I keep reading articles and blog posts about whether the current controversy will "destroy Rush Limbaugh." In terms of knocking him off the air, never. His show simply makes too much money and the folks who make it with him (syndicators, local stations, etc.) will continue to profit. Even if at some point he hit an unprofitable period — which he won't — he could knock down his salary a few million a year and the others who've made so much off him could and would bide their time and wait to see if his audience returns. As yet, there's no evidence it's going away at all.
There is also, by the way, no evidence that it's ever been as large as he and his syndicators assert. One of these days, there's going to be a big, loud exposé on how Rush has never had the 10-20 million listeners he claims; how his audience has always been more in the 3-5 million range, if that large. He and his supporters will never admit that, of course. They'll just brand it a Liberal Lie (you know, like insisting Hillary didn't kill Vince Foster) and move on.
It is a bit of a fib to say that 40+ of his advertisers have deserted him. If you look at the list, what you see is that a lot of companies that buy ad packages on stations that carry Rush have asked that their commercials not be placed in or around his show, at least until the current flap blows over. Most of those firms did not make a deliberate attempt in the first place to "sponsor Rush Limbaugh." Some profess not to have even known their spots were airing during his program in some markets and that's not at all impossible.
Limbaugh has done damage of some indeterminate amount to his political movement in that he's furthered the notion that Republicans and Conservatives are hostile to women — especially women who dare to be unmarried, outspoken and/or sexually-active. If this keeps up, one of these days some prominent Republican candidate is going to have to pull a "Sister Souljah" maneuver and deliver some kind of smackdown that says, in effect, Rush ain't running this party and he ain't setting the agenda and he ain't always helping us by alienating swing voters we think we can reach. But I don't see that happening soon.
What does seem likely now is that a lot of advertisers will opt to avoid controversial shows. There will always be someone who wants to buy ad time on Rush's broadcasts. It may not be AOL or other mainstream companies. It may more likely be more companies that want to sell you overpriced gold or equipment to enable you to survive the inevitable nuclear holocaust next month…the kind Glenn Beck was reduced to in his waning days on Fox. But there'll be someone.
Still, think about it: You have a product. If you advertise in a show where the host is likely to piss people off, what's the "up" side for you? Yeah, that host may have a big audience you want to reach but there are other effective places you can spend your ad dollars and never find yourself having to take sides in a controversy. When the host says something that gets folks mad, you do have to take sides. Rush supporters are mad at sponsors who've yanked their patronage just as Rush critics would be mad at them if they didn't. For the sponsor, it's a potential lose-lose situation. Some group is going to stop spending their dollars with you and inundate you with demands and protests. Why put yourself in that position? If I were out flogging services or merchandise on TV or radio right now, I'd avoid all those guys — Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz just as much as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
This is not a matter of Free Speech. The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee anyone a sponsor. It isn't even a matter of courage; more like deciding not to put your butt on the line for someone else's occasional irresponsibility. I'm usually willing to put my money where my mouth is. I don't particularly want to put my money where somebody else's mouth is…and I'm thinking a lot of companies must be thinking that way.