There will be no adverts on pages that feature any violent, graphic or sexual content, even if such content is not in violation of the company’s rules.

According to one source, Facebook will create a “gold standard” of around 10,000 pages that are deemed suitable for adverts, and then inspect other pages to see if they can be added to the list. All adverts will be removed from other pages.

A spokesman said this would be a labour-intensive process but we take this” very seriously.”

BskyB said it looked forward to discussing the new measures and would keep the situation under review.

M&S had asked BSkyB to remove the advert, and it suspended some of its own advertising campaigns on Facebook.

BSkyB suspended all of its advertising on the social network, where it has been a major customer.

Misogynist content

Both companies had said they were keen to use Facebook again, but needed to be sure that their advertising would not appear next to offensive content, or material that might reflect poorly on their brands.

Speaking before Facebook announced its policy change, a spokesman for BSkyB told the BBC: “We have asked Facebook to devise safeguards to ensure our content does not appear alongside inappropriate material in the future.

“We will review the situation in due course.”

Sources at Marks and Spencer said Facebook had been taking the issue very seriously at the highest level.

In an additional statement, an M&S spokeswoman said the company did not “tolerate any inappropriate use or positioning of its brand and has very clear policies that govern where and how our brand is used”.

She added: “We take any suggestion that these policies are not being adhered to very seriously and always investigate them thoroughly.”

Earlier this month, Facebook was forced to act against misogynist content on its site after protests from women’s groups led some advertisers to suspend campaigns.

Now: if we can just get rid of Rush Limbaugh …

Other stories:

Sexism protests target Facebook

Facebook bows to anti-hate campaign

Facebook hate speech row: Sky joins ad boycott (guardian.co.uk)

Harold MacMillan

Harold MacMillan making his “winds of change” speech that heralded the end of British colonialism. “The President’s been so helpful” may turn out to be another historic moment.

Oh, yes. Sorry. I have been distracted by a couple of delightful days down the beach at St Leonard’s.

In response to many commentators and Wellthisiswhatithink readers who have asked why would prominent Republican Governor of New Jersey Christie be so voluble in his praise of Obama? Just a week after tipping another bucket on Obama, and his star turn at the Republican conference in Florida?

Well, that one’s just too easy – you really think the cheerfully chubby lad wants Romney to win next Tuesday? Nu-uh.

He wants the Republican nomination for himself in four years, which he wouldn’t get if Romney wins this time because Romney would automatically secure re-nomination in 2016.

I’m quite sure he – like much of the Republican establishment – wants Romney to do well enough to set Obama up for another four difficult years – and drag a few Congress and Senate candidates up with him – but not so well that the rather wacky crypto-moderate reborn right winger actually wins. And then it’ll be Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs of war for whoever replaces him on the Democrat ticket in four years. It’s called the long game. (I still have my eye on Hillary Clinton for the Democrats in four years, personally.)

Anyhow, as UK Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe once memorably remarked when Tory Prime Minister Harold McMillan sacked getting on for half his cabinet to revive his flagging electoral fortunes, “Greater love hath no man than he lay down his friends for his life.”

Mitt Romney is looking at falling just short in the race for the White House. He’ll be spitting chips right now at Christie’s very deliberate intervention.

Politics, huh? You gotta love it.

Meanwhile, if Hurricane Sandy comprehensively de-rails the already flagging Romney momentum and means the President garners extra kudos (and votes) for doing his job properly, then I am looking forward to Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee and all the other lunatics on the religious right (including Romney and Ryan themselves) confirming that the Good Lord obviously wanted Obama to get another four years to complete the job he’s started.

They do call it an “Act of God“, you know, fellas …

Limbaugh busted

This is what passes for a rich and famous media star in America. It's also what dumb and ignorant looks like.

On his radio show Rush Limbaugh admitted that he has gotten exactly 7 new advertisers to replace the 160+ who have dropped, or no longer want to be associated with his show.

Limbaugh said, “This is the first broadcast week in April. Let’s go back a month. The month of March in the United States opened with the left convinced that they were finally going to drive me off the air once and for all. By the end of the month I’m still on the air with a higher audience, seven new advertisers to replace the five — actually, less than five, that abandoned us and hurt themselves. And in that month Al Gore as fired Keith Olbermann, thrown him off the air and replaced him with Client No. 9. Eliot Spitzer’s taking over for Olbermann and his 56 viewers. (interruption) How does who do what? It’s an audience of 56 people. What do you mean, how does Spitzer do it? How does Olbermann keep getting hired? That’s the question.”

But Rush was not being honest with his audience. I don’t know why he chose the number five, but according to Media Matters the actual number of direct advertisers who have dropped him is 64. According to the Stop Rush Project, the number of advertisers who no longer want their ads associated with his program in any way totals 100. This brings the total number of advertisers who have abandoned Limbaugh to 164. Not five as Limbaugh suggested, but 164.

(Article reprinted from politicsusa.com – read the full article here. )

More interesting facts on the spontaneous boycott of Limbuagh can be read here.

Nothing like a few facts to ruin your day, eh, Rush?

What is damn sure is that the whole anti-women focus of much of the American right’s attack on women in this election year – in the midst of the most complex economic situation since the thirties the best they can do is talk about abortion and contraception? – will not be forgotten by American women come November. As the wheel-less GOP bandwagon stumbles along, Obama increasingly looks safer than ever.

Buy the shirt, get this man stopped

Buy the shirt, get this man stopped. #stoprush

I am really rather delighted that Rush Limbaugh appears to be reaping what he has so irresponsibly sown.

It is proof, if proof were needed, that democratic principles are alive and well in America, (and around the world), that ordinary people can still be stirred into action in defence of decency, and that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie, and abuse.

Trenchant political comment is fair play and in the USA, proudly and laudably, it is explicitly supported by the first Amendment – it would weaken our political discourse were Americans (or anyone else) not able to say that Rush Limbaugh is a chauvinist pig for his comments, as with the shirt above – but outright lying, such as saying Fluke was calling for taxpayer-funded contraception when she was not or calling a woman arguing for reproductive health a “slut” and a “prostitute” – and much else – is a different matter entirely.

There is a line. And Limbaugh ran across it with enthusiasm.

In short, Sandra Fluke is vindicated. And people power still exists. It has just been reported, apparently, that he will not be on his show on Monday. Sore throat from eating his own words? We will see.

Reported by the Daily Kos

Spurred on by more than 120,000 members of the Daily Kos community like you, this week over 50 companies and organizations pulled their advertisements from Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.

Yesterday (Thursday), the results of your action could be heard in the form of beautiful, long silences during the commercial breaks in the online streaming of Limbaugh’s show on WABC, the flagship station for his broadcasts (as often proclaimed by Rush).

Here are the amazing stats:

A total of 86 ads aired during WABC’s online streaming broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show yesterday;
77 of those ads were public service announcements donated free of charge by the Ad Council;
Of the nine paid spots that ran, seven were from companies that have said they have taken steps to ensure their ads no longer air during the program;
WABC’s online feed included about 5:33 of dead air when ads would normally have run.

Limbaugh the PigWhile I see that yet more firms have pulled their spots from that dreadful man Limbaugh, nevertheless, they will be replaced by those who seek sales to his red-kneck audience and don’t care about the editorial content of his dreadful show.

So I have a great idea – why don’t the ordinary people, the ones who think he is a disgrace and a perversion of free speech, ring his show and pretend to the producers that they want to make a serious comment, and then when he says “You’re on the air, Felicity” just start going “oink oink oink” till he cuts the call off.

Eventually his show will become untenable and the people will have won.

Or, alternatively, feel free to invest in my latest shirt.

Change the world’s point of view one passer-by at a time.

Rush Limbaugh: Free Ranging Pig

Rush Limbaugh: Free Ranging Pig

http://www.cafepress.com/yolly.625573003

For recent news, head to: