By Paul Oestreicher
In blackjack, doubling down is the chance to double your bet after receiving your first two cards. Then, you’re allowed just one more card. But doubling down is now code for reinforcing a controversial or politically charged position with a potentially more controversial or politically charged position.
The inspiration for this article, of course, was the days-long verbal attack on Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. While Fluke argued that contraception should be made available through any employer, Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
His logic makes us, the U.S. taxpayers, the “pimps.” Limbaugh doubled down when he continued the next day and demanded, “If we’re going to pay for this, then we want something in return… the videos of all this sex posted on-line so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”
Was this just a passionate stance on morality or on the First Amendment? Can we excuse it because, after all, Rush will be Rush? Georgetown President John J. DeGioia wrote that Limbaugh “responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student."
A number of Limbaugh’s advertisers seem to concur. Two sponsors – Sleep Number and Quicken Loans – took a stand and reacted quickly. Now, a total of eight firms have walked away or suspended their support.
So, what about the front-runners for the Republican nomination? Their response has been shamefully, how should I say, impotent. Mitt Romney said, “It's not the language I would have used. But I'm focusing on the issues that I think are significant in the country today and that's why I'm here talking about jobs in Ohio.” And Rick Santorum rationalized, “He's being absurd. But that's, you know, an entertainer can be absurd.”
Seeing the advertising dollars begin to disappear, Limbaugh finally apologized over the weekend:
“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.
“What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”
This looks like an apology wrapped in an explanation inside a justification. And, in predictable fashion, Limbaugh told his listeners that he felt no pressure to apologize:
“I reject millions of dollars of advertising a year, much to the chagrin of my ad sales team including General Motors. I made the decision [after the government bailout] not to accept [GM advertising] because you, the audience, comes first. We're going to replace those that leave.”
It’s hard to quantify but the doubling down phenomenon seems to be growing; when challenged, the default response is often a lurch toward further entrenchment.
President Clinton’s denials about Monica Lewinsky, Mel Gibson and his tirade against Jews, Michelle Bachmann and her assertions that then Senator Obama has anti-American views, Anthony Weiner and the infamous Twitter messages and photos, the list goes on. In each of these examples, and so many more, the offenders were given an opportunity – a big media platform – to reposition or restate their claims (i.e., apologize and just plain ol’ admit that they were wrong or lied). Some do apologize eventually but not until a good deal of damage has been inflicted on themselves and on those around them.
Some can recover from the incident, as you’ve seen, depending on the amount of trust and previously banked good will, degree of authentic contrition and subsequent behavior. But why take the chance on shattering credibility, crushing a reputation or poisoning a legacy?
Will Rogers’ cowboy wisdom still echoes: “If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” No matter how awkward or embarrassing or uncomfortable, bite the bullet and take the pain as early as possible. In his apology statement, Rush Limbaugh asked, “What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?”
Exactly, Rush, exactly.
* * *
Paul Oestreicher is president of Oestreicher Communications, adjunct professor at NYU and author of “Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.” He may be reached at paul.oestreicher [at] ocomms [dot] com. |
Wes Pedersen (3/06):
Rush Limbaugh is a contagion unto himself. He has taken flak for Fluke and is now taking umbrage that ungrateful advertisers are dumping him after all he has done for them. He hasn the process, fans with actual reputation are bailing too. Consider Patricia Heaton of Everybody Loves Raymond. She is tweeting mega mea culpas to her fans, saying she's sorry she repeated Rush's slander. How sad to see the public image of a sensible wife and mother shattered by such stupidity.
[email protected] (3/06):
No matter how odious the remarks were, what was even more shameful was that the entire Congress and all the political pundits didn't immediately denounce the comments, given that they all either have wives, daughters, grand daughters, nieces or relatives and close friends that do. Slandering any person should not be excused because of political positions, so where were these family value politicians when it came to denouncing the vile and disgusting remarks.
Fed Up In NYC! (3/07):
Reprehensible- just as Bill Maher's - Keith Obermann's etc etc.
Joe Honick (3/12):
Fedup, we cannot really blame the Limbaughs of the world when it is the parties who pay them obscene money to play to the millions who are willing to listen and virtually pray at their feet. No one has forced either side to do what they do. However it says a lot about those parties and the rest of us who do little to combat what Wes logically calls a "contagion." Most such contagions have vaccines.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (3/07):
Bless the Murdoch network and Roger Ailes who invented Limbaugh. Between the to of them they managed to con millions of people into Rimshot's commentary on thr Fox Propaganda Network. What should be most troubling is the point Arthur made . The 'raging silence' of the Congress and the "oh dear!" from the pretenders to the White House should have told American voters all they needed to know for November. And still worse, many of those sponsors will come groveling back because of the allegrd 15 million who fsithfully absorb the Lush Rimshot dtuff. |