Limbaugh: Advertisers Never Target The Left, Only The Right
In the wake of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s ouster, talk show host Rush Limbaugh noted Thursday that there is a different standard for sexual misconduct on the left than there is on the right.
“Let me ask you a question. Have you ever wondered why not a single left-wing media figure is ever the target of advertiser boycotts? Have you ever noticed that, and, if you haven’t, please take notice of it, and then ask yourself, why? What in the world could explain the one-sidedness of this?” Limbaugh said.
“How is it that a woman who is now out there berating Bill O’Reilly as a subhuman dryball happily once dated Anthony Weiner and is currently on CNN giving commentary about this and many other things?” he added.
Limbaugh reminded listeners that many voices outraged over O’Reilly’s conduct were less so when allegations were flying around a liberal icon.
“Because, you know, liberals, sponsors of O’Reilly have been have you noticed many of them sponsor the Clinton Foundation? Many of them… I mean, you talk about sexual abuse? Bill Clinton’s wife ran the bimbo eruptions units when he was in the White House to seek and find the women who might accuse Bill Clinton of sexual abuse (and other things) and destroy them. And advertisers never leave the Clintons, and donors never leave the Clintons. Why is that?” he said.
The campaign to oust O’Reilly, which began in the pages of the New York Times, was part of a larger game that remains in play even after O’Reilly is gone, Limbaugh noted.
“(I)t still boils down to one thing: The left cannot beat Fox News in the arena of cable news. The media, the left cannot beat Fox News. The only option they have is to destroy it,” Limbaugh said. “The standard operating procedure for the left is not to level the playing field but to close it. It’s to deny participation on the playing field, not level it. No tolerance. No fairness. Their objective is to destroy the opposition because they can’t beat the opposition in the arena of competition where both entities are battling — and that would be, in this case, cable news.”
Limbaugh then explained how the campaign to damage O’Reilly and Fox unfolded.
“The New York Times runs a story, and the story talks about how valuable O’Reilly is to Fox News and how much money O’Reilly is generating, and this irritates everybody that reads the New York Times. They don’t want to see this. They don’t want to see how successful O’Reilly is. They don’t want to see how big Fox is ’cause they hate it,” he said.
nd then the New York Times lowers the boom and points out that O’Reilly is a serial whatever and has paid off $13 million to other women to shut up. There has to be an outlet for the anger. Then what happens is where the real story begins,” he said, noting that advertisers are then deluged with complaints.
Those complaints, however, are fake, Limbaugh said.
“(I)t is a bunch of bots, Facebook bots and Twitter bots that may have been generated by no more than 10 people, made to look like tens of thousands. And that’s all she wrote,” he said.
“It’s nothing but a giant, full-fledged, manufactured smear — and don’t forget where it started. It started in the New York Times,” he said.
“The reason that it starts in the New York Times is important is because the second aspect is that corporate intrigue that I mentioned that is also behind this, and it’s… (sigh) I don’t work there, so I guess it’s not any quicksand, but there is a battle for power going on there between sons of Rupert Murdoch and Rupert — and they are not conservatives, my friends,” he said.
“Their friends are all liberal. Their wives. One of their wives works for the Clinton Global Initiative,” he said, noting that because the story was in the New York Times, it had undue influence on the circle in which Murdoch’s sons move socially.
Limbaugh said that the dynamics of Fox are changing, and to expect more change.
“It’s not gonna be the way it is for long. There’s a … shakeup coming, and it’s generational. It’s generational and political. It’s just like anything else: Nothing ever is constantly the same. There’s change everywhere,” he said.