It wasn't the first time ... Savage Has History of Belittling Children with Autism
Host Dropped from Additional Radio Station
** For Audio & Transcript CLICK HERE **
Washington, DC - Media Matters for America today highlighted previous comments by nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host Michael Savage that show his controversial comments on autism last week were not his first. In a rebroadcast of The Savage Nation that aired on July 9, Savage acknowledged having previously called autism "a phony disease." The rebroadcast discredits not only Savage's claim that he had been "take[n] out of context" when he characterized autism as "[a] fraud, a racket" on July 16, but also his assertion that he was drawing a distinction between the "truly autistic" and those who have been misdiagnosed.
"This clearly exposes Michael Savage's hollow claim of having been misquoted for what it is -- a feeble attempt to shift blame," said J. Jioni Palmer, spokesman for Media Matters. "His pattern of disrespect and contempt for children with autism and their families is unmistakable. The respectable thing would be for Savage to fess up and apologize."
On the July 16 broadcast of his program, Savage said about autism: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out." In response to the extensive criticism Savage received, on his July 21 show, he recast those comments, claiming that he was "take[n] out of context," and falsely suggesting that in his July 16 comments he distinguished between "the truly autistic" and those he described on July 21 as "the misdiagnosed, the falsely diagnosed, and the outright fakers in the autism field." The comments he made that were rebroadcast on July 9 -- acknowledging that he called autism a "phony disease" -- further discredit his claim to distinguish between the "truly autistic" and those who have been misdiagnosed.
Earlier this week, it was reported that the insurance company AFLAC announced it will no longer sponsor Savage's program, while the seven-station SuperTalk Mississippi radio network announced it had dropped the program from its lineup. On the heels of those major developments, it was reported yesterday that WINA in Charlottesville, Virginia, also decided to drop Savage's program and today that DirectBuy will no longer sponsor Savage's radio show when its contact expires tomorrow.
Outraged by Savage's comments, today Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Autism Caucus, said on the House floor, "If Mr. Savage wants to find someone looking like a moron he should simply look in the mirror."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates The Savage Nation, claims that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
** For Audio & Transcript CLICK HERE **
###
RSS Feeds
...DirectBuy will no longer sponsor Savage's radio show when its contact expires tomorrow.
When a shady outfit like DirectBuy decides to bail, that must be a sign that Michael Weiner's days on the radio are numbered.
Last evening, for the third time this week, the Savage Nation was an 'encore broadcast'
--DECEPTIVELY, Savage/TRN elected to air a 'Mister Nice Guy' program, so 'sweet' it made me vomit.
I spoke with 'Dean" at Swiss American Trading Corporation today. He said he was not at liberty to discuss the company's business arrangement with Savage or their plans, but was very willing to listen to me and I suspect he's heard from others in the same manner. I think a little more pushing and Swiss America would bail, too. That would be his top two sponsors - Direct Buy and Swiss are the one's he does 'Live Read" spots for. Keep calling Swiss America, 800-289-2646. When that domino falls, Savage's days will be numbered. Also, check out
http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=1293MATT'S DAD IN DENVER
Instead of making inflammatory comments about people with whom you disagree. Why don't you take time and educate yourself about autism and the effect that it has on children and those who support them.
Do you have the guts to go out and find a family that has a child with autism and learn about what the family has deal with?
Are you being sarcastic or are you just stupid?
The man's remarks, like hundereds he's made in the past, were indefensible. He has not backed off of them or apoligized, and anyone who doesn't suffer from cranial-rectal inversion or an accute lack of human DNA ought to realize what an absolute scumbag this pitiful excuse of a man is. That he has ANY supporters at all is the really stunning thing here!
Savage states that welfare people create a fake autism disorder in thier child in order to get more money or other services from the government. He refered to an "Autisim Spectrum" created by the medical comunity. Is this an impposible situation? Couldn't this really happen? He compares this situation by suggesting that people use a handicapped card in thier car in order to get a handicapped parking space eventhough they were not injured or handicapped. Is this possible?
Do you think that the drug companies are not out to make a buck anyway they can? I know that most progressive thinkers dislike the drug companies because they feel that they take advantage of the poor or unisured. What if the drug companies could sell drugs to a person, at cost to the government, for an illness they didn't have? Is this possible?
Or perhaps you other bloggers are correct. We should all join together in order to infringe on a persons first amendment right to free speach. We should destroy another person because we disagree with his opinion. Hitler would agree with you. I don't.
Biff loses for the first reference to Hitler in this thread. The rest of Bisff's post is also riddled with assholery, which has been roundly debunked elsewhere on this site.
Please try to educate yourself before you start parroting the exposed lies of the conservative screech monkeys.
"Do you think that the drug companies are not out to make a buck anyway they can? I know that most progressive thinkers dislike the drug companies because they feel that they take advantage of the poor or unisured. What if the drug companies could sell drugs to a person, at cost to the government, for an illness they didn't have? Is this possible?"
I've agreed with that statement for a while now, as the pharmaceutical companies only make money when you're sick. I know a lot of people see the "side-effects" as an intentional money-making opportunity (you have to then take more drugs to handle the side effects). I think it was Kevin Trudeau who is convinced that the FDA, AMA, and Pharmaceutical companies are set to have you on drugs until you're dead at 65, making them money and providing one solution to Social Security.
"Or perhaps you other bloggers are correct. We should all join together in order to infringe on a persons first amendment right to free speach."
I've never called for his firing, citing that the First Amendment protects him as much as it protects me (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), but I also don't think that his comments regarding autistic individuals should be accepted or condoned by the autism community. They also have the First Amendment at their disposal.
Another thing that I find disturing is how Michael Savage is trying to use this to fuel a smear war with Media Matters. Again, he has the First Amendment, but I still am slightly disturbed by it - most likely because I view Media Matters differently than he does.
I've never called for his firing, citing that the First Amendment protects him as much as it protects me (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), but I also don't think that his comments regarding autistic individuals should be accepted or condoned by the autism community. They also have the First Amendment at their disposal.
We disagree about Savage's comments. He is conserned for childeren no matter the disorder. I think he was attacking the medical community for over diagnosing the disorder(He does this). I do agree that the autsim community has the right to be insulted and respond in kind. His attack on over diagnosis could help those childeren who are truly in need of care by bringing attention to this issue.
Another thing that I find disturing is how Michael Savage is trying to use this to fuel a smear war with Media Matters. Again, he has the First Amendment, but I still am slightly disturbed by it - most likely because I view Media Matters differently than he does.
Savage's attack on M.M. is constant like most conservative talk show host. The difference between Savage and the other talk show host is that he attacks conservative talk show host. Savage refers to B.O. as "The Leprechaun." Mark Levin refers to The Savage Nation as the, "Weiner Nation." Other bloggers should be happy that there is a voice out there that doesn't quote conservative talking points. Savage is his own man for sure. I do listen to his show, and I enjoy it.
"Other bloggers should be happy that there is a voice out there that doesn't quote conservative talking points. Savage is his own man for sure."
Yep. That's one thing I have to give him kudos for - he doesn't just repeat and rehash what everyone else says, but rather gives his own, honest, opinion, and occasionally talks about things the rest of them don't.
Hello Biff. Maybe you can succeed where your fellow Savage minions have failed. Please provide the following information so I can better understand the factual predicate underlying your opinion.
1.) Please identify the passage in Michael Savage's comments on July 16 where he provides the "context" (you know, about how he truly cares autistic children) to the comment that 99% of autistic kids are just brats who have bad fathers.
2.) Please identify the prescription drug that has a primary label treatment for autism. If there is no such drug, why would the pharmaceutical industry want people to be falsely diagnosed with autism?
3.) The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." How is this infringed when private citizens exercise their own right of free speech, not to silence Michael Savage (he will always be free to spew his nonsense on the internet or from the street corner), but to have him taken off of privately-owned radio airwaves? Or is it your position that the Constitution guarantees each citizen their own radio show?
I look forward to hearing your answers.
1.) Please identify the passage in Michael Savage's comments on July 16 where he provides the "context" (you know, about how he truly cares autistic children) to the comment that 99% of autistic kids are just brats who have bad fathers.
Savage refers to the medical community creating the epidemic in order to profit from a disorder that is rare. He also states that this same type of epidemic was created with asthma. So, from his experience, he suggest that media and the medical community are exaggerating the issue in order to profit. You may remember a few years ago there was a big deal in the media about shark attacks, and how prevalent they were. But that same year there were no more shark attacks than any other year. The media started a big scare to profit from that story. His comment referring to “brats” is his idea about the sudden epidemic. He suggest that just because your child throws a tantrum doesn’t mean he has autism. According to the US Government estimates there are about 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) people in the US. According to Autism Info.com “Autism currently affects over 400,000 people in the U.S.” That means that there is less than 1% of the population affected by the disorder. So, I ask, is Autism any more prevalent than it was 40 years ago?
2.) Please identify the prescription drug that has a primary label treatment for autism. If there is no such drug, why would the pharmaceutical industry want people to be falsely diagnosed with autism?
Here is a list of drugs that treat Autism. I’m sure the people that make these drugs would like to sell more. http://www.neurologychannel.com/autism/treatment.shtml#behav
Depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and anxiety may be treated using antidepressants. These drugs often reduce the frequency and intensity of repetitive behavior; decrease irritability, tantrums, and aggression; and improve eye contact and responsiveness.
Amitriptyline (Elavil®)
Bupropion (Wellbutrin®)
Clomipramine (Anafranil®)
Fluvoxamine (Luvox®)
Fluoxetine (Prozac®) Benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium®), lorazepam (Ativan®), and alprazolam (Xanax®) may also be used to treat behavioral problems.Antipsychotic medications such as clozapine (Clozaril®), risperidone (Risperdal®), olanzapine (Zyprexa®), and quetiapine (Seroquel®) may decrease hyperactivity, behavioral problems, withdrawal, and aggression in autistic patients.Stimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin®), amphetamine (Adderall®), and dextroamphetamine (Dexedine®) may also be prescribed for autism. These drugs may increase focus and decrease impulsivity and hyperactivity in high-functioning patients.
3.) The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." How is this infringed when private citizens exercise their own right of free speech, not to silence Michael Savage (he will always be free to spew his nonsense on the internet or from the street corner), but to have him taken off of privately-owned radio airwaves? Or is it your position that the Constitution guarantees each citizen their own radio show?
My original blog suggested that previous bloggers would like to limit Savage’s right to speak. The radio airwaves are owned by the government. Not private citizens. The constitution does not give the right to a radio show nor airwaves. Tesla didn't send the first transmission until 1893 long after the consitiution had been ratified. So, there is no way the founders could have considered the issue. I’m sure you’re aware of that, and that is not my position.
I appreciate you attempting to respond.
To my first point you said:
"Savage refers to the medical community creating the epidemic in order to profit from a disorder that is rare. He also states that this same type of epidemic was created with asthma. So, from his experience, he suggest that media and the medical community are exaggerating the issue in order to profit. You may remember a few years ago there was a big deal in the media about shark attacks, and how prevalent they were. But that same year there were no more shark attacks than any other year. The media started a big scare to profit from that story. His comment referring to “brats” is his idea about the sudden epidemic. He suggest that just because your child throws a tantrum doesn’t mean he has autism. According to the US Government estimates there are about 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) people in the US. According to Autism Info.com “Autism currently affects over 400,000 people in the U.S.” That means that there is less than 1% of the population affected by the disorder. So, I ask, is Autism any more prevalent than it was 40 years ago?"
First, your response contains nothing about his comments on July 16. In point of fact, the only "context" provided by Savage on that date was to rail about how his father told him to stop acting like a fool, and that other fathers with autistic children should do the same. There was nothing in there about the "medical community." You are simply regurgitating the after-the-fact statements made by Savage to divert attention from what he actually said on July 16.
With respect to the prevalence of autism, try doing a little research before you open your mouth. Even your hero, Savage, had an expert on air indicating that autism is far more prevalent than it used to be. In fact, the CDC reports that the rate of incidence has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 150. If you had any first-hand knowledge about this subject, you would know that a change in diagnostic criteria cannot possibly explain the dramatic change in the rate of incidence. Try speaking to a special ed teacher that has been around awhile. They will unanimously tell you that the rise in the rate of autism is very very real and has nothing to do with diagnostic criteria.
Then, to my second point, you said,
"Here is a list of drugs that treat Autism. I’m sure the people that make these drugs would like to sell more. http://www.neurologychannel.com/autism/treatment.shtml#behav"
Now, you are just being disingenuous. As you undoubtedly noted from the website you quote, medication was listed as the tenth of ten treatment regimens for autism. Moreover, the very first sentence under that section (which you somehow omit to quote) says "Medication may be used to treat various symptoms of autism (e.g., attention difficulties, anxiety) and can also be used to treat conditions that may accompany the disorder (e.g., epilepsy)."
In other words, just as I told you, there are medications that treat symptoms or conditions of autism, but not the disorder itself. Thus, you do not need a diagnosis of autism to prescribe the drug. Thus proving once again that doctors and drug companies have no financial incentive to diagnose autism.
I note for the record that you were unable to cite one single source indicating that drugs are excessively prescribed to treat autism. Its a phantom problem that your idol created to divert attention to his remarks of July 16 about the "autism racket."
Finally, you said,
"My original blog suggested that previous bloggers would like to limit Savage’s right to speak. The radio airwaves are owned by the government. Not private citizens. The constitution does not give the right to a radio show nor airwaves. Tesla didn't send the first transmission until 1893 long after the consitiution had been ratified. So, there is no way the founders could have considered the issue. I’m sure you’re aware of that, and that is not my position"
Good, finally we agree. Savage has no constitional right to a radio show. If, because of pressure from advertisers or the people, his radio show is yanked from the air (hope springs eternal that that will happen), at least we can agree that in no way has Savage's constitutional right to free speech been violated. He will simply have to find another medium to spew his nonsense.
So you are saying that 99% of autistic children are brats with bad fathers? I'm only asking because that is what that scumbag said.
He didn't state that they were misdiagnosed or the the government figures were wrong, he just blamed it on there not being the mythlogical rightwing "father who always knows best" figure in their lives to "cure" them by shouting at them not to be morons. I know one of his defences is that he is in his own mind the smartest man on US radio with an IQ to make Stephen Hawking blush but it does make me wonder how he could make such an easily rectifyable choice of mean-spirited, unenformed, disgusting , cowardly words.
.
Savage did not say that 99% of autistic children are brats with bad fathers. He said the “brats” were normal spoiled children. In no way did Savage say that autistic children were brats. It’s ridiculous to think that Savage actually hates children with a neurological disorders. He did say that all children were at risk due to the desire for drug companies to sell drugs. By having the medical community diagnose a normal child as autistic. He also says that welfare people would take advantage of the government handouts such as speech therapy for their child. His argument concluded by saying that this had the a negative effect on truly autistic children because services were diminished for those who need it. Savage also references children are diagnosed with ADD and ADHD just because a child was rambunctious. There are rumors of stories of school systems demanding a child take psychostimulants without parental consent. CHADD is attempting to institute a law that will require schools to get a parent’s consent before treating ADD and ADHD. Many schools are now diagnosing the problem in children.
I have heard progressive minded people state that drug companies making obscene profits. In here, I’ve been accused of being a “right wing puppet,” but the truth is Savage is the only one out there saying exactly what’s going on. Do you honestly believe the drug companies are not on some level working the system to increase profit? Why now is the consensus to believe that the drug companies are not culpable? Where are the people that asked why are drugs are so expensive in the US while in Canada and China are getting them so cheaply?
Savage states that welfare people create a fake autism disorder in thier child in order to get more money or other services from the government. He refered to an "Autisim Spectrum" created by the medical comunity. Is this an impposible situation? Couldn't this really happen? He compares this situation by suggesting that people use a handicapped card in thier car in order to get a handicapped parking space eventhough they were not injured or handicapped. Is this possible?
He said 99% fit that description. If this EVER happens, I've never seen a shred of evidence to support it. (Intelligent, decent people find a bit of evidence before defaming disabled childeren and there families.)
Do you think that the drug companies are not out to make a buck anyway they can? I know that most progressive thinkers dislike the drug companies because they feel that they take advantage of the poor or unisured. What if the drug companies could sell drugs to a person, at cost to the government, for an illness they didn't have? Is this possible?
Seeing as how there IS no pill, noe any other medication for Autsim. NO. The drug companies have almost nothing to gain from this.
Or perhaps you other bloggers are correct. We should all join together in order to infringe on a persons first amendment right to free speach. We should destroy another person because we disagree with his opinion.
How is this a free speech issues? Free speech protects from punnishment by the gov't, not the free market. The public at large has used THEIR free speech to punnish him. Why should hard earned dollors be spent on products for the companies who pay his salary? Where is that guarenteed in the costitution? You haven't a single legitimate point in your entire post! If the FCC was FINING him, that would be a free speech issue, and I'd be the first to defend his right to spew his nonsense. But if the free market turns on you... what can I say? Don't piss in the well, moron!
Hitler would agree with you. I don't.
As you are cleary an ignorant, right-wing, monkey-puppet, I'm sure that Hitler would have benefited greatly from your support, back in the day.
"We should all join together in order to infringe on a persons first amendment right to free speach."
Please cite the passage in the United States Constitution that grants someone ANYONE the 'right' to have a radio talk show. Thanks.
"Why do liberal have such thin skin?"
Why are conservatives so dumb?
In short, because words matter. Savage's comments perpetuate an ugly stereotype against autistic children -- that they are just brats who have not been told to cut the act out. Even though such comments are verifiably false, many of your fellow Savage minions have come on this board to midlessly defend what he was saying. The only way to fight that stereotype that he continues to propagate is to protest, to boycott, to get the truth out.
If you had a child with autism, if you knew what it was like to get the dirty looks and loud sighs, you wouldn't be so dismissive of the impact of Savage's comments.
I appreciate your comment. Savage does not say that autistic children are brats. He stated that children that throw tantrums do not necessarily have autism. He is criticizing the over diagnosis.
It's not LIBERALS, j@ck@$$ , it's mainstream america. You think special interests alone could have this affect? It ain't lib... punch yourself in the head for me for saying something that stupid. There are penty of conservatives who are just a soutraged. In fact it's DECENT HUMAN BEINGS of ALL political stripes that are punnishing him.
How can you defend a man who demeans and mocks mentally handicapped childeren? Are you so souless yourself that you don't realize that you really can't get any lower than that?! I defy you to find a more sympathetic target. He's being punnished as much for his own stupidity as for having offended anyone. (Imus called: he wants his lack of judgement back!)
Liberals, you say. Anyone who isn't an @$$hol@, I say.
You're as bad as Savage is if you defend him. Worse, actually, because he at least stands to gain by defendign himself. I have no idea what your excuse is. Stupidity, I guess... Or I guess you just think that mocking disabled childeren is just good sport. Go home, troll.
You’re wrong because he did not say that mentally disabled kids are brats. So, your tirade is moot. You are attempting to turn your opinion into a fact. How does this prove your point? It does not. You only seek to mislead others into believing what you have already created in your mind. Your insults suggest that your arguments are limited and expendable.
NiceguyEddie
Your post are indecent and full of tripe. You have made no legitimate arguments. I would prefer you to make valid points, and not insert your opinions as fact. However, you will probably refer to me as a “troll” again in an attempt to debunk my arguments. I assume your request for me to “go home” is an attempt to keep me from blogging on M.M. website. If this is the case, then that makes you myopic despot.
Any moron citing "free speech" must first cite the mythical person who wants Savage in jail for his comments.
Once again we see that advertisers only drop people over "insensitivity". You can still spew thousands of bald-faced lies about the most important issues of our day without the slightest consequence.
When MMFA highlighted "history" in the headline, I expected more than a single prior instance. That's a little disingenuous.