Michael Savage's Hate Speech Catches up with Him

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Sam Stein, Huffington Post

At least four major firms have pulled advertising from Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio show following a campaign highlighting his inflammatory rhetoric. One other company, Geico insurance, is expected to follow suit. The campaign, launched recently by Brave New Films, generated thousands of calls urging advertisers on the Savage Nation show to sever financial ties to the widely popular (and frequently offensive) talk host.

In less than a week, four agreed to pull their ads from the show, including Union Bank of California (whose representative says they were advertisers on the Savage show by mistake and were glad to be taken off), Intuit, Chattem, ITT Technical Institute.

"We are thrilled at the amazing response of the true patriots all over the blogsphere who responded to our NOSAVAGE campaign," Robert Greenwald, head of the film company, said in a statement. "People have called and emailed and the responsible sponsors have responded by pulling their ads and asking that their ads not be on this racist and hateful show."

But a group who has segments run on the show is raising eyebrows by refusing to distance itself from Savage. The USO, a non-profit that does work for U.S. armed forces, wrote Brave New Films complaining about being targeted and even hinting at a lawsuit. The organization's lawyer Tony Bisceglie says it does not pay for the USO public service announcements that air on Savage's show.

"As a tax exempt not-for-profit organization, regulated by the Attorney General's Office of the state of California and the Internal Revenue Service, your organization may not engage in making false statements to solicit public support," Bisceglie wrote to Brave New Films. "Therefore, please take the necessary steps to remove USO from your website entirely to avoid further action on our part."

Bisceglie denied that the USO is considering legal action. But John Hanson, a spokesman for the USO, said the organization could ask for its PSAs to be taken off of Savage's program, and wouldn't. "Because then who is next?" he asked. "We provide no revenue for Michael Savage. We may improve his image. But we provide no revenue for him."

The reasoning was not enough to impress officials at Brave New Films who called it a lost opportunity for the USO.

"Considering the USO's role in the world," said Leighton Woodhouse, a spokesperson for Brave New Films, "we would have expected them to be the first to distance themselves from someone who is deliberately fanning the flames of hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims; we were sorely disappointed."

The campaign by Greenwald mirrors an earlier initiative taken on behalf of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In both cases, Savage's invective was used against him as fuel for advertisers to rescind their financial support. Highlights of the radio host's statements include:

• To "save the United States," lawmakers should institute "outright ban on Muslim immigration" and on "the construction of mosques."
• "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies."
• The U.S. Senate is "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it.
• Adherents of Islam would do well to "take your religion and shove it up your behind" because "I'm sick of you."

Interestingly, while Brave New Films and CAIR have run identical campaigns against Savage, the radio host has only filed a lawsuit against CAIR. His claim: that his comments were taken out of context and illegally made available.

A call and email to Savage's radio station was not returned.

According to an account in the New York Times, Savage broadcasts his show out of three "virtual safe houses" -- whose location he will not reveal -- and "is licensed to carry a pistol and does so," out of fears for his life. His program reaches an estimated eight million listeners a week on nearly 400 stations.

http://alternet.org/mediaculture/75119/

[almaty 19]

a true chopf##k..hate mongrel

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Free speech. Not hate speech. You surprise and disappoint me Steven (you too Dean). The story doesn't even quote him. It just 'highlights' his speech. Hmmm I wonder why???

"Highlights of the radio host's statements include: " = weak journalism

He repeatedly has said he supports Muslims on his radio show. It's the fundamentalists he has problems with. Apparently only liberals can't tell the difference.

Michael Savage sues CAIR (a front group for Hamas you haters)

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hate speech is free speech - I agree...and so is boycotting companies who advertise on his show. You're confusing another form of free speech (protest and activism) with censorship.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Hate speech is free speech - I agree...and so is boycotting companies who advertise on his show. You're confusing another form of free speech (protest and activism) with censorship.

I'm not trying to stop them either. Just the weak 'highlighting' versus quoting.

Just remember.... CAIR speak for Hamas.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Savage criticising "weak journalism". Ooh the irony.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Savage criticising "weak journalism". Ooh the irony.

I am. Not savage. Have you or Steven ever listened to him? Try it for an hour and report back (not an order... just a suggestion). Is the problem that he's a Jew?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hate speech is free speech - I agree...and so is boycotting companies who advertise on his show. You're confusing another form of free speech (protest and activism) with censorship.

I'm not trying to stop them either. Just the weak 'highlighting' versus quoting.

Just remember.... CAIR speak for Hamas.

Does that matter? If an Arab American talk radio show host was spewing hate speech about Jews would you be up in arms about it? Let people protest and if someone takes it beyond free speech (libel) or if someone tries to infringe on their constitutional right to free speech, there is legal recourse.

You can't deny that Savage is saying some pretty hateful things about Muslims. While I wouldn't advocate censoring him, I don't think we should make it easy for him to build an audience for it either. I'd say the same thing about anyone on radio spewing hatred towards a group of people.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Have you listened to his show? It won't make you conservative... no more than talking to a gay man will make you gay.

[almaty 19]

Free speech. Not hate speech. You surprise and disappoint me Steven (you too Dean). The story doesn't even quote him. It just 'highlights' his speech. Hmmm I wonder why???

"Highlights of the radio host's statements include: " = weak journalism

He repeatedly has said he supports Muslims on his radio show. It's the fundamentalists he has problems with. Apparently only liberals can't tell the difference.

Michael Savage sues CAIR (a front group for Hamas you haters)

http://www.savage-productions.com/Savage_CAIR_suit.html

CAIR is not a front group for Hamas

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Savage criticising "weak journalism". Ooh the irony.

I am. Not savage. Have you or Steven ever listened to him? Try it for an hour and report back (not an order... just a suggestion). Is the problem that he's a Jew?

Yes, I have listened to his show, and I find it hard to believe that he's taken seriously. The guy is simply... ridiculous... but typical of the brand of media he represents.

As for his ethnic background... well you brought it into this. Has absolutely nothing to do with why I dislike his show.

[pedroh 21]

he's amusing, the first 10 minutes, then he's boring.. but it worries me that people believe what he actually says..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you listened to his show? It won't make you conservative... no more than talking to a gay man will make you gay.

Its the news commentary equivalent of Jerry Springer. But then again - I'm one of those audience members who listens to, and watches shows like that simply because the content of the show is so ludicrous and because the host is so objectionable.

People watch Howard Stern for much the same reason - but at least that guy doesn't pretend doesn't have the airs to pretend to be more than he is.

he's amusing, the first 10 minutes, then he's boring.. but it worries me that people believe what he actually says..

Which always makes me think whether the joke is on us or them

[pedroh 21]

i sh!t you know, the last time i heard his show it was how teaching spanish made kids unpatriotic, and a bunch of billy-bobs were calling agreeing with him and telling him they went protesting outside school to ban spanish

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

He's quite entertaining and funny. I don't think he's to be take as a serious journalist either.

But it is free speech...... free conservative speech... Ahhh I see the problem.