By on June 17, 2008

hannity.jpgBack in August of last year, consumer advocate Ralph Nader sent an open letter to the FCC questioning GM's relationship to conservative radio and TV talk show hosts. At the time, GM said it didn't pay cash money to these pundits for favorable mentions; it simply provided free test cars and facility tours (all expenses-paid, presumably). Oh, and advertising. Lots and lots of advertising. Nader correctly pointed-out that "Section 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration. Section 47 U.S.C. § 508, requires that, when anyone provides or promises to provide money, services or other consideration to someone to include program matter in a broadcast, that fact must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast, ultimately to the station over which the matter is to be aired." Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh talked-up his forthcoming free ride, the Saturn Astra. Apparently, it's "the most popular executive car in Europe." Rush gushed "We love GM." Last night, one of Sean Hannity's liberal guests (Fox's Hannity & Colmes) was touting the value of green technology (as opposed to drilling for oil) in America's quest for energy independence. "I know about new technology. I'm driving a Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid" Hannity said. It's high time the FCC put an end to this craven commercialization. Or, to call it by its real name, payola.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Are GM’s Bitch...”


  • avatar
    RayH

    Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh talked-up his forthcoming free ride, the Saturn Astra.
    The obvious joke is too easy, although I don’t think Rush weighs as much as he once did. All his hot air won’t fit in that tiny car, that’s a better angle.
    It would be very interesting to know how much money they got for the “endorsements”, other than free use of the cars. Perhaps I’m a big sell-out, but if a car company wants to give me a car to drive, I’m pretty pro-thatcarmaker.
    I don’t follow celebrities, but it’s kind of sickening the amount of times they drop “Prius” into the conversation the limited amount of times I ever see them on television, although I’m fairly certain their not getting a kick back.

  • avatar
    John R

    Yuck. A Limbaugh and Hannity endorsement has put GM even further off my radar. When it comes to political pundits automakers should stay away like the plague.

  • avatar
    jaje

    If those two clowns are pushing a product – I will be more likely to stay away. They spin everything to their biased agenda. Thanks – No Yukahoeburban Hybrid for me or a Astrahole. Seems they are the perfect spokespeople for GM – no common sense and are easily persuanded with money.

  • avatar

    i love when two things that i hate merge, then i can concentrate my hate towards the one evil with even greater intensity.

  • avatar
    Qwerty

    So two spokesman for the wingnuts who are always beating the drum against global warming and conservation turn out to be in the hip pocket of an auto maker that cannot make a profit on small vehicles. I’m sure it’s purely a coincidence.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Good idea. Let the government censure what can be said.

  • avatar

    They have high rated nationally syndicated radio shows. Get over it. GM also advertises on Jim Rome’s sports talk show for the same reason. You advertise where the audience is. There are conservative people, liberal people , non political people etc. Get over it. Large groups of people actually exist who totally disagree with whatever it is that you politically believe in, no matter what your political viewpoint.

  • avatar

    TTAC linking/agreeing with Nader.org? I find that more shocking than a pair of hucksters who ARE IN THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS shilling product for an ADVERTISER.

    Not that I share any beliefs or opinions with these two examples, but we do after all live in a capitalist system and they should be free to say whatever they damn well please… or in this case, whatever they’re damn well paid to say. ;)

    –chuck
    http://chuck.goolsbee.org

  • avatar

    chuckgoolsbee:

    Not that I share any beliefs or opinions with these two examples, but we do after all live in a capitalist system and they should be free to say whatever they damn well please… or in this case, whatever they’re damn well paid to say. ;)

    It’s all about disclosure. If paid shills tell the world they’re paid shills, fair enough. But clearly, they are hiding product endorsements in their programming. That’s illegal, amoral and just plain wrong.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    They have high rated nationally syndicated radio shows. Get over it. GM also advertises on Jim Rome’s sports talk show for the same reason. You advertise where the audience is. There are conservative people, liberal people , non political people etc. Get over it. Large groups of people actually exist who totally disagree with whatever it is that you politically believe in, no matter what your political viewpoint.

    Quite true. But telling people to get over it doesn’t help. People are free to buy or reject products on any basis they choose, including sponsorship of shows that air opinions one doesn’t happen to agree with.

    As for me, if I didn’t read it here, I’d never have known Rush and the other guy were pushing GM products.

  • avatar
    Mud

    Agree with Mr. Lin, I don’t see why we should really care about any of this, seems to be very inspired along lines of bashing the conservative talk-shows.

    Wonder if moveon.org faces the same rush to crucify …

  • avatar
    wmba

    Nowhere in these responses do I see any agreement with the philosophy of TTAC, which is to tell who lent the car for road tests, paid airfares, gasoline and gave perks. Mr. Farago has religiously followed his own dictum.

    Therefore, why is it surprising that he agrees with Nader’s stand on making those outright shills tell who’s paying them to favorably drop names of a commercial product on air? Especially as it seems clearly against the law.

    Goolsbee says: “TTAC linking/agreeing with Nader.org? I find that more shocking than a pair of hucksters who ARE IN THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS shilling product for an ADVERTISER.”

    Why? Makes no sense to be surprised if you agree with TTAC’s premise, and even if you hate Nader. Allowing each person to make up their mind as to what is legal leads to anarchy, not an homogeneous society. Either you follow the law or you should pay the consequences. Seems straightforward to me.

    More interesting is why the FCC is apparently sitting on Nader’s request, but lardass civil service inaction seems par for the course recently. Lead in toy paint? What’s been done about it really? A whole lot of arm-waving and that’s about it. Poisonous tomatoes? Die, baby, die.

    I’m disgusted with crass commercialization with no bounds. It’s the same lack of ethics that lets Red Ink Rick run GM with his Bored of Bystanders as Directors, giving the finger to anyone who asks what the actual turnaround plan is. There ain’t one, folks. He’s more interested in what’s for supper tonight as is Lutz and all the other idiots running GM.

  • avatar
    Buick61

    This is a rather lame non-news news story.

    How many mentions does Toyota get of its Prius? How many ads to they run on CNN or MSNBC and their respective radio outlets such as XM for CNN?

    I highly doubt GM paid Hannity to mention his truck. I hear people mention “Prius” on all manners of TV shows, and I honestly don’t think that’s payola either.

  • avatar

    Dynamic88 my point is that cars are cars if people wish to buy or not buy based on their sense of either offense or agreement with non car stuff so be it. I personally don’t listen to political radio shows. If someone buys a car or avoids a car based on that then they get what they deserve. I by a car based on the car itself.

    I don’t care if you are left wing, I don’t care if you are right wing I don’t care what you drive. Certain viewpoints may offend me but I simply vote based on my political viewpoints.

    One thing I know is that other viewpoints exist and that some people agree with viewpoints that I don’t agree with.

    My main beef is with people taking offense with other people’s views no matter if they are right wing or left wing just like some people are offended that certain cars exist or that some people like a car they dislike. So they advertise on right wing radio so what? Get over it. Some people like SUV’s get over it, some people like the Prius get over it etc.

  • avatar
    chuckR

    Anything, like this objection, that even slightly facilitates bringing back the loathsome “Fairness” Doctrine needs to be opposed. If someone is stupid enough to buy based on Rush or Sean’s say-so, they’ll get what they deserve, good and hard. Why I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that advertising is going on. Don’t like it? Radios/tvs have an on/off button.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I’m a big talk radio fan, but I don’t like Hannity. I don’t listen to Rush, primarily due to the “I”m tired of carrying their water” comment, which in my mind, destroyed all of his credibility.

    There are a few great conservative radio guys like Doug McIntyre and Dennis Prager, but Rush and Sean are corporate guys. They appear to have given up their journalistic integrity some time ago.

  • avatar
    jaje

    TTAC is not siding with the lefties nor righties – it is pointing out the main fact (and always has since its inception) that if someone is providing a “review” of a product that they disclose items that would affect their objectiveness (such as getting advertising money, perks, free travel, curtesy cars, free car leases, happy endings, etc.).

    A review is not objective if that reviewer gets paid – they become a spokesperson. When these are not disclosed they become a shill – they have an agenda and protray to be objective to sound more convincing.

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    The problem with both Rush and Hannity is that both are POLARIZING individuals that are viewed negatively by a very large segement of the US population that GM needs as costumers!

    Far too many folks view Rush and Hannity as barely consealed closet racist whose talk-shows are designed to appeal to that “precieved” segment of racist middle America.

    IF GM has a problem moving there metal on both coasts of this country is should say a great deal to them that DEMOGRAPHICS are a big deal in this industry. GM is selling cars NOT toilet paper!
    Being associated with the poster children of the “neo-conservative anti-anything non-white movement” is not a very good move on GM’s part.
    What’s next a “stars and bars” GMC Sierra Pick up?

  • avatar
    XCSC

    I’m confused that the message of the Mr Faragos article/opinion is being missed. The issue isn’t about if it is ok for limbaugh and hannity to promote products they get paid for but it’s the lack of DISCLOSURE that they’re pushed to mention them at every turn and at every opportunity in their broadcast. I know how these contracts are put together and they get paid to mention and interject them into airtime that is not an “advertisement”. And no, I’m not sure how that disclosure should occur on the broadcast but legally speaking it should be.

    I listen to Ed Schultz (liberal) and I know he’s shilling for GM because he has actual ads where he is the voice over for it. He also owns a electric Gem car that owned/built by Chrysler and he talks about them to the point that it should probably be disclosed (if he is in fact being paid by Gem/Chrysler).

    Regardless of what you think about NPR the purpose of it’s existence is to remove influence of reports/news (not opinion pieces) from the content. The purpose of disclosure requirements for the commercialized side (Schultz, limbaugh, hannity) is to ensure that people know what could possibly influence the “news” outlets report.

    But then again, talk radio, relative to television, is hardly the first place we should be concerned with this.

  • avatar
    Kevin

    That’s funny, I hear radio & TV personalities praise products and companies all the time. Farago, you’ve committed libel in accusing those two guys of accepting under-the-table money even though you of course possess no evidence whatsoever of any such thing happening — but I suppose they’re public enough figures and you’re obscure enough that you’re safe from being sued.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    The disclosure problem is that when Hannity says “I’m driving a Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid” he should also say “because Chevrolet gave it to me for free and advertises heavily on my radio show?.

    The idea of Rush pitching the Saturn Astra is so ironic it isn’t funny. The Astra an “executive car”? Hah!

  • avatar
    Alex Rodriguez

    Gasp!!!

    Rush Limbaugh SAYS he Loves GM??? Oh the Horror! Sean drives a Tahoe Hybrid? Good God, what is happening to our country? Thanks TTAC, for keeping me and my family safe with your groundbreaking informative analysis.

  • avatar
    BKW

    I’d like to ‘ol Rush fit his fat carcass into an Astra. The car’s so cramped it’s ridiculous.

    Hey Rush, there’s only one cup holder and if you aren’t double-jointed, good luck using it.

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    Robert Farago wrote: It’s high time the FCC put an end to this craven commercialization.

    WTF? What is happening to TTAC? You want the government to outlaw advertising now? All advertising, or only when you don’t like it?

    WTH is this? Everybody here in love with a big, marxist government? We hate commerce now?

  • avatar

    hwyhobo :

    WTF? What is happening to TTAC? You want the government to outlaw advertising now? All advertising, or only when you don’t like it?

    WTH is this? Everybody here in love with a big, marxist government? We hate commerce now?

    Easy tiger. All I’m saying is that it is ILLEGAL for broadcasters to hide product sponsorship from their audience. And this is EXACTLY what Limbaugh and Hannity have done.

    And yes, as an advocate and practitioner of fair disclosure, I agree with this law. And that makes me down with Ralph’s plea to the FCC to enforce it.

    But again: IF the broadcasters acknowledge the sponsorship, I’ve got no problem with it. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

  • avatar
    hltguy

    Rush is driving a Saturn? Does that mean Obama is driving a Uranus?

  • avatar
    Kevin

    OMG, just noticed that last week David Pogue of the NY Times wrote “I’m a huge Toyota Prius Nut”!! Wow wonder what kind of narco-drug money Toyota is paying him off with?? I say we put that tosser in Gitmo ASAP.

  • avatar
    BuckD

    bluecon: Good idea. Let the government censure what can be said.

    First off, I think you meant “censor” not censure. Secondly, “Disclosure” is different from “censor,” in that it requires an individual or organization to disclose special relationships. It doesn’t stop Hannity or Rush or any of other windbags from shilling for GM, it just requires them to let their viewers know it. Their audience has a right to know that the accolades they heap on GM might just be influenced by the money and perks GM is showering them with.

  • avatar

    Kevin: OMG, just noticed that last week David Pogue of the NY Times wrote “I’m a huge Toyota Prius Nut”!! Wow wonder what kind of narco-drug money Toyota is paying him off with?? I say we put that tosser in Gitmo ASAP. If Toyota paid him to say that, it should be disclosed. If not, who cares? Not me.

  • avatar
    factotum

    Farago, you’ve committed libel in accusing those two guys of accepting under-the-table money even though you of course possess no evidence whatsoever of any such thing happening

    Don’t get your panties twisted. He’s reporting news from a different source. Where did he accuse them of taking money under the table? You seem awfully defensive. Besides, it isn’t libelous if the statement is true. How do you know it’s false?

  • avatar
    willbodine

    Actually, The GM product-placers have been busy on the left-of-center radio scene as well. Both Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz (both Jones Network, but carried on many Air America stations) have been lent Hybrid Tahoes and Malibus and both have done “positive” commercialettes for them.

  • avatar
    Dynamic88

    Sherman Lin

    I agree with what you’ve said. I was trying to tell you, respectfully, to take your own advice. Some people get all worked up about what is advertised on what show – get over it. :-)

    As for disclosure, I understand RF’s point, in a super-technical sense. I say super-technical because I give even Rush and Hannity’s regular listeners enough credit to know when they’re plugging a product and when they’re reporting “news” (cough, cough). It’s an American tradition. Paul Harvey used to transition seamlessly from info to commercial. Well, not completely seamlessly, because we knew he was doing it. In short, RF is right, but I really can’t get worked up about it. I don’t expect disclosure from the likes of Rush and Sean.

  • avatar
    hwyhobo

    Robert Farago wrote: And yes, as an advocate and practitioner of fair disclosure, I agree with this law. And that makes me down with Ralph’s plea to the FCC to enforce it.

    Be serious. Broadcasters have been doing commercials this way for as long as I remember. To get confused you would have be 10 years old or want to be confused.

    I wonder how much their politics have to do with your sudden “moral outrage”.

  • avatar

    hwyhobo:

    I wonder how much their politics have to do with your sudden “moral outrage”.

    Actually, I’m a political conservative. But I save mega-dittos for my museum of mass communication– if you know what I mean.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    As an actual listener to Rush, methinks this is a case of people who don’t listen to him (i.e. Nader) suggesting something that is simply not true. There is no question that he is advertising for them, he often over the years has taken time during his show to advertise especially for NEW advertisers. Trust me, everyone knows that Rush is getting paid by GM to shill for them. Only a person completely unfamiliar with him would suggest this is some kind of payola deal. The real question for GM is why it has taken them this long to figure where a whole lot of prospective buyers
    are. I suspect that their effete ad agencies in NY don’t like those Rush listeners even if they are BUYERS! So let us pretend they don’t exist.

    As an aside, Rush has been a huge proponent of Apple computers over the years, yet Apple still hasn’t spent a dime advertising on his show. Ooh, ick, conservatives, ick, ick, don’t advertise there. Frankly, any domestic car company not advertising on conservative talk radio has fools for advisors. Oh that’s right, dumb fly over country. Who cares about them……

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    Hannity drives a Hybrid… well, that just set the green movement back 20 years.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    It’s all about disclosure. If paid shills tell the world they’re paid shills, fair enough. But clearly, they are hiding product endorsements in their programming. That’s illegal, amoral and just plain wrong.

    Exactly right, couldn’t have said it better myself.

    The broadcasting airwaves belong to the public, so they are subject to additional regulation. There’s nothing wrong with advertising, but mixing up advertising and editorial into one big jumble without prior disclosure is an abuse of the airwaves, property that belongs to us.

    These broadcasters don’t own the frequencies, they just license them, and those licenses can be revoked when they intentionally violate the terms of use. If they can’t create a clear separation between their advertising and their programming, then we should be separating them from the chance to abuse our assets, and free them up for somebody else’s use.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Neither Limbaugh or Hannity hide the fact that they are reimbursed to advertise for GM which means the article is pointless.

    Besides the only people that would fall for this are the same people that would think a tiny increase in CO2 is going to burn the Earth up. And they don’t listen to conservative talk radio. Or maybe the sort of person that would believe that the government can spend their money better than they can and go GAGA for tax increases.

    Conservatives are far to smart to be duped by something like this.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    bluecon is correct. It is obvious that they are talking about sponsors. It also fits with both of their nationalistic attitudes to support the home manufacturers.

    However, fair disclosure is important, and I don’t really have a problem with Ralph on this one. Whatever the rules are, they should be followed or openly challenged.

    I do have a problem with both men for taking on such a high level of support for these organizations, and believe they show either poor judgement or hypocrisy by taking this blood money.

    For every GM car sold, more money continues to flow through the UAW machine to support socialist policies in our governments. These guys should not support GM. They should think twice about the tradeoffs of buying American and supporting the UAW.

  • avatar
    abr2

    I have personally heard Rush say on several occasions that he’s being furnished a car by GM whenever he “touts” that car. I haven’t heard Sean Hannity say it, but I don’t watch him every day. So what? It’s still, in spite of all the attempts of the leftists, a country that allows free speech. If I want to say how wonderful my Buick is (it is), and how rotten to the core my toyota was (and it was), I’ll do so. Neither car company paid me to say that. I once sold Datsuns for a living, and worked at an Oldsmobile store.I hate nissans and still love Oldsmobiles. So what? This is just an attempt to restrict the rights of others because you disagree with their politics.

  • avatar
    davey49

    I say we need more shilling on the radio and TV. Back in the days of old time radio shows almost every sentence was a product placement. You’d hear a character say something like “I’ve got a pounding headache. I’m going to the Rexall drugstore to buy some Bayer aspirin.” The wife would answer something like “Could you pick me up some Ivory Snow while you’re there”
    I say shill and huckster away.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Hannity is quite open about the fact he is being compensated for the plug.

    I am so tired of Ralph Nader and the whole of the Nanny state.

    How could people be conned into thinking that a small increase in CO2 would burn up the Earth and only tax increases would save them?

    And apparently no problem whith Algore making hundreds of millions with these scare tactics.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Robert Farago:
    It’s all about disclosure. If paid shills tell the world they’re paid shills, fair enough. But clearly, they are hiding product endorsements in their programming. That’s illegal, amoral and just plain wrong.

    I agree. An explicit notice at the beginning or end of every show would be appropriate. However, if it’s going to be done to talk radio, it needs to be done to network and cable TV programming. As an example, HBO’s in house programming tends to have a lot of characters pimping using Apple products. Call me a cynic, but HBO’s execs might get their panties in a slight wad over any such ‘Nazi-free-speech-and-privacy-killing’ policy about their programming and/or what is shilled.

  • avatar
    oldyak

    so what!
    Norm Abrams is DELTA Tool`s ‘bitch’
    and HE makes fine furniture…
    whats your point other than stirring S – - T up?

  • avatar
    whatdoiknow1

    Conservatives are far to smart to be duped by something like this.

    Why set yourself up with a statement like that?

    Ahhh, I don’t want any personal Emails from Robert today so I will leave it alone and stick with the topic at hand.

    Using Rush and Hannity as spokesmen clearly speaks to the insolar culture that has been and still is destroying GM. The only things these two losers can do for GM is preach to the chior, so why waste the time and effort dealing with them.
    GM already has the “good ole boy” set pretty well covered so exactly what new costumers do they expect to gain by associating with two dudes that the majority of the “other” people in this country (marketplace) find rather repulsive.

    While it is correct to make the claim that most minorities in the USA do NOT listen to or watch Rush or Hannity on a regular basis they do now who they are and are aware of the negative images surrounding both. Trust me in the long run GM would be hurt (further) if their products are considered to be a “Hannity or Rush car”.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    As an example, HBO’s in house programming tends to have a lot of characters pimping using Apple products.

    Apples and oranges, in this case. HBO is a subscriber service that is not on public airwaves, so they have more latitude.

    The licenses granted to use public airwaves are the issue here. If Limbaugh wants to go onto satellite radio or internet radio, write for a newspaper, or whatever, and do his thing, that’s his business.

    But broadcast signals belong to everyone, and are regulated as public property. Their use is licensed, the stations don’t own the frequencies or the right to use them, so they need to follow the rules.

  • avatar
    CliffG

    If it’s any consolation pch101, around next April/May they WILL be off the public airwaves and on to satellite. The return of the Fairness Doctrine guarantees that.

    “All I’m saying is that it is ILLEGAL for broadcasters to hide product sponsorship from their audience. And this is EXACTLY what Limbaugh and Hannity have done.

    I will not speak for Hannity (I do not listen to him), but I cannot imagine how anyone could actually listen to Rush and not think it is a commercial. From what I gather from his asides his usual ride is an AMG Merc (a big one)for whatever that is worth.

  • avatar
    oldyak

    after viewing this site for a year,I have sensed a ‘politicing’ of auto issues going on.
    I really enjoy most of the content but it seems that some of your contributing writers have a real problem with America and our way of life!
    The article about Rush and Hannady is for no other reason than to inflame readers into taking a stand on an issue that is total bulls_ _ _ t.
    I think you need to review your contributing writers and weed out the ones that this want to set auto enthusiasts against each other.
    on my survey I said that i couldn’t think of one thing to improve this site….
    Well that was yesterday!!!!!!

  • avatar
    Skooter

    “But clearly, they are hiding product endorsements in their programming. That’s illegal, amoral and just plain wrong.”

    Do you seriously think the listening public doesn’t realize that the broadcaster is endorsing a product or product line during his or her show? And being compensated in one way or another?
    And is Farago and TTAC still nitpicking because they happen to be GM products? C’mon now.

  • avatar
    Jonny Lieberman

    Wait… now I’m more confused.

    Adults actually listen to Rush and Hannity?

    Really?

  • avatar
    limmin

    These arrangements have been around for decades. Lawrence Welk had such a relationship with Chrysler for many years. Milton Berle had the same with Colgate toothpaste. (In fact, every show in the early 1950s was basically owned by a corporation.) I don’t know what the big deal is. As noted by another poster, Hannity and Rush are syndicated, so there might be perfectly legal grey areas here.

    I wonder how much money Ralph Nader takes from special interest groups? How do you think that troublemaker/socialist makes his living?

    Rush totally rocks. I love the guy. But he’s fibbing if he thinks his ample posterior will fit in an Astra.

    Mr. Farago seems to hate GM. That’s no crime. But there’s no scandal here.

    Did I mention that Rush totally rocks??

  • avatar
    tdoyle

    Limbaugh and Hannity…

    Been a listener of the Rush-Meister for years. I really don’t think he drives a GM. I mean, c’mon, really now…

  • avatar
    bluecon

    You need HRC(Human Rights Commision) like we have in Canada. If you make a statement the HRC doesn’t like you will be put in front of a liberal tribunal, fined and made to grovel. MacLeans magazine which is the Canadian equivalent of Time is currently before this ‘Tribunal’ of three liberals. Of course you are always found guilty. Stalin would be proud.

    The whole point is that only fools need protection from something like this. Any halfwit could figure it out in seconds.

    Kinda like people taking mortgages they can’t afford and then expecting the taxpayers with a brain to save them.

    Liberals always want the government to protect them. Are they incapable of common sense?

    You guys think Nader is a shining light?

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    Rush Who ? Is that pill-popping hypocrite still on the air ?

    Bluecon,
    What about those idiots on wall street that gave out the loans ? They got their goverment bail-out, didnt they ?

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Very liberal of you. These people were so stupid they cannot read a contract? Would you sign a home mortgage and not read it and understand it?

    Must be the new America where those that make bad decisions are bailed out by the prudent ones.

    The capitalist system is based on millions of people making their own financial decisions. It works better than any other system. The communist/socialist system is based on a few people making decisions for the millions.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    The real problem is listening to talk radio – left or right.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Pch101:
    Apples and oranges, in this case. HBO is a subscriber service that is not on public airwaves, so they have more latitude.

    Legally, you’re probably right. I’m sure the legal hammer can be dropped harder on traditional radio for these shill spots. And it just may after the November elections – and if so, the flight from and destruction of local radio will continue (especially now that the Sirius/XM wedding is a go).

    I think both shill examples are ethically suspect practices (without disclosure).

    And it wouldn’t be difficult to justify some sort of regulation of cable in this regard. Cable firms access local rights of way. Cable firms are almost all legal local monopolies. (See how fast you get sued / arrested / jailed for wiring an apartment complex with a competing cable system linked to a big dish).

  • avatar
    bluecon

    The real problem is listening to talk radio – left or right.

    That is actually the real problem. The fools that never educate themselves. It is quite amazing that the founding fathers understood the nature of humanity so well and the spoiled people of today that would so willingly give that freedoom away.

  • avatar
    Russell

    Robert Farago, your post of them being GM’s Bitch is very course and uninformed.

    Limbaugh, Hannity, Prager, and others pitch others products like Allen Brother’s Steak, Sleep Number Bed, and many other products. They talk about and give away these products all the time over the air. This is a common practice. It is understood that they are being paid to do these. I am sure GM and Allen Brothers don’t do advertisement with theses hosts for free. It’s so obvious I can’t believe this has to be stated. Robert Farago, with all due respect, I think you got suckered into Ralph Nader’s vent.

    Limbaugh has 20 million listeners
    Hannity has 15 million listeners.

    And others… America haters, you neo-communist know-nothing environmental wacko tree hugging smug-laden useful idiots… You wish you had Rush’s or Hannity’s audiences. Liberalism is a child of fascism and sibling of communism that has failed and discredited during last 70 years. Liberals who fought against American soldier and waged propaganda against Vietnam wars… you are responsible for millions people dying after Vietnam war in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam’s current GDP of $3,000 of lost opportunities, education, health, and happiness. Compare Korea and Taiwan to Vietnam. John F-ing Kerry and your ilks are responsible for the current state of Vietnam. 70s Anti-war activists are responsible for the spread of communism. You guys never take responsibility for your damaging ideas like Ethanol, Welfare, pyramid scheme Social Security, New deal, Great society, ect… Liberals have been pushing for communist ideas for years. Old days they were shamed. Now, they are proud Marxists pushing Obama to the ticket, a latest Marxist.

    Liberals always side with enemies of the USA and freedom. They side with terrorists, communists, and dictators all the time. From the days of Rosenbergs to Today’s Jim Mcdermott, they will always side with enemies of USA. I don’t think they actually met America’s enemies that they didn’t like.

    These know-nothings keep pushing and shoving same idiotic agendas to rest of us. Today’s liberals are the likes of 1870s know-nothing populist with the communist twist to it. They are destructive. Look at the USA cities and states where damage is the greatest. They are all run by liberals, Michigan, California, ect… Then they move to Texas and Florida, states they use to hate, and want mess up these states, too.

    Talk Radio is today’s town hall. No where in the broadcast media today such deep and in depth discussion are held. On TV, like CNN, you have 1 to 3 minute sound bites. That’s it. They are repeated over and over.

    The real problem with liberals are not listening to anything other than watching the TV for 1 to 3 minute sound bites. Real problem is that they are products of know-nothing culture that USA has developed during last 30 to 40 years, a product of 60s, a stupidest generation… opposite of greatest generation of 1910~1940s.

    The real problem is that people don’t grasp the social science of economics and history. There are lots of Jay Walkers out there. Liberalism has created lots of softies. It’s very destructive.

  • avatar
    chalmers

    Am I cynical for thinking that more and more polarizing posts on TTAC are done for a reason?

    anyway, no problem from my point of view, but it is really amazing to me the vitriol that some commenters start spewing as soon as one of their BFF is criticized. Didn’t TTAC just run a story about Al Sharpton? Not that this conclusively proves lack of bias, but I don’t think anyone is treated with velvet gloves here.

    Just because someone hates Nader, doesn’t mean that Nader doesn’t have some good points. Same goes for Rush or Hannity or whomever…Open your brains people

  • avatar

    I’m not a Hannity listener normally, but I’ve heard heard him pitch how great GM cars are, and American cars in general. That’s what his jingoistic, faux-patriotic audience wants to hear. He says American cars are the best cars in the world. And yes they sponsor his events, too. He has mentioned that on the few occasions I’ve heard him talk about cars.

    He also is a huge proponent of the free market, he says to let the market dictates what’s good and what isn’t. Well, based on sales numbers, price of new cars, and the piss-poor resale value of American cars, the free market says the big 2.8 sucks. Ah, but you won’t hear him telling THAT to his listeners.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India