Limbaugh's Social Media Nightmare: Facebook and Twitter as Spaces for Political Action

Abstract

When Rush Limbaugh made his now famous remarks about Sandra Fluke's Congressional testimony he set off a social media firestorm. The ensuing backlash cost Limbaugh many prominent advertisers and damaged his public image. In this study, we examine the characteristics that motivated some to engage in the social media conversation while others remained on the sidelines. We find that political information efficacy, or confidence that one has the knowledge and skills necessary to participate, dictate political engagement online. We discuss the implications of this finding for radio, communication and media scholars, and healthy democratic deliberation among young Americans.

Notes

Note: ^a = Sum of the seven items, scores range from 7–24.

^b = Average of items on a 1–7 scale.

¹The complete list of sources was: Online News, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Cable News, Network News, Sunday Morning News, Newspapers, Entertainment News, and Radio.

²The summary read: “The Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy began when Limbaugh, a conservative talk-show host, commented on Fluke's Congressional testimony calling for mandated insurance coverage of contraceptives. Limbaugh referred to Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, as a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ who required insurance coverage for contraceptives because of her frequent sexual encounters. Many political figures and media outlets called Limbaugh's words inappropriate, which coincided with Limbaugh's show losing several national advertisers.”

³The two attention items were reverse-coded.

⁴Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements on a 1–7 scale: I consider myself well qualified to participate in politics; If a friend asked me about the presidential election, I feel I would have enough information to help my friend figure out who to vote for; I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country.

⁵Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements on a 1–7 scale: Politicians are more interested in power than in what the people think; Politicians are corrupt; Politicians cannot be trusted; Politicians are too greedy; Politicians always tell the public what they want to hear instead of what they actually plan to do; Politicians are dishonest; Politicians are more concerned about power than advocating for citizens.

⁶Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements on a 1–7 scale: My vote makes a difference; I have a real say in what the government does; I can make a difference if I participate in the election process; Voting gives people an effective way to influence what the government does.