When is an apology not an apology? In Rush Limbaugh's case, it is when the 'apology' is first framed as a futile attempt at 'humor', and then when a second 'apology' is prompted by both public outcry and loss of sponsors. So the conclusion has to be that Limbaugh did not have the courage of his convictions, initially, in which which case why is he even on the air? And since he was persuaded to 'apologize', by himself or others, for the most obvious reason of loss of sponsorship, the question still occurs: why is he on the air? And after using some of the most disturbing and objectionable language, directed toward a specific individual, that has ever been aired on radio, why ... is ... he ... on ... the ... air?
No comments:
Post a Comment