Print 26 comment(s) - last by JohnnyCNote.. on Jun 13 at 8:36 PM

A picture from Republican pundit Rush Limbaugh's website, poking fun at the U.S. government's new majority stake in GM. Mr. Limbaugh says contrary to reports, he did not call on a boycott of GM, merely voiced sympathy for those who are boycotting the company.  (Source:
No boycott of government owned car company, but he says he can understand those who are protesting it

It was widely reported both in print and online that conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh was calling for a boycott of General Motors, who is soon to be mostly owned by the U.S. government.  From the Detroit News to, many jumped on this story.  Their stories were based on an interpretation of a recent TV show in which he discussed the topic of Americans boycotting GM, showing a poll which indicated that a certain number would not buy GM cars.  He recalls on his website, "I said after that that I could understand it."

However, he now is saying he is not calling on a boycott of GM.  He said his comments were merely meant to show his understanding of why one might support a boycott, not a request for his fans to boycott the company.  GM is one of Mr. Limbaugh's biggest sponsors, so the reports obviously created a headache for him, one he was eager to set straight in a recent blog.

In the blog he wrote:

Now, for the record, ladies and gentlemen, I don't do boycotts. I do not sponsor them; I do not encourage them. I never have. I think it is media childishness when people start urging boycotts. I have never, ever done such a thing, and I didn't do this with General Motors...

 I don't know what the percentage is, but I urged no boycott of GM. General Motors is a sponsor here. (interruption) I bought a General Motors -- That's right! I bought a new Suburban last week.  

He goes on to offer readers a link to an essay titled "The Ethical Case for Boycotting Chrysler and General Motors" by, a rightwing blog site.  He says that the essay, though, reads more like something someone would "write in a law school class."  While linking this blog, he declines to support it or disagree with it, carefully towing the line.

In the end perhaps those first reporting on the Limbaugh boycott were overly hasty in their conclusions.  However, the press can easily argue that even if Mr. Limbaugh is not calling for a boycott, he is condoning one.  By bringing up the issue, discussing it in depth, and sharing arguments in support of a boycott (with no links on his blog in support of buying GM), some would argue he's fanning the flames.  Even if this results in a few thousand of his supporters deciding to not buy GM, it could have a critical impact.  It is important, though, to clarify that he is not officially calling for a boycott, something he has made abundantly clear.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No Technology here
By spagnitz on 6/11/2009 12:11:44 PM , Rating: 4
Does not belong anywhere on a tech website.

RE: No Technology here
By Spuke on 6/11/2009 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 4
This is in the blog section so it's ok as far as I'm concerned.

RE: No Technology here
By johnsonx on 6/11/2009 12:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
yes, but the original article was passed off as news. Interesting: the original bad reporting still stands as news, while the correction is a mere blog.

RE: No Technology here
By reader1 on 6/11/2009 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 5
DailyTech is a blog. There's no difference between the blog entries and the "news" entries except for the label. DailyTech's writers are bloggers not journalists.

RE: No Technology here
By Suntan on 6/11/2009 1:08:55 PM , Rating: 5
DailyTech's writers are bloggers not journalists.

Deserves to be repeated.


RE: No Technology here
By callmeroy on 6/12/2009 8:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
If this WAS a hard core tech site i'd be inclined to agree with you, Daily tech is not a big time tech site i don't care what anyone says or because the name "tech" is in the url.

There are many many issues posted routinely that true tech sites would be like "huh?" as to why they are posted there. I'm not complaining btw, I like the style of DailyTech but it does grate me when folks try to hold them to a standard higher to which they even admit to -- as others have said -- daily tech writers are bloggers not journalists, furthermore I also agree that its a blog site as well not really a "news" site. Lastly, they re-post many articles from other sites --- not really original writing to define one as a journalist if you are doing copy and pasting from other sites. And in some cases over the years (I've been coming here and anandtech for years) you could note word for word parts of daily tech articles in other sources.

I think the goal behind the daily tech staff is to mostly focus on technology stories but they want to be entertaining and light hearted at times as well -- thus the not so techy stories here and there.

with all that considered --- I don't have a problem with this article being here.

RE: No Technology here
By TwistyKat on 6/13/2009 9:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Maybe it's always been here but I am noticing more and more political bias on this site. If I want to read right-wing talking points I'll go to a Fox News site.

How about sticking with the tech stuff?

RE: No Technology here
By JohnnyCNote on 6/13/2009 8:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
I agree 1000% . . .

By Spuke on 6/11/2009 11:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
It would be kinda of silly to call for a boycott of a company you just bought a product from.

RE: Well...
By AEvangel on 6/11/2009 12:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
yeah he truly bought one...he is just motivated by the money their Ad revenue brings in.

RE: Well...
By TomZ on 6/11/2009 12:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying he's a hypocrite or a whore?

RE: Well...
By Doormat on 6/11/2009 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 5
Why cant he be both?

RE: Well...
By callmeroy on 6/12/2009 9:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
Gimme a break --- yeah let's find controversy in everything because of one's own blind hatred for someone.

I don't care much for the guy either for more reasons than one --- but I care even less for folks who find controversy in every damn thing one does.

"he just ate a cup cake" DAMN HIM...did you notice he ignored the chocolate cup cakes and went straight for the vanilla ones!!! THAT BASTARD!!!

Why the blog section?
By the goat on 6/11/2009 12:52:48 PM , Rating: 5
Let us examine the facts: Dailytech falsely reported about Limbaugh calling for a boycott in the news headlines section of the site. But this not-a-retraction story explaining how the first story was false is classified as a blog entry.

Clearly biased.

RE: Why the blog section?
By Oregonian2 on 6/11/2009 5:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
Media NEVER makes mistakes.

Even sports writers who predict winners in sporting games who are proved wrong in real life (the games actually played that prove who is better in playing that game) will stick to their choice of who's the better team (even when it's been flatly proven to their face that their conclusion is wrong) and claim some verbiage about a Cinderella team. Like the teams are in fantasy land rather than their personal evaluations having been proven to be in fantasy land.

Media NEVER makes mistakes, they only report the errors of others (including the WRONG team winning a game).

RE: Why the blog section?
By callmeroy on 6/12/2009 9:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
As i explained earlier in the thread i've been visiting this site for years --- this sort of thing is par for the course at Dailytech, you don't have to expend much energy in research to piece the clues together that this is a blog site and shall we say an "information compiler" site of sorts....they mostly grab stories from OTHER sites , some times the laziness is so apparent you can see where they just did copy and pasting.

Spelling and grammar mistakes aside (as i do get irked by that often --- I can make them and other posters because we aren't working for a site where we post the stories as the authors), I don't expect much more than a compilation of news from other sites here.

The two reasons that make me like Daily tech:

1) one source gives me the latest headlines in stuff I'm interested in news wise --- gaming news, science news, tech news.

2) the debate on each story --- its brutal and often spins off topic, some folks piss everyone off routinely , but there have also been very many good informative discussions borne on these forums as well....

So its give and take...take the good with the bad.

government motors boycott
By cwtex on 6/11/2009 7:32:28 PM , Rating: 4
I don't give a rats a_s what limbaugh says. I am boycotting both GM and chrysler for my own reasons. I will not buy a obamamobile and I will not buy an auto from a UAW owned company.

What has happened to our country? You let the weak fold and the strong pick up the slack. So what if GM folds. That means that other auto companies will pick up sales and hire people and open new dealers to pick up the slack. History is full of companies who disappeared. This is all about sucking up to the UAW who got the messiah elected.

RE: government motors boycott
By Nobleman00 on 6/12/2009 1:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
That means that other auto companies will pick up sales and hire people and open new dealers to pick up the slack.

No, because the other companies will "do more with less". They won't rehire all the laid off workers, and those they do will have lower earnings causing them to default on their obligations (which is one of the current major issues). The additional let's say 100,000 unemployed, only about 1/4 will regain employment. The other 75% become an added burden to the taxpayer.

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is a traitor and should be executed.

RE: government motors boycott
By rdawise on 6/12/2009 9:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
I am boycotting both GM and chrysler for my own reasons. I will not buy a obamamobile and I will not buy an auto from a UAW owned company

Ummm...taxpayer (you) money was used to bailout GM so now that their bankrupt you own part of the comapny. In essence, you are boycotting yourself. If no one buys GM, debts don't get repaid, money doesn't get repaid, you lose. Who are you hurting again by your boycott?

Anyway, though I despise many rightwing pundits for their elists, highly subjective, and mostly annoying attitudes, apparently Limbuagh did no wrong here. If all he said was "I understand why" then the media jumped to a conclusion on this one.

And besides, of course he is fanning flames. It's Rush. It's what he does.

By ricleo2 on 6/11/2009 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
"However, the press can easily argue that even if Mr. Limbaugh is not calling for a boycott, he is condoning one. By bringing up the issue, discussing it in depth, and sharing arguments in support of a boycott (with no links on his blog in support of buying GM), some would argue he's fanning the flames."

Just who is arguing he is fanning the flames besides yourself?

RE: What?
By Teancum on 6/11/2009 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
Jason is just trolling for posts. He knows if Limbaugh's name is in the title it will get a lot of action. The last article had what 383 comments in 2 days. He gets off on the attention... And we are feeding the fire.

Irresponsible Reporting
By ketchup79 on 6/11/2009 10:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
So Jason Mick posts a news article that he read somewhere else that somebody said that Rush Limbaugh was boycotting GM. Then he posts in a blog, not an update to the original "news" article, that Rush "Clarifies his stance on GM." Well, he didn't clarify himself, he pointed out that he did not say anything about boycotting GM himself, he said of those that were boycotting that he "could understand it."

After reading both articles, I am appalled at the bias, Mr. Mick. This is not "tech" related and it is extremely lazy journalism. If you want to continue to skew the truth to promote an agenda, there are several networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) that would love to hire you. I want to read about tech news on this site, not lies about people you don't care for.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/12/2009 7:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
What is the sound of Rush taking his foot out of his mouth? "I merely said I could understand it." Way to backpedal when you realized GM was one of your sponsors.

Not that I agreed with the blowhard in the first place. I'm just saying is all...

Hey Mick!
By MrBungle123 on 6/12/2009 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you grow a spine and just come out and say it?

1. You posted a bunch of lies about Limbaugh.

2. You don't listen to him and therefore have no credibility anytime you talk about him.

3. Regardless of how much you may think he's an attention whore you're an even bigger one because you frequently use his popularity to draw people to your leftist rant blog posts.

By icanhascpu on 6/12/2009 10:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Look at Obamas right hand in the image. Seems kind of like some aleian long-ass hand. Scary!

GM workers are great
By 13Gigatons on 6/13/2009 10:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
The management couldn't run a 7-11 though:

1. no quality control
2. poorly made Mexican parts
3. bad designs
4. no contingency plans for high oil prices

I'll miss GM when it's gone, I hope Fiat can make a Corvette.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki